Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pedodiversity and Its Significance in the Context of Modern Soil Geography

  • Genesis and Geography of Soils
  • Published:
Eurasian Soil Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Methodological basics of the study and quantitative assessment of pedodiversity are discussed. It is shown that the application of various indices and models of pedodiversity can be feasible for solving three major issues in pedology: a comparative geographical analysis of different territories, a comparative historical analysis of soil development in the course of landscape evolution, and the analysis of relationships between biodiversity and pedodiversity. Analogous geographic concepts of geodiversity and landscape diversity are also discussed. Certain limitations in the use of quantitative estimates of pedodiversity related to their linkage to the particular soil classification systems and with the initial soil maps are considered. Problems of the interpretation of the results of pedodiversity assessments are emphasized. It is shown that scientific explanations of biodiversity cannot be adequately applied in soil studies. Promising directions of further studies of pedodiversity are outlined. They include the assessment of the functional diversity of soils on the basis of data on their properties, integration with geostatistical methods of evaluation of soil variability, and assessment of pedodiversity on different scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. I. O. Alyabina, “Cartographic evaluation of the pedodiversity of Russia,” Dokl. Ekol. Pochvoved. 19 (2), 1–15 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. I. O. Alyabina, “Quantitative evaluation of soil diversity in the European part of Russia,” in Project on the Creation of Ecological Network in the European Part of Russia: Forest Aspects (PAIMS, Moscow, 1996), pp. 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I. O. Alyabina, “Diversity of the soil cover,” in National Soil Atlas of the Russian Federation, Ed. by I. O. Alaybina, G. V. Dobrovol’skii, I. S. Urusevskaya, (AST-Astrel’, Moscow, 2011), pp. 232–235.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. O. Alyabina, “Diversity of the soil cover of the European part of Russia,” in Role of Soils in the Biosphere, Tr. Inst. Pochvoved., Mosk. Gos. Univ. (Grif i K, Tula, 2004), No. 4, pp. 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  5. I. O. Alyabina, “Diversity of the soil cover of Russia: cartographic evaluation,” in Role of Soils in the Biosphere, Tr. Inst. Pochvoved., Mosk. Gos. Univ., Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii and G. S. Kust (MAKS Press, Moscow, 2012), No. 12, pp. 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  6. V. P. Belobrov, “On the determination of the degree of contrast in soils and the soil cover,” in Soil Cover Patterns and Methods for Their Study, Tr. Pochv. Inst. im. V.V. Dokuchaeva (Dokuchaev Soil Science Inst., Moscow, 1973), pp. 89–95.

    Google Scholar 

  7. V. R. Volobuev, Ecology of Soils (Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan Soviet Republic, Baku, 1963) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ya. M. Godelman, Heterogeneity of the Soil Cover and Land Use (Nauka, Moscow, 1981) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. L. Golovanov, “Evolution of the Dokuchaev paradigm of factor-genetic soil science and its prospects,” in Organization of Soil Systems (Pushchino, 2007), Vol. 1, pp. 15–19.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. L. Golovanov, E. N. Aseeva, and L. B. Isachenkova, “Soil diversity and landscape-geochemical contrast of Karkaralinskii district as the basis of successful practice on soil science for students of biological and geographic specialties,” in Landscape Diversity of Karkaralinskii District and Field Training Practices of the Students of Biological-Geographic Specialties (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 2016), pp. 25–29.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. L. Golovanov and A. B. Myrzabaev, “Landscape diversity of the territory of Karkaralinskii district of Karaganda oblast as the basis of successful practice on soil science for students of the biological and geographic specialties,” in Ecological-Geographic Problems of the Development of Regions and Cities in Kazakhstan Republic (Moscow State Univ., Moscow, 2017), pp. 62–76.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. V. Dobrovol’skii, I. S. Urusevskaya, and N. N. Rozov, Map of the Soil-Geographic Zoning of the Soviet Union, Scale 1: 8000000 (General Office of Geodesy and Cartography, Moscow, 1983) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. V. Dostovalova and I. O. Alyabina, “The theme of soil protection in scientific literature,” Proceedings of All-Russian Scientific Conf. “The Red Data Book of Soils and Its Significance for Protection of the Soil Cover,” October 20–23, 2015, Ed. by I. V. Kostenko (Arial, Simferopol, 2015), pp. 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. J. Ibáñez and A. Saldaña, “The dilemma of the continuum in pedometrics and soil science,” in Geostatics and Geography of Soils (Nauka, Moscow, 2007), pp. 109–120.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. N. Ivanov and Yu. V. Krushina, “Landscape diversity and its measurement methods,” Proceedings of XI International Landscape Conf. “Landscape Science: Theory, Methods, Regional Studies, and Practice” (Moscow, 2006), pp. 99–102.

    Google Scholar 

  16. L. L. Shishov, V. D. Tonkonogov, I. I. Lebedeva, and M. I. Gerasimova, Classification and Diagnostic System of Russian Soils (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2004) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  17. Classification and Diagnostics of Soils of Soviet Union (Kolos, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].

  18. P. V. Krasilnikov, “Variography of discrete soil properties,” in Ecology and Geography of Soils, Ed. by P. V. Krasilnikov (Institute of Biology, Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2009), pp. 10–29.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. V. Krasilnikov, “Influence of the soil cover pattern on the diversity of aboveground vegetation in northern taiga of Eastern Fennoscandia,” Mater. Issled. Russ. Pochv, No. 2 (29), 15–20 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. V. Krasilnikov, “Soils and biological diversity: preliminary study of the territory of Eastern Fennoscandia,” in Ecological Functions of Soils of Eastern Fennoscandia, Ed. by T. S. Zvereva (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2000), pp. 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. V. Krasilnikov, I. M. Lantratova, and M. Starr, “Quantitative evaluation of soil diversity of Fennoscandia,” in Ecological Functions of Soils of Eastern Fennoscandia, Ed. by T. S. Zvereva (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2000), pp. 108–123.

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. V. Krasilnikov and M. Starr, “Evaluation of the complexity and contrast of the soil cover of Eastern Fennoscandia,” Proc. Intern. Conf. “Biological Princi ples of the Study, Exploitation, and Conservation of Fauna, Flora, and the Soil Cover of Eastern Fennoscandia,” September 6–10, 1999, Abstracts of Papers (Petrozavodsk, 1999), p.193.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P. V. Krasilnikov and E. Fuentes-Romero, “Soil diversity: theory, practice, and study methods,” Mater. Issled. Russ. Pochv, No. 4 (31), 37–42 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  24. The Red Data Book of Russian Soils, Ed. by G. V. Dobrovol’skii and E. D. Nikitin (MAKS-Press, Moscow, 2009) [in Russian].

  25. S. Kurzmeier, T. Wiedemann, P. Biber, P. Schad, and P. V. Krasilnikov, “Effects of edaphic factors on the tree stand diversity in a tropical forest of Sierra Madre del Sur, Mexico,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 45, 740–751 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. I. I. Lebedeva, T. V. Korolyuk, M. I. Gerasimova, and S. V. Ovechkin, “The grading of the complexity of the soil cover composition based on the analysis of the State Soil Map in the format of a new classification of Russian soils,” Proceedings of VIII All-Russian Scientific Conf. Dedicated to 150th Anniversary of N.M. Sibirtsev “Genesis, Geography, and Classification of Soils and Evaluation of Soil Resources,” September 14–16, 2010 (Arkhangelsk, 2010), pp. 160–163.

    Google Scholar 

  27. G. A. Malandin, Soil Complexes and Their Agricultural Significance (Perm, 1934) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  28. A.V. Nazarkina, “Comparative analysis of the soil cover diversity in floodplain areas of the Partizanskaya River valley (Sikhote-Alin Mountains),” Eurasian Soil Sci. 43, 1322–1329 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. E. D. Nikitin and E. B. Skvortsova, “Soil diversity preservation: problems and prospects,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 34, 104–109 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yu. G. Puzachenko, K. N. D’yakonov, and G. M. Aleshchenko, “Diversity of landscapes and its measurement,” in Geography and Monitoring of Biological Diversity (Scientific Educational Center, Moscow, 2002), pp. 76–178.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Diversity of Soils and Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems of Middle Taiga, Ed. by N. G. Fedorets (Nauka, Moscow, 2006) [in Russian].

  32. A. A. Rode, The System of Study Methods in Soil Science (Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1971) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  33. V. A. Sidorova and P. V. Krasil’nikov, “Use of geostatistical methods for cartography of soil horizons,” in Geostatistics and Geography of Soils, Ed. by P. V. Krasil’nikov (Nauka, Moscow, 2007), pp. 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  34. M. A. Smirnova and A. N. Gennadiev, “Quantitative evaluation of soil diversity: theory and analysis methods. A review,” Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 5: Geogr., No. 3, (2017).

  35. A. S. Sokolov, “Cartographic analysis of regional features of landscape diversity in Belarus,” Priroda Ekol., No. 4 (28), 59–69 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  36. V. M. Fridland, Soil Cover Patterns (Mysl’, Moscow, 1972) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. Amundson, Y. Guo, and P. Gong, “Soil diversity and land use in the United States,” Ecosyst. 6, 470–482 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. R. D. Bardgett, “Causes and consequences of biological diversity in soil,” Zoology 105, 367–374 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. J. G. Bockheim, “Soil endemism and its relation to soil formation theory,” Geoderma 129 (1), 109–124 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. J. G. Bockheim and N. Haus, “Soil endemism and its importance to taxonomic pedodiversity,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 195–210.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. J. A. Camargo, “On the concept of pedodiversity and its measurement. A reply,” Geoderma 93 (3–4), 339–344 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  42. F. J. Caniego, J. J. Ibáñez, and F. F. Martínez, “Rényi dimensions and pedodiversity indices of the earth pedotaxa distribution,” Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 14, 547–555 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. E. A. C. Costantini and G. L’Abate, “Beyond the concept of dominant soil: Preserving pedodiversity in upscaling soil maps,” Geoderma 271 (1), 243–253 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. M. L. Degorski, “Differentiation of forest habitat as evident disparate soil features in particular plant associations,” Aquilo, Ser. Bot. 36, 1–8 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  45. C. H. Ettema and D. A. Wardle, “Spatial soil ecology,” Trends Ecol. EVol. 17, 177–183 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. M. P. Fajardo, A. B. McBratney, and B. Minasny, “Measuring functional pedodiversity using spectroscopic information,” Catena 152, 103–114 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. FAO–UNESCO, Soil Map of the World, Revised Legend, World Resources Report 60 (Rome, 1988).

  48. E. Feoli, P. Ganis, and C. Ricotta, “Measuring diversity of environmental systems,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 29–58.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. E. Feoli, R. Pérez-Gómez, C. Oyonarte, and J. J. Ibáñez, “Using spatial data mining to analyze area-diversity patterns among soil, vegetation, and climate: a case study from Almería, Spain,” Geoderma 287, 164–169 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. P. A. Finke and L. Montanarella, “Basic principles of the manual of procedures (version 1.1) for the georeferenced soil database of Europe,” in Soil Resources of Southern and Eastern Mediterranean Countries, Ed. by P. Zdruli, P. Steduto, C. Lacirignola, and L. Montanarella (CIHEAM, Bari, 2001), No. 34, pp. 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  51. S. V. Goryachkin, “Soil minorities—how should we classify them in WRB and other classification system?” International Conference and Field Workshop “Soil Classification 2004” (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2004), pp. 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

  52. R. Gracheva, “Formation of soil diversity in the mountainous tropics and subtropics: Rocks, time, and erosion,” Geomorphology 135 (3–4), 224–231 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. M. Gray, “Geodiversity: developing the paradigm,” Proc. Geol. Assoc. 119 (3–4), 287–298 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. M. Gray, Geodiversity: Valuing and Conserving Abiotic Nature (Wiley, Chichester, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  55. M. Gray, “Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services,” Environ. Conserv. 38, 271–274 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. M. Gray, “Valuing geodiversity in an ‘ecosystem services’ context,” Scott. Geogr. J. 128, 177–194 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. M. Gray, J. E. Gordon, and E. J. Brown, “Geodiversity and the ecosystem approach: the contribution of geoscience in delivering integrated environmental management,” Proc. Geol. Assoc. 124, 659–673 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Y. Guo, P. Gong, and R. Amundson, “Pedodiversity in the United States of America,” Geoderma 117, 99–115 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. J. Hjort and M. Luoto, “Geodiversity of high-latitude landscapes in northern Finland,” Geomorphology 115, 109–116 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. J. Hjort, J. E. Gordon, M. Gray, and M. L. Hunter, “Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage,” Conserv. Biol. 29 (3), 630–639 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. F. D. Hole and J. B. Campbell, Soil Landscape Analysis (Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  62. J. J. Ibáñez, “An introduction to pedodiversity analysis,” ESSC Newslett. 1, 11–17 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  63. J. J. Ibáñez, “Evolution of fluvial dissection landscapes in Mediterranean environments: quantitative estimates and geomorphic, pedologic, and phytocenotic repercussions,” Z. Geomorphol. 38 (1), 105–119 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  64. J. J. Ibáñez, “Pedodiversity, pedometrics and ecological research,” Pedometron, Nos. 4–5, 2–4 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  65. J. J. Ibáñez, J. Caniego, F. San-José, and C. Carrera, “Pedodiversity—area relationships for islands,” Ecol. Model. 182, 257–269 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. J. J. Ibáñez and S. De Alba, “Pedodiversity and scaling laws: sharing Martín and Rey’s opinion on the role of the Shannon index as a measure of diversity,” Geoderma 98 (1), 5–9 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. J. J. Ibáñez, S. De-Alba, F. F. Bermúdez, and A. García-Álvarez, “Pedodiversity: concepts and measures,” Catena 24 (3), 215–232 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. J. J. Ibáñez, S. De-Alba, A. Lobo, and V. Zucarello, “Pedodiversity and global soil patterns at coarser scales (with Discussion),” Geoderma 83 (2), 171–214 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. J. J. Ibáñez and W. R. Effland, “Toward a theory of island pedogeography: testing the driving forces for pedological assemblages in archipelagos of different origins,” Geomorphology 135 (3–4), 215–223 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. J. J. Ibáñez and E. Feoli, “Global relationships of pedodiversity and biodiversity,” Vadose Zone J. 12 (3), (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  71. J. J. Ibáñez-Martí and A. García-Álvarez, “Diversidad: biodiversidad edáfica y geodiversidad,” Edafología 9 (3), 329–385 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  72. J. J. Ibáñez, A. García, and F. Monturiol, “Heterogeneidad edáfica inducida por el adehesamiento del bosque mediterráneo,” An. Edafol. Agrobiol. 48 (3–4), 433–444 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  73. J. J. Ibáñez and R. P. Gómez, “Diversity of soil-landscape relationships: state of the art and future challenges,” in Geopedology. An Integration of Geomorphology and Pedology for Soil and Landscape Studies, Ed. by J. A. Zinck, G. Metternicht, G. Bocco, and H. F. Del Valle (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2016), pp. 183–191.

    Google Scholar 

  74. J. J. Ibáñez, R. Jiménez-Ballesta, and A. García-Álvarez, “Soil landscapes and drainage basins in Mediterranean mountain areas,” Catena 17 (4), 573–583 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. J. J. Ibáñez, P. V. Krasilnikov, and A. Saldaña, “Archive and refugia of soil organisms: applying a pedodiversity framework for the conservation of biological and non–biological heritages,” J. Appl. Ecol. 49 (6), 1267–1277 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. J. J. Ibáñez, R. Pérez-Gómez, P. Ganis, and E. Feoli, “The use of vegetation series to aßsess a and β vegetation diversity and their relationships with geodiversity in the province of Almeria (Spain) with watersheds as operational geographic units,” Plant Biosyst. 150 (6), 1395–1407 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. J. J. Ibáñez, A. Pérez-González, R. Jiménez-Ballesta, A. Saldaña, and J. Gallardo-Díaz, “Evolution of fluvial dissection landscapes in Mediterranean environments. Quantitative estimates and geomorphological, pedological and phytocenotic repercussions,” Z. Geomorphol. 37, 123–138 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  78. J. J. Ibáñez, M. Ramos-Ruiz, J. A. Zinck, and A. Brú, “Classical pedology questioned and defended,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 38, 75–80 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  79. J. J. Ibáñez–Martí, A. Saldaña, and D. Olivera, “Biodiversidad y edafodiversidad: cuestión de coincidencia?” Span. J. Soil Sci. 2, 8–12 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  80. J. J. Ibáñez, J. Sánchez-Díaz, A. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, and W. R. Effland, “Preservation of European soils: natural and cultural heritage,” in The Soils of Tomorrow, Advances in Geoecology No. 39 (Catena-Verlag, Reiskirchen, 2008), pp. 37–59.

    Google Scholar 

  81. J. J. Ibáñez, R. J. Vargas, and A. Vazquez-Hoehne, “Pedodiversity: state of the art and future challenges,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 1–28.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. J. J. Ibáñez, V. Zuccarello, P. Ganis, and E. Feoli, “Pedodiversity deserves attention in plant biodiversity research,” Plant Biosyst. 148 (6), 1112–1116 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. K. Jacková and D. Romportl, “The relationship between geodiversity and habitat richness in Šumava National Park and Krivoklátsko PLA (Czech Republic): a quantitative analysis approach,” J. Landscape Ecol. 1, 23–37 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. H. Jenny, Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1941).

    Google Scholar 

  85. J. Chen, X.-L. Zhang, Z.-T. Gong, and J. Wang, “Pedodiversity: a controversial concept,” J. Geogr. Sci. 11 (1), 110–116 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Y. Kooch, S. M. Hosseini, B. C. Scharenbroch, S. M. Hojjati, and J. Mohammadi, “Pedodiversity in the Caspian forests of Iran,” Geoderma Reg. 5, 4–14 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. S. Kozlowski, “Geodiversity. The concept and scope of geodiversity,” Przeglad Geol. 52 (8/2), 833–83 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  88. P. V. Krasilnikov, “Distribución espacial de los suelos y los factores que la determinan,” in Geografía de Suelos de México (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 2011), Vol. 1, pp. 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  89. P. V. Krasilnikov, “Mosaics of the soil cover and species diversity of aboveground vegetation in forest ecosystems of Eastern Fennoscandia,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 34, S90–S99 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  90. P. V. Krasilnikov and R. W. Arnold, “Introduction,” Geomorphology 135 (3–4), 213–214 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. P. Krasilnikov, N. E. García-Calderón, and M. S. Galicia-Palacios, “Soils developed on different parent materials,” Terra Latinoam. 25 (4), 335–344 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  92. P. V. Krasilnikov, N. E. García-Calderón, and A. Ibáñez-Huerta, “Pedodiversity in mountainous tropical semideciduous forests of Sierra Madre del Sur, Mexico,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 42, 1435–1442 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Handbook of Soil Terminology, Correlation, and Classification, Ed. by P. V. Krasilnikov, J. J. Ibáñez-Martí, R. W. Arnold, and S. A. Shoba (Earthscan, London, 2009).

  94. P. Lagacherie, J. M. Robbez-Masson, N. Nguyen-The, and J. P. Barthès, “Mapping of reference area representativity using a mathematical soilscape distance,” Geoderma 101 (1), 105–118 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. G. Lo Papa and C. Dazzi, “Repercussion of anthropogenic landscape changes on pedodiversity and preservation of the pedological heritage,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 153–194.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  96. G. Lo Papa, V. Palermo, and C. Dazzi, “Is land-use change a cause of loss of pedodiversity? The case of the Mazzarrone study area, Sicily,” Geomorphology 135 (3), 332–342 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. A. B. McBratney, “On variation, uncertainty and informatics in environmental soil management,” Austral. J. Soil Res. 30 (6), 913–935 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. A. B. McBratney, “Pedodiversity,” Pedometron, No. 3, 1–3 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  99. A. McBratney and B. Minasny, “On measuring pedodiversity,” Geoderma 141 (1), 149–154 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. B. Minasny, A. B. McBratney, and A. E. Hartemink, “Global pedodiversity, taxonomic distance, and the World Reference Base,” Geoderma 155 (3–4), 132–139 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. A. Najwer and Z. Zwolinski, “Semantyka i metodyka oceny georóznorodnosci: przeglad i propozycja badawcza,” Landform Anal. 26, 112–127 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  102. J. Ostrowski and A. Jankowski, “Elementy charakterystyki rywy glebowej,” Pr. Inst. Upr. Nawoz. Glebozn. 38, 1–87 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  103. S. S. Parker, “Buried treasure: soil biodiversity and conservation,” Biodiversity Conserv. 19, 3743–3756 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. R. Pellitero, F. C. Manosso, and E. Serrano, “Mid-and large-scale geodiversity calculation in Fuentes Carrionas (NW Spain) and Serra do Cadeado (Paraná, Brazil): methodology and application for land management,” Geogr. Ann., A 97 (2), 219–235 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. A. Petersen, A. Gröngröft, and G. Miehlich, “Methods to quantify the pedodiversity of 1 km2 areas. Results from southern African dry lands,” Geoderma 155 (2), 140–146 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. A. I. Petrisor, “A diversity-based approach to the spatial development of socio-ecological systems,” Urbanism Arch. Constr. 8 (2), 143–162 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  107. A. I. Petrisor and C. N. Sâsrbu, “Dynamics of geodiversity and eco-diversity in territorial systems,” J. Urban Reg. Anal. 2, 61–70 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  108. J. D. Phillips, “Divergent evolution and spatial structure of soil landscape variability,” Catena 43 (1), 101–113 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. J. D. Phillips, “Nonlinear dynamics, divergent evolution, and pedodiversity,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 59–78.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  110. J. D. Phillips, “Soils as extended composite phenotypes,” Geoderma 149 (2), 143–151 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. J. D. Phillips, “The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic factors in pedodiversity,” Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 91, 609–621 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. J. D. Phillips and D. A. Marion, “Biomechanical effects, lithological variations, and local pedodiversity in some forest soils of Arkansas,” Geoderma 124 (1), 73–89 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. J. D. Phillips and D. A. Marion, “Soil geomorphic classification, soil taxonomy, and effects on soil richness assessments,” Geoderma 141 (1), 89–97 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. T. V. Prokofieva, “Diversity and systematization of soils,” in Environmental Structure and Function: Earth System (EOLSS, Paris, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  115. C. R. Rao, “Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: a unified approach,” Theor. Popul. Biol. 21 (1), 24–43 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. A. Saldaña and J. J. Ibáñez, “Pedodiversity analysis at large scales: an example of three fluvial terraces of the Henares River (central Spain),” Geomorphology 62 (1), 123–138 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. A. Saldaña, J. J. Ibáñez, and J. A. Zinck, “Soilscape analysis at different scales using pattern indices in the Jarama–Henares interfluve and Henares River valley, Central Spain,” Geomorphology 135 (3–4), 284–294 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. V. L. Santunci, “Historical perspectives on biodiversity and geodiversity,” Geodiversity Geoconserv. 22, 29–34 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  119. A. Scott, S. A. Mangan, S. A. Schnitzer, E. A. Herre, K. M. L. Mack, M. C. Valencia, E. I. Sanchez, and J. D. Bever, “Negative plant-soil feedback predicts tree-species relative abundance in a tropical forest,” Nature 466, 752–755 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. W. Shangguan, P. Gong, L. Liang, Y. Dai, and K. Zhang, “Soil diversity as affected by land use in China: consequences for soil protection,” Sci. World J., art. ID 913852 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  121. I. Stavi, R. Shem-Tov, M. Chocron, and H. Yizhaq, “Geodiversity, self-organization, and health of threephase semi-arid rangeland ecosystems, in the Israeli Negev,” Geomorphology 234 (1), 11–18 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. D. K. Swanson, “Remaking soil taxonomy,” Soil Horiz. 40, 81–88 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. V. O. Targulian and P. V. Krasilnikov, “Soil system and pedogenic processes: self-organization, time scales, and environmental significance,” Catena 71, 373–381 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. R. Thwaites, “From biodiversity to geodiversity and soil diversity: A spatial understanding of soil in ecological studies of the forest landscape,” J. Trop. For. Sci. 12, 388–405 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  125. D. Tilman, “Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats,” Ecology 75 (1), 2–16 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. D. Tilman, “Functional diversity,” Encycl. Biodiversity 3 (1), 109–120 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. N. Toomanian, “Pedodiversity and landforms,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 133–152.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  128. N. Toomanian and I. Esfandiarpoor, “Challenges of pedodiversity in soil science,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 43, 1486–1502 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. N. Toomanian, A. Jalalian, H. Khademi, M. K. Eghbal, and A. Papritz, “Pedodiversity and pedogenesis in Zayandehrud Valley, Central Iran,” Geomorphology 81, 376–393 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. F. M. Walker, A. C. Taylor, and P. Sunnucks, “Does soil type drive social organization in southern hairynosed wombats?” Mol. Ecol. 16, 199–208 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. J. I. Watling, “Edaphically-based distributions of amphibians and reptiles in a lowland tropical rainforest,” Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 40, 15–21 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Z. Xuelei, “Pedodiversity studies in China,” in Pedodiversity, Ed. by J. J. Ibáñez and J. Bockheim (CRC, Boca Raton, CA, 2013), pp. 211–228.

    Google Scholar 

  133. X. Zhang, J. Chen, M. Tan, and Y. Sun, “Assessing the impact of urban sprawl on soil resources of Nanjing city using satellite images and digital soil databases,” Catena 69 (1), 16–30 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leninskie gory 1, Moscow, 119991, Russia

    P. V. Krasilnikov, M. I. Gerasimova, D. L. Golovanov, M. V. Konyushkova & A. S. Sorokin

  2. Institute of Biology, Karelian Science Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. Pushkinskaya 11, Petrozavodsk, 185910, Russia

    P. V. Krasilnikov & V. A. Sidorova

Authors
  1. P. V. Krasilnikov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. I. Gerasimova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. L. Golovanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. V. Konyushkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. A. Sidorova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. S. Sorokin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. V. Krasilnikov.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © P.V. Krasilnikov, M.I. Gerasimova, D.L. Golovanov, M.V. Konyushkova, V.A. Sidorova, A.S. Sorokin, 2018, published in Pochvovedenie, 2018, No. 1, pp. 3–16.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krasilnikov, P.V., Gerasimova, M.I., Golovanov, D.L. et al. Pedodiversity and Its Significance in the Context of Modern Soil Geography. Eurasian Soil Sc. 51, 1–13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318010118

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229318010118

Keywords

Search

Navigation