Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A mathematical comparison of classification structures: The case of the USDA Soil Taxonomy

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

Abstract

Biologists have not paid much attention to the mathematical structures of biological classifications and their interpretations. A few have made such an analysis mainly using statistical distribution models. Comparisons with nonbiological classifications are needed to know if such structures are the result of biological evolution or of taxonomic practices, utilitarian bias, and/or subconscious cognitive rules. We compare the biological classification of a target group of soil borne plant parasitic nematodes (the Tylenchina suborder) with a non-biological one (the USDA 8th edition of the Keys to Soil Taxonomy). The authors made use of the same tools used in previous papers by biologists introducing other classifications. The results show that both taxonomies are information systems that try to optimize the information flow and fit well to the same distribution models. The analysis does not show any idiosyncrasies of biological classifications with respect to pedological ones, thus, supporting the idea that these products are the result of subconscious cognitive rules used by humankind to classify the world.

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. R. Ahrens, T. J. Rice, and H. Eswaran, “Soil Classification: Past and Present,” in Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference, Ed. by H. Eswaran, T. Rice, R. Ahrens, and B. A. Steward (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003), pp. 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. W. Arnold and H. Eswaran, “Conceptual Basis for Soil Classification: Lessons from the Past,” in Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference, Ed. by H. Eswaran, T. Rice, R. Ahrens, and B.A. Steward (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003), pp. 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. E. H. Blum and M. C. Laker, “Soil Classification and Soil Research,” in Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference, Ed. by H. Eswaran, T. Rice, R. Ahrens, and B.A. Steward (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003), pp. 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. W. Buol, “Philosophies of Soil Classification: From Is to Does,” in Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference, Ed. by H. Eswaran, T. Rice, R. Ahrens, and B.A. Steward (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003), pp. 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. Burlando, “The Fractal Dimension of Taxonomic Systems,” J. Theor. Biol. 146, 99–114 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. Burlando, “The Fractal Geometry of Evolution,” J. Theor. Biol. 163, 161–172 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Helminthological Abstracts. Series B: Plant Nematology, Vols. 39–56 (CAB International, Wallingford, 1987–1996).

  8. W. D. Clayton, “The Logarithmic Distribution of Angiosperm Families,” Kew Bull. 29(2), 271–279 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. S. Corbet, “The Distribution of Butterflies in the Malay Peninsula,” Proc. R. Entomol. Soc. (A) 16, 101–116 (1942).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Q. C. B. Cronk, “Measurement of Biological and Historical Influences in Plant Classifications,” Taxon 38, 357–370 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. K. P. Dial and J. M. Marzluff, “Nonrandom Diversification within Taxonomic Assemblages,” Syst. Zool. 38, 26–37 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. R. Dudal, “How Good Is Our Soil Classification?” in Soil Classification: A Global Desk Reference, Ed. by H. Eswaran, T. Rice, R. Ahrens, and B.A. Steward (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003), pp. 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Ereshefsky, The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. M. Green, “Chaos, Fractals, and Nonlinear Dynamics in Evolution and Phylogeny,” Tree 6, 333–337 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Hey, Genes, Categories, Species: The Evolutionary and Cognitive Causes of the Species Problem (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. J. Ibáñez, S. De-Alba, F. F. Bermudez, and A. Garcia-Alvarez, “Pedodiversity: Concepts and Measures,” Catena 24, 215–232 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. J. J. Ibáñez, S. De-Alba, A. Lobo, and V. Zucarello, “Pedodiversity and Global Soil Patterns at Coarser Scales (with Discussion),” Geoderma 83, 171–192 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. J. J. Ibáñez, A. Saldana, and S. De Alba, “Reply to the Discussion Paper: Pedodiversity and Global Soil Patterns at Coarser Scales (with Discussion),” Geoderma 83, 206–214 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. J. Ibáñez and J. Boixadera, “The Search for a New Paradigm in Pedology: A Driving Force for New Approaches to Soil Classification,” in Soil Classification, Ed. by E. Micheli, F. Nachtergaele, R. J. A. Jones, and L. Montanarella (FAO, London, 2001), pp. 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. J. Ibáñez, J. Caniego, F. San-Jose, and C. Carrera, “Pedodiversity-Area Relationships in Islands,” Ecol. Model. (2004) (in press).

  21. E. T. Jaynes, “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics,” Phys. Rev. 106, 620–630 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. G. Korvin, Fractal Models in the Earth Sciences (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  23. E. Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Minelli, G. Fusco, and S. Sartori, “Self-Similarity in Biological Classifications,” BioSystematics 26, 89–97 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. A. Minelli, Biological Systematics: The State of the Art (Chapman and Hall, London, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Mosterin, Conceptos y teorias en la Ciencia (Alianza Univ., Madrid, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. G. O’Donnell, M. Goodfellow, and D. L. Hawksworth, “Theoretical and Practical Aspects of the Quantification of Biodiversity among Microorganisms,” in Biodiversity: Measurement and Estimation, Ed. by D. L. Hawksworth (Chapman and Hall, London, 1995), pp. 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  28. I. O. A. Odeh, “In Discussion of: J.J. Ibáñez, S. De-Alba., A. Lobo, and A. V. Zucarrello, ‘Pedodiversity and Global Soil Patterns at Coarser Scales,’” Geoderma 83, 203–205 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. H. A. Peters, Critique for Ecology (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, USA, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. Ruiz-Ramos and J. J. Ibáñez, “The Possible Fractal Nature of Biological and Pedological Taxonomic Systems” (poster) in Pedofract, 2002: International Workshop on Fractal Mathematics Describing Soil and Heterogeneous Systems, Barco de Avila, Spain, 2002.

  31. 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, 123–138 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. R. Sattler, Biophilosophy: Analytic and Holistic Perspectives (Springer-Verlag, 1986).

  33. R. V. Sole and S. C. Manrubia, Orden y Caos en Sistemas Complejos (UCP, Barcelona, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  34. A. N. Strahler, “Quantitative Analysis of Watershed Geomorphology,” Am. Geophys. Union. Trans. 38, 913–920 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 8th ed. (Soil Survey Staff, USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC, 1998).

  36. S. M. Walters, “The Name of the Rose: A Review of Ideas on the European Bias in Angiosperm Classification (Tansley Rev., No. 6),” New Phytol. 104, 527–546 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. C. B. Williams, Patterns in the Valance of Nature (Academic, London, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  38. J. C. Willis and G. U. Yule, “Some Statistics of Evolution and Geographical Distribution in Plants and Animals and Their Significance,” Nature 109, 177–179 (1922).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, CSIC, Serrano 115 Dpdo, Madrid, 28006, Spain

    J. J. Ibáñez

  2. Dept. Producción Vegetal: Fitotecnia, ETSI, Agrónomos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    M. Ruiz-Ramos

Authors
  1. J. J. Ibáñez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Ruiz-Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Published in Russian in Pochvovedenie, 2006, No. 7, pp. 795–803.

The text was submitted by the authors in English.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ibáñez, J.J., Ruiz-Ramos, M. A mathematical comparison of classification structures: The case of the USDA Soil Taxonomy . Eurasian Soil Sc. 39, 712–719 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229306070040

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229306070040

Keywords

Search

Navigation