1 / 40

LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA (Concepts – Development – Uses)

LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA (Concepts – Development – Uses). W. Wayne Pettapiece, Ph.D., P.Ag . for Alberta Soils Network January, 2011. LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA. TERMINOLOGY Land vs Soil , Suitability vs Capability , Agriculture HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE going on for a long time

boyd
Download Presentation

LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA (Concepts – Development – Uses)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA(Concepts – Development – Uses) W. Wayne Pettapiece, Ph.D., P.Ag. for Alberta Soils Network January, 2011

  2. LAND CAPABILITY IN ALBERTA • TERMINOLOGY • Land vs Soil , Suitability vs Capability , Agriculture • HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE • going on for a long time • LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM • Most recent • USES (AND MISUSES) OF SUITABILITY SYSTEMS • Agriculture, planning, environment, assessment

  3. TERMINOLOGY(1) • Terms commonly used • Soil Rating / Land Rating • Soil Capability / Land Capability • Soil Suitability / Land Suitability • Soil Assessment / Land Assessment • Soil Evaluation / Land Evaluation All have been used for the same meaning All have been used for different meanings • Purpose • Agriculture? Forestry? Engineering? • Wheat/Alfalfa? Aspen/Pine? Subgrade/Irrigation • Economics?

  4. TERMINOLOGY(2) What terms should be used ? • Soil vs Land • Original was “soil” – context assumed to be agriculture • local extent so limited variability in topography and climate • Context 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 • Recommended • That “land “ be the generally used term • That “soil” be only used for specific situations 30’s 60’s 80’s

  5. TERMINOLOGY(3) 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 30’s 60’s 80’s

  6. TERMINOLOGY (4) What terms should be used ? • Rating vs Capability vs Suitability • Recommended • 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

  7. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (1) 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)

  8. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (2) 1930 - 1960 Storiesoil rating system • Objective : crop productivity • Much 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 community • Researchers, soil specialists, soil surveyors • Scale: > 1: 100K (1/4 sec - field)

  9. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (3) 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 results

  10. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (4) 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 limiting

  11. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (5) 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

  12. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (6)

  13. Historical Context For Capability/Suitability (7)

  14. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (1) • 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 addition • did not deal with organic soils • could not compare nationally Lack of specificity

  15. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (2) 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

  16. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (3) Basic approach • separate climate, soil and landscape • independent control • flexibility • most limiting determines final rating • use same crop for all conditions Relationships • CLIMATE(CROP) FLEXIBILITY • SOILPRODUCTIVITY • LANDSCAPESUSTAINABILITY

  17. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (4) 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

  18. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (6) Climate Factors • heat or energy factor • effective growing degree days • moisture factor • precipitation - potential evapotraspiration • modifying factors • excess spring moisture, excess fall moisture, fall frost • excess heat

  19. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (7) Soil Factors • moisture supply • texture (with climate) • water table • nutrient supply • organic matter content • reaction • rooting conditions • surface conditions • subsurface conditions

  20. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (8) Soil Factors (cont) • chemical conditions • salinity • sodicity • drainage • water table (with climate)

  21. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (9) Landscape Factors • erodability • slope steepness • slope length (landform) • management • stoniness • flooding

  22. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (5) Relationship between limitation concept, suitability class and calculated index limitation for suitability index specified crop class points none to slight 1 80 - 100 slight 2 60 - 79 moderate 3 45 - 59 severe (marginal) 4 30 - 44 very severe 5 20 - 29 extremely severe 6 10 - 19 unsuitable 7 0 - 9

  23. Point deductions for surface salinity 100 80 60 Point deduction 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 electical conductivity (dS/m) LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM(10) • Factor Rating example – salinity effects on small grains y = -0.2067x 2 + 10.001x - 18.002 R 2 = 0.998

  24. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (11) System Attributes • provides a standard approach for assessing land for crop growth • pragmatic and explicit • it uses present knowledge and available data • accommodates defined proxies • documents all inputs and calculations • integrates but partitions • uses an explicit, modular format adaptable to local conditions • flexible and adaptable • independent of scale

  25. LAND SUITABILITY RATING SYSTEM (12) DOES • assess ‘fitness for a specific use’ • assess ‘soil quality’ for a given set of conditions • assess disturbed conditions DOES NOT • model plant growth • Not an absolute – assesses the degree of limitation • indicate best land use • indicate most economical land use

  26. USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (1) Concept issues Capability/Suitability vs Productivity • Soil component is the main contributor to productivity • Climate 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 comparative • Best or “least limited”, • Can become bu/ac e.g. if linked to local values

  27. USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (2) Concept issues Equivalent Capability • Capability/suitability = holistic, system approach • Must consider all factors to determine a result • Capability assessed after disturbance/reclamation vscapability assessed for undisturbed condition • Unless otherwise specified can assume • Same site - so same climate (climate module not required) • Same purpose – same crops / management • Given the above • Must use same holistic procedures for pre and post conditions • Must decide on “equivalency” (e.g. +- 20%) • LSRS or similar system should be used

  28. USING CAPABILITY ASSESSMENTS (3) 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 chosen • Factors must be measurable, available and sensitive to change • E.g. OM, pH, salinity, structure, depth of topsoil • Others such as biomass are correlated • The soil component of LSRS addresses these factors Soil Quality • This is a different concept – must have a use (for something) • Quality over time can be interpreted as health reification

  29. LSRS APPLICATIONS(1) Agricultural Potential • Spring Seeded Small Grains – Ratings for Alberta • results essentially the same as CLI • lost 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 climate • automated 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 Considerations • Other crops • canola, corn, soybeans, brome forage, alfalfa forage • Climate 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 ct0vs land capability ct30 • using different climate databases (scenarios) • Biomass potential - PFRA / Agri-Environmental Services Branch (AAFC) • Used to approximate relative soil productivity • Unlink climate and landscape modules (not climate data)

  31. LSRS APPLICATIONS (3) Other Agricultural Considerations (cont) • Soil Quality / Sustainability Assessment • determine the effect of present management • land capability t0vs land capability t30 • linked to EPIC (Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator)to calculate different soil inputs • Could also be termed Soil Health

  32. SQAT CONCEPT Schematic of the Assessment Process Inputs Models Analysis *Crop rotations *Management EPIC *EPIC 30yr simulation *Soils Soils *Climate *LSRS LSRS SQ - SQ = SQ trends (0) (30) 3 years 6 months

  33. SQUAT RESULTS(1) 8 6 4 2 30 year predicted change (%) 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 593 596 598 680 681 727 728 730 746 743 781 793 806 821 828 - 8 Ecodistrict Figure 1. Predicted percent change in land suitability ratings for the pilot areas.

  34. Peace River 596 593 D 598 D 680 681 Edmonton 728 727 730 C 743 746 781 B 806 Calgary A 821 793 Lethbridge 828 SQUAT RESULTS (2) Predicted Change > +2% +0.5 to +2% -0.5 to +0.5% -0.5 to -2% < -2% 828 Ecodistrict number Mixed Grassland Aspen Parkland A C (Brown soils) (Black soils) D Moist Mixed Grassland, Boreal Transition B Fescue Grassland (Dark Grey and Grey soils) (Dark Brown and Black soils) Figure 4. Areal distribution of land suitability trends in Alberta

  35. LSRS APPLICATIONS (4) Forestry Considerations • Woodlot Assessment • Modified soil and landscape factors • different climatic framework • Alberta Municipal Affairs

  36. LSRS APPLICATIONS(5) Reclamation Considerations • Pipeline Reclamation Assessment • “Equivalent Capability” • Level 2 soils component • Nova, A. Env., CAPP

  37. SUMMARY 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

  38. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • 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

  39. BIBLIOGRAPHY 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.

  40. THANKS and Keep Digging

More Related