Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

ISSN: 0010-3624 (Print) 1532-2416 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Usability of soil survey soil texture data for soil

health indicator scoring

E. A. Mikhailova, C. J. Post, M. A. Schlautman, J. M. Galbraith & H. A. Zurqani

To cite this article: E. A. Mikhailova, C. J. Post, M. A. Schlautman, J. M. Galbraith & H. A. Zurqani

(2018): Usability of soil survey soil texture data for soil health indicator scoring, Communications in
Soil Science and Plant Analysis, DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2018.1474918

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1474918

Published online: 29 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lcss20
COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS
https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1474918

Usability of soil survey soil texture data for soil health indicator
scoring
E. A. Mikhailovaa, C. J. Posta, M. A. Schlautmanb, J. M. Galbraithc, and H. A. Zurqania,d
a
Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA; bDepartment of
Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Anderson, SC, USA; cDepartment of Crop and
Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA; dDepartment of
Soil and Water Sciences, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Soil textural information is an important component underlying other soil Received 5 March 2018
health indicators. Soil texture analysis is a common procedure, but it can be Accepted 7 May 2018
labor intensive and expensive. Soil texture data typically are available from the
KEYWORDS
Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database, which may be an option for CASH; Comprehensive
determining soil health texture groups (SHTG). The SSURGO database provides assessment of soil health;
soil texture information in the soil map unit (SMU) name, taxonomic class geographic information
category (family), and detailed values (≤ 2 mm soil fraction) of percent sand, silt systems; GIS; SMU; soil map
and clay by soil horizon. The objective of this study was to examine the unit
possibility of using SSURGO data for SHTG at the 147-ha Cornell University
Willsboro Research Farm in New York state as an alternative for soil texture
data determined manually on collected soil core samples. Comparative results
revealed that representative values for soil texture from the SSURGO database
generally matched measured mean values for all SMUs.

Introduction
The Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH) is increasingly being used for soil health assess-
ment and management planning by providing one value indicating soil health (Congreves et al. 2015; Fine
et al. 2017; Idowu et al. 2008, 2009; Moebius-Clune et al. 2016). Sand, silt, clay and texture class are among
key soil physical properties that are identified as important in soil health assessment (Moebius-Clune et al.
2016). Soil texture is an inherent soil characteristic and considered to be useful in the interpretation of most
health indicators (e.g., soil organic matter, cation exchange capacity, or CEC) (Moebius-Clune et al. 2016).
Depending on their intended use, both quantitative values (e.g., percent sand, silt, clay) and qualitative
classifications (e.g., soil textural classes) are useful to characterize the texture of soils for soil health
assessment. The CASH scoring process uses field laboratory analysis of soil texture to distinguish between
coarse-textured (sand, loamy sand, sandy loam), medium-textured (loam, silt loam, silt, sandy clay loam)
and fine-textured (clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay) soils (Moebius-Clune et al.
2016). These soil health texture groups (SHTG) are used to normalize individual soil attributes
(e.g., available water capacity, AWC) used in the CASH. Congreves et al. (2015) used CASH to develop
the new Ontario Soil Health Assessment (OSHA) and concluded that most variation among soil quality
indicators was explained by location, soil texture, and classification.
Soil texture can be determined subjectively by feel (Thien 1979) or quantitatively using hydrometer
or pipette methods (Gee and Bauder 1986). However, detailed measurements of soil texture in the field
and laboratory are labor-intensive and expensive to perform. The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)

CONTACT E. A. Mikhailova eleanam@clemson.edu Department of Forestry and Environmental Conservation, Clemson

University, 261 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lcss.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 E. A. MIKHAILOVA ET AL.

database can provide a wealth of information for soil health assessment (e.g., location, soil classifica-
tion, and texture analysis). The SSURGO database contains soil information displayed by soil map unit
(SMU) and is available for most areas in the United States and Territories, Commonwealths, and
Island Nations served by USDA-NRCS (Soil Survey Staff 2017). Map units describe soils with unique
properties, interpretations, and productivity, with information collected/reported at scales ranging
from 1:12,000 (more detailed) to 1:63,360 (Soil Survey Staff 2017). Map units are typically named
for the major component present, although each SMU may contain one to three major components
and several minor components (Soil Survey Staff 2017). The SSURGO database reports some soil
attributes as three related values referred to as “low,” “representative value” and “high.” The “low” and
“high” values denote the typical range of values for that attribute in the corresponding map unit
component or soil horizon or layer, while the representative value denotes an average or expected
value of that attribute in the corresponding map unit component or soil horizon or layer (Soil Survey
Staff 2017).
Although the CASH was calibrated for soils in the northeastern United States, it has been tested at
the plot (Andrews and Carroll 2001; Armenise et al. 2013; Idowu et al. 2009; Hussain et al. 1999),
and landscape (Karlen et al. 2008; Svoray et al. 2015; Winowiecki et al. 2016) scales as well as at
national levels (Brejda et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2000c; Schipper and Sparling 2000). Several studies
mapped soil health over agriculturally important areas (Svoray et al. 2015; Winowiecki et al.
2016). Congreves et al. (2015) reported that the soil classification and texture had a large influence
on soil health assessment in Ontario, Canada. Mapping of soil health can be enhanced by existing
soil survey data (e.g., texture) to address the issues of data variability and expense associated with soil
sampling and analysis. The overall objective of this study was to examine the possibility of using soil
survey data for the SHTG instead of manually determined soil texture data at the 147-ha Cornell
University Willsboro Research Farm, NY. The specific objectives of this study were to compare the
SHTG in the A horizon of glaciated soils across the Willsboro Research Farm obtained from: a)
values of soil texture reported in the SSURGO database for the soil map units (SMUs) present on the
farm, b) values of soil texture measured in soil cores taken from the farm, and c) taxonomic class
category (family).

Materials and methods

Study area
The Cornell University Willsboro Research Farm (Figure 1) is located in Willsboro, NY (44° 22ʹ N, 73°
26ʹ W) adjacent to Lake Champlain (Mikhailova et al. 1996; Sogbedji et al. 2000). Soils formed in glacial
deposits (e.g., glacial till, deltaic or glacial like sands and clays), and include the soil orders Alfisols,
Entisols and Inceptisols (Mikhailova et al. 1996). Boundaries of the soil map units (SMUs) were obtained
from the SSURGO database at a scale of 1:12,000 (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov./wps/portal/nrcs/detail/
soils/survey/) and mapped in ArcGIS 10.4 (ESRI 2015).

Soil sampling and laboratory analysis

Fifty-four soil cores were collected on the Willsboro Research Farm in 1995 based on a regular square
grid with each grid being 137.16 m by 137.16 m. Sample locations were obtained from an Intelligent
Total Station, Set 2C SOKKISHA (Standard deviation: ±3 mm + 2 ppmD) (Mikhailova et al. 1996).
Undisturbed soil cores were extracted using a Giddings hydraulic sampler (Model – GSR-T-S) and
plastic tubes with the average diameter of 4.5 cm (Mikhailova et al. 1996). Each soil core was sectioned
into depth intervals, and measurements were made of particle-size distribution of the ≤2mm fraction
by the pipette method after pretreating for carbonates and soluble salts with 1 M NaOAc (adjusted to
pH 5), and organic matter removed with 30% H2O2 (Gee and Bauder 1986).
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 3

Figure 1. Example of determining selected soil types within Willsboro farm and corresponding soil health texture groups (SHTG)
derived from the soil map unit symbol (SMU).

Estimating SHTG using soil cores and SSURGO data

The A horizon of each soil core was classified for SHTG based on the CASH guidelines that
utilize information on soil texture (Moebius-Clune et al. 2016). An SHTG classification of
Coarse (coarse-textured soils) was assigned to A horizons with the soil texture classes of Sand
(S), Loamy sand (LS), and Sandy loam (SL) (Moebius-Clune et al. 2016). An SHTG classifica-
tion of Medium (medium-textured soils) was assigned to A horizons with the soil texture
classes of Loam (L), Silt loam (SiL), Silt (Si), and Sandy clay loam (SCL) (Moebius-Clune et al.
2016). An SHTG classification of Fine (fine-textured soils) with the soil texture classes of
Clay loam (CL), Silty clay loam (SiCL), Clay (C), Silty clay (SiC) and Sandy clay (SC)
(Moebius-Clune et al. 2016).
The CASH criteria as described above were utilized to assign SHTG classes to the A horizons
for the different SMUs present on the Willsboro Farm using information from the SSURGO
database and official soil series descriptions as summarized in Table 2 (Mikhailova et al. 2016).
We used the range of values (i.e., low value to high value) provided in SSURGO for a percentage
of sand, silt, and clay to determine the range of possible soil texture classes for each SMU. Also,
we used the representative values of sand, silt, and clay to determine the expected soil texture
class of each SMU. Soil health texture groups (SHTG) were mapped from SSURGO results
averaged over SMUs and from soil core sample results averaged over SMUs using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) (ESRI 2015).
4 E. A. MIKHAILOVA ET AL.

Results and discussion

The Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH) is based on field and laboratory determination
of soil texture as part of “STANDARD Soil Health Analysis Package,” which is significantly more
expensive than “BASIC Soil Health Analysis Package” because of added soil texture analysis (not
including coarse fragment determination). This study examined the inexpensive options of obtaining
soil texture information from soil survey databases. Soil survey (Soil Survey Staff 2017) can be a
convenient and an inexpensive option of obtaining SHTG derived from the soil map unit symbol based
on postal address, on geographic location, which can be easily obtained using GPS-enabled devices
(e.g., mobile phone, GPS-enabled camera etc.) (Figure 1, Table 1). For example, Covington clay was
assigned a rating of Fine because of clay soil texture. It is important to consider texture modifiers
(e.g., Bombay gravelly loam), which are currently not included in the Comprehensive Assessment of
Soil Health. Soil texture modifiers and soil texture class combined may be a more realistic representa-
tion of the SHTG in the field conditions. In the real world, farmers use soil as it is found in the field

Table 1. Soil types within Willsboro farm and corresponding soil health texture groups (SHTG) derived from the soil map unit
symbol (SMU).
SHTG based SHTG based on texture and
Soil series (Map unit symbol, SMU) on texture surface texture modifier
Alfisols
Bombay gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (BoB) Medium Coarse
Howard gravelly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HgB) Medium Coarse
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (KyA) Fine Fine
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (KyB) Fine Fine
Covington clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes (CvA) Fine Fine
Churchville loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (CpB) Medium Medium
Entisols
Claverack loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes (CqB) Coarse Coarse
Deerfield loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (DeA) Coarse Coarse
Stafford fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (StA) Coarse Coarse
Cosad loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes (CuA) Coarse Coarse
Inceptisols
Amenia fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (AmB) Coarse Coarse
Massena gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (McB) Medium Coarse
Nellis fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (NeB) Coarse Coarse
Nellis fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (NeC) Coarse Coarse

Table 2. Soil types within Willsboro farm and corresponding soil health texture groups (SHTG) derived from the taxonomic classes
(modified from Mikhailova et al. 2016).
Taxonomic class SHTG
Alfisols
Bombay (Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Oxyaquic Hapludalfs) Coarse
Howard (Loamy-skeletal, mixed, active, mesic Glossic Hapludalfs) Coarse
Kingsbury (Very-fine, mixed, active, mesic Aeric Endoaqualfs) Fine
Kingsbury Very-fine, mixed, active, mesic Aeric Endoaqualfs) Fine
Covington (Very-fine, mixed, active, mesic Mollic Endoaqualfs) Fine
Churchville (Fine, illitic, mesic Aeric Endoaqualfs) Fine
Entisols
Claverack (Sandy over clayey, mixed, superactive, nonacid, mesic Aquic Udorthents) Coarse
Deerfield (Mixed, mesic Aquic Udipsamments) Coarse
Stafford (Mixed, mesic Typic Psammaquents) Coarse
Cosad (Sandy over clayey, mixed, superactive, nonacid, mesic Aquic Udorthents) Coarse
Inceptisols
Amenia (Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Aquic Eutrudepts) Coarse
Massena (Coarse-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, mesic Aeric Endoaquepts) Coarse
Nellis (Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Eutrudepts) Coarse
Nellis (Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Eutrudepts) Coarse
Table 3. Measured and estimated properties of the A horizon from soil cores taken on the Willsboro farm (modified from Cole et al. 2017).
Soil order/Soil series (Map unit Measured A horizon Soil health texture
symbol), number of soil cores Total area thickness Sand Silt Clay Texture class* group**
m2 cm —————— % ——————
Alfisols (total), n = 32 937940
Bombay gravelly loam, 3 to 8 270615 21 (± 5)*** 65 (± 11) 20 (± 5) 14 (± 8) LS(1) SL(7) SCL(2) Coarse(8) Medium(2)
percent slopes (BoB), n = 10
Churchville loam, 2 to 8 percent 36900 n/a**** n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
slopes (CpB), n = 0
Covington clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes 49076 26 13 13 74 C(1) Fine(1)
(CvA), n = 1
Howard gravelly loam, 2 to 8 percent 58680 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
slopes (HgB), n = 0
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 0 to 3 480679 23 (± 6) 35 (± 20) 26 (± 7) 39 (± 16) LS(1) SL(2) L(1) SCL(2) CL(1) Coarse(3) Medium(3)
percent slopes (KyA), n = 19 C(12) Fine(13)
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 3 to 8 41990 30 (± 14) 59 (± 18) 21 (± 5) 20 (± 13) SL(1) SCL(1) Coarse(1) Medium(1)
percent slopes (KyB), n = 2
Entisols (total), n = 18 378691
Claverack loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 64230 28 (± 10) 61 (± 26) 26 (± 18) 13 (± 9) S(1) SL(2) SiL(1) Coarse(3) Medium(1)
percent slopes
(CqB), n = 4
Cosad loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 168530 19 (± 7) 62 (± 27) 18 (± 12) 20 (± 20) S(1) LS(1) SL(2) L(1) C(1) Coarse(4) Medium(1)
percent slopes (CuA), n = 6 Fine(1)
Deerfield loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent 331 22 87 10 3 S(1) Coarse(1)
slopes (DeA), n = 1
Stafford fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 145600 26 (± 4) 75 (± 29) 12 (± 7) 13 (± 22) S(3) LS(3) C(1) Coarse(6) Fine(1)
percent slopes (StA), n = 7
Inceptisols (total), n = 4 157764
Amenia fine sandy loam,2 to 8 3185 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
percent slopes (AmB), n = 0
Massena gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 8479 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
percent slopes (McB), n = 0
Nellis fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent 39030 19 (± 6) 56 (± 27) 24 (± 10) 19 (± 17) SL(2) CL(1) Coarse(2) Fine(1)
slopes (NeB), n = 3
Nellis fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 107070 30 58 36 6 SL(1) Coarse(1)
percent slopes (NeC), n = 1
* Texture class abbreviations: S – sand; LS – loamy sand; SL – sandy loam; L – loam; SiL – silt loam; SCL – sandy clay loam; CL – clay loam; SiCL – silty clay loam; SC – sandy clay; C – clay; SiC –
silty clay. Values in parentheses are the number of soil core A horizons with the designated texture class.
** Soil health texture group (Moebius-Clune et al. 2016): coarse-textured (sand, loamy sand, sandy loam), medium-textured (loam, silt loam, silt, sandy clay loam) and fine-textured (clay loam,
COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS

silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, and clay) soils. Values in parentheses are the number of soil cores with the designated soil health texture group in the A horizon.
*** XX (± XX): Calculated mean value with the standard deviation in parentheses, unless only one soil core was taken from a specified soil map unit.
**** n/a: not applicable. No soil core was taken from the specified soil map unit.
5
6 E. A. MIKHAILOVA ET AL.

Table 4. Reported and estimated properties of the A horizon for soils present on the Willsboro farm based on SSURGO information
(modified from Cole et al. (2017).
Reported
Soil order / Soil series A horizon Texture Soil health
(Map unit symbol) thickness Sand* Silt* Clay* class** texture group***
cm ———————%————————
Alfisols
Bombay gravelly loam, 25 33-46-85 0-44-50 0-10-17 LS, SL, L Coarse
3 to 8 percent slopes Medium
(BoB)
Churchville loam, 23 0-40-52 28-36-65 7-25-40 L, SiL, SCL, CL, Medium
2 to 8 percent slopes SiCL, SC Fine
(CpB)
Covington clay, 23 0-22-45 0-28-65 27-50-90 CL, SiCL, C, Fine
0 to 3 percent slopes SiC
(CvA)
Howard gravelly loam, 25 24-45-85 0-43-50 0-12-27 LS, SL, L, SCL Coarse
2 to 8 percent slopes Medium
(HgB)
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 23 0-17-45 0-44-65 27-39-90 CL, SiCL, C, Fine
0 to 3 percent slopes SiC
(KyA)
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 23 0-17-45 0-44-65 27-39-90 CL, SiCL, C, Fine
3 to 8 percent slopes SiC
(KyB)
Entisols
Claverack loamy fine sand, 30 44-79-91 0-16-49 0-5-17 S, LS, SL, L Coarse
3 to 8 percent slopes Medium
(CqB)
Cosad loamy fine sand, 30 44-87-91 0-6-49 0-7-17 S, LS, SL, L Coarse
0 to 3 percent slopes Medium
(CuA)
Deerfield loamy sand, 25 44-79-91 0-17-49 0-5-17 S, LS, SL, L Coarse
0 to 3 percent slopes Medium
(DeA)
Stafford fine sandy loam, 25 44-64-91 0-31-49 0-5-17 S, LS, SL, L Coarse
0 to 3 percent slopes Medium
(StA)
Inceptisols
Amenia fine sandy loam, 23 33-57-85 0-32-50 0-11-17 LS, SL, L Coarse
2 to 8 percent slopes Medium
(AmB)
Massena gravelly silt loam, 3 23 15-32-85 0-56-80 0-12-17 LS, SL, L, SiL Coarse
to 8 percent slopes Medium
(McB)
Nellis fine sandy loam, 23 33-64-85 0-22-50 0-14-17 LS, SL, L Coarse
3 to 8 percent slopes Medium
(NeB)
Nellis fine sandy loam, 23 33-64-85 0-22-50 0-14-17 LS, SL, L Coarse
8 to 15 percent slopes Medium
(NeC)
* Values for sand, silt and clay are shown as L-RV-H (L – low value; RV – representative value; H – high value).
** Texture class and soil health texture group: see Table 1 footnote for abbreviations. Texture classes listed are possible based on
the range of values provided for sand, silt and clay percentages. The expected texture class in bold italics corresponds to the
representative values reported for sand, silt, and clay for each SMU.
*** Soil health texture groups are defined in the text. The groups listed are based on the possible soil texture classes of each SMU.
The expected soil health texture group in bold italics corresponds to the expected texture class having the representative values
of sand, silt, and clay.

(which can often contain material that is considered texture modifiers, e.g., gravelly) in contrast to
laboratory soil analysis, which requires soil to pass 2-mm sieve following the formal definition of soil
(≤ 2-mm in size).
The SHTG information can also be obtained from the taxonomic class category (family), for
example, Nellis (Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Eutrudepts), but soil texture
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 7

Table 5. Soil types within Willsboro farm and corresponding soil health texture groups (SHTG) derived from various sources.
SHTG from SMU
SHTG from based on texture
SMU based and surface texture SHTG from SHTG from field SHTG From
Soil series (Map unit symbol) on texture modifier Family data SSURGO
Alfisols
Bombay gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent Medium Coarse Coarse Coarse Medium
slopes (BoB)
Howard gravelly loam, 2 to 8 percent Medium Coarse Coarse n/a Medium
slopes (HgB)
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine
slopes (KyA)
Kingsbury silty clay loam, 3 to 8 percent Fine Fine Fine Medium Fine
slopes (KyB)
Covington clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes Fine Fine Fine Fine Fine
(CvA)
Churchville loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Medium Medium Fine n/a Medium
(CpB)
Entisols
Claverack loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
percent slopes (CqB)
Deerfield loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
slopes (DeA)
Stafford fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
slopes (StA)
Cosad loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
slopes (CuA)
Inceptisols
Amenia fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent Coarse Coarse Coarse n/a Coarse
slopes (AmB)
Massena gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 Medium Coarse Coarse n/a Medium
percent slopes (McB)
Nellis fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
slopes (NeB)
Nellis fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse
slopes (NeC)

Figure 2. Soil health texture groups (SHTG): a) from SSURGO results averaged over SMUs (coarse-textured: LS, SL; medium-textured: L,
SiL; fine-textured: SiCL), b) from soil core sample results averaged over SMUs (coarse-textured: S, SL; medium-textured: SCL; fine-
textured: CL, C). In the bottom figure only, some SMUs did not have soil cores taken from them and therefore appear as blank in the map.

class is not always listed in the family category (e.g., Covington (Very-fine, mixed, active,
mesic Mollic Endoaqualfs)) (Table 2, Mikhailova et al. 2016), therefore making it difficult
to use.
8 E. A. MIKHAILOVA ET AL.

Comparison of field and SSURGO data of topsoil texture for soil health indicator scoring at the
farm scale demonstrated that the SSURGO representative values for soil texture generally matched
measured mean values for all soil map units. (Table 3–5, Figure 2). The SHTG completely matched
for Entisols and Inceptisols, and sometimes matched for Alfisols. This can be explained by spatial
variability of data which has been documented in previous studies. Soil survey data often is the only
available information to assess soil health over larger areas, so soil health can be mapped across
different land uses, landscapes and climates (Harris, Karlen, and Mulla 1996) This study supports the
conclusion of Congreves et al. 2015) that texture and soil classification greatly influenced soil health
metrics.

Conclusions
This study examined the possibility of using soil survey data for the SHTG instead of manually
determined soil texture data at the 147-ha Cornell University Willsboro Research Farm, NY. The soil
survey database provided soil texture information in the soil map unit (SMU) name, taxonomic class
category (family), and detailed values (≤ 2 mm soil fraction) of percent sand, silt, and clay by soil
horizon. The SHTG completely matched for Entisols and Inceptisols, and sometimes matched for
Alfisols. The SSURGO representative values for soil texture did not completely match measured
mean values for all SMUs. Soil map unit has a potential of being used for rapid determination of
SHTG but includes surface texture modifiers for > 2 mm fraction (e.g., gravelly). The SHTG was not
always easily obtained from the family category and required knowledge of Soil Taxonomy.
Determination of SHTG for soil health assessments using soil survey database offers a cost-saving
option when it is not possible to collect spatially-intensive soil samples over large spatial areas. The
feasibility of using a surface texture modifier should be investigated as an important consideration
for developing scoring functions for the CASH or other soil health assessments. Soil survey
information can be a convenient and an inexpensive option of obtaining SHTG derived from the
soil map unit symbol based on postal address, on geographic location, which can be easily obtained
using GPS-enabled devices (e.g., mobile phone, GPS-enabled camera etc.) by everyone from the
general public to NRCS professionals.

Acknowledgments
Clemson University provided funding for this study. Technical Contribution No. 6530 of the Clemson University
Experiment Station. This material is based upon work supported by NIFA/USDA, under project number SC-1700541.

References
Andrews, S. S., and C. R. Carroll. 2001. Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem
management. Ecological Applications 11:1573–85. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[1573:DASQAT]2.0.CO;2.
Armenise, E., M. A. Redmile-Gordon, A. M. Stellacci, A. Ciccarese, and P. Rubino. 2013. Developing a soil quality
index to compare soil fitness for agricultural use under different managements in the Mediterranean environment.
Soil and Tillage Research 130:91–98. doi:10.1016/j.still.2013.02.013.
Brejda, J. J., T. B. Moorman, D. L. Karlen, and T. H. Dao. 2000a. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators:
I. Central and Southern High Plains. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:2115–24. doi:10.2136/sssaj2000.6462115x.
Brejda, J. J., D. L. Karlen, J. L. Smith, and D. L. Allan. 2000b. Identification of regional soil quality factors and indicators: II.
Northern Mississippi Loess Hills and Palouse Prairie. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:2125–35.
Brejda, J. J., T. B. Moorman, J. L. Smith, D. L. Karlen, D. L. Allan, and T. H. Dao. 2000c. Distribution and variability of surface
soil properties at a regional scale. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:974–82. doi:10.2136/sssaj2000.643974x.
Cole, S., E. Mikhailova, C. Post, C. Privette, M. A. Schlautman, and M. Cope. 2017. Comparing SSURGO data versus
geospatial field measurements to estimate soil texture and infiltration rate classes in glaciated soils. Communications
in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 48 (11):1309–18.
Congreves, K. A., A. Hayes, E. A. Verhallen, and L. L. Van Eerd. 2015. Long-term impact of tillage and crop rotation
on soil health. Soil and Tillage Research 152:17–28.
 COMMUNICATIONS IN SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT ANALYSIS 9

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2015. ArcGIS desktop: Release 10.3. Redlands, CA: Environmental
Systems Research Institute.
Fine, A. K., H. M. Van Es, and R. R. Schindlebeck. 2017. Statistics, scoring functions, and regional analysis of a
comprehensive soil health database. Soil Science Society of America Journal 81:589–601.
Gee, G. W., and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size Analysis. In Methods of soil analysis. Part 1, ed. A. Klute, 383–411.
2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. Madison, WI: ASA and SSSA.
Harris, R. F., D. L. Karlen, and D. J. Mulla. 1996. A conceptual framework for assessment and management of soil quality
and health. In Methods for assessing soil quality, eds. J. S. Doran, and A. J. Jones. Madison, WI, USA: SSSA, Inc.
Hussain, I., K. R. Olson, M. M. Wander, and D. L. Karlen. 1999. Adaptation of soil quality indices and application to
three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil and Tillage Research 50 (3–4):237–49. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(99)
00012-4.
Idowu, O. J., H. M. Van Es, G. S. Abawi, D. W. Wolfe, J. I. Ball, B. K. Gugino, and A. V. Bilgili. 2008. Farmer-oriented
assessment of soil quality using field, laboratory, and VNIR spectroscopy methods. Plant and Soil 307:243–53.
Idowu, O. J., H. M. Van Es, G. S. Abawi, D. W. Wolfe, R. R. Schindelbeck, B. N. Moebius- Clune, and B. K. Gugino.
2009. Use of an integrative soil health test for evaluation of soil management impacts. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems 24:214–24.
Karlen, D. L., M. D. Tomer, J. Neppel, and C. A. Cambardella. 2008. A preliminary watershed scale soil quality
assessment in north central Iowa, USA. Soil and Tillage Research 99:291–99. doi:10.1016/j.still.2008.03.002.
Mikhailova, E. A., A. H. Altememe, A. A. Bawazir, R. D. Chandler, M. P. Cope, C. J. Post, R. Y. Stiglitz, H. A. Zurqani,
and M. A. Schlautman. 2016. Comparing soil carbon estimates in glaciated soils at a farm scale using geospatial
analysis of field and SSURGO data. Geoderma 281:119–26.
Mikhailova, E. A., H. M. Van Es, R. F. Lucey, S. D. DeGloria, S. J. Schwager, and C. J. Post. 1996. Soil characterization
data for selected pedons from the Willsboro farm, Essex County, New York, 14853. Research Series R96-5. Ithaca,
New York: Department of Soil, Crop, and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University.
Moebius-Clune, B. N., D. J. Moebius-Clune, B. K. Gugino, O. J. Idowu, R. R. Schindelbeck, A. J. Ristow, H. M. Van Es,
J. E. Thies, H. A. Shayler, M. B. McBride, D. W. Wolfe, and G. S. Abawi. 2016. Comprehensive assessment of soil
health – The cornell framework manual, 3.1 ed. Geneva, NY: Cornell University.
Schipper, L. A., and G. P. Sparling. 2000. Performance of soil condition indicators across taxonomic groups and land
uses. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:300–11. doi:10.2136/sssaj2000.641300x.
Sogbedji, J. M., H. M. Van Es, C. L. Yang, L. D. Geohring, and F. R. Magdoff. 2000. Nitrate leaching and nitrogen
budget as affected by maize nitrogen rate and soil type. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1813–20.
Soil Survey Staff. 2017. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of agriculture. Soil Survey
Geographic (SSURGO) Database for [Survey Area, State]. Accessed March 23, 2017.
Svoray, T., I. Hassid, P. M. Atkinson, B. N. Moebius-Clune, and H. M. Van Es. 2015. Mapping soil health over large
agriculturally important areas. Soil Science Society of America Journal 79:1420–34. doi:10.2136/sssaj2014.09.0371.
Thien, S. J. 1979. A flow diagram for teaching texture by feel analysis. Journal of Agronomic Education 8:54–55.
Winowiecki, L., T.-G. Vågen, B. Massawe, N. A. Jelinski, C. Lyamchai, G. Sayula, and E. Msoka. 2016. Landscape-scale
variability of soil health indicators: Effects of cultivation on soil organic carbon in the Usambara Mountains of
Tanzania. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 105:263–74. doi:10.1007/s10705-015-9750-1.