florenceville area carleton county, new brunswick volume 1

SOILS OF THE
WOODSTOCK - FLORENCEVILLE AREA
CARLETON COUNTY, NEW BRUNSWICK
VOLUME 1
New Brunswick Soil Survey Report No. 14
I
9
I
Agriculture
Canada
Research
Branch
Y
SOILS OF THE
L
WOODSTOCK
- FLORENCEVILLE
AREA
CARLETON
COUNTY, NEW BRUNSWICK
:-
VOLUME 1
New Brunswick Soi1 Survey Report No. 14
Sherif H. Fahmy and Herbert W. Rees
Land Resource Research Centre
Fredericton, New Brunswick
LRRC Contribution
No. 88-85
Research Branch
Agriculture Canada
1989
-
\
+,.’ >
ERRATA
-
Please correct the following errors:
1. in table 7 pages 19 and 25 under drainage replace a11“NS” by “U”,
2. on the bottom of pages 18 to 31 (i.e.,: key to table) under
- Drainage, Deer, Ripping add: “S = Severe to very severe limitation” and
“U = Unsuitable”,
- Farm Roads replace: “S = Severe to very severe limitation” by “S = Suitable”
J
ii
Copies of tlis report are available froc
Agriculture Canada
LRRC, Soil Survey Unit
P.O. Box 20280
Fredericton Research Station
Fredericton, N.B.
E3B 427
New Brunswick Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 6OW
Fredericton, N.B.
E3B 5Hl
Caver photograph:
Carleton Soi1 Landscape
(Photo: Karel Michalica, NBDA)
!
...
L
111
.................................................................................................................................................................
iv
AckIKnvledgments. ...............................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................................
S-
vl
-Listoffigunsandtabks.
w
Introduction. ..... .... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ....... ....... ...... ..... .. ..... ...... ....... ....... ...... .... ...... ...... .... .. ..... ..... ...... .... ...... ..... ..... ............... 1
Location and extent ....................................................................................................................................................................
Climate .........................................................................................................................................................................................
Topography and drainage .........................................................................................................................................................
Geology ........................................................................................................................................................................................
Bedrock geology ..........................................................................................................................................................
Surficial geology ...........................................................................................................................................................
Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................................................................
2
2
2
2
4
4
‘4
4
.................................................................................................................................................
5
General descripthl
L
?
V
of ti
surveyed area. ......................................................................................................................................
soa development alld classtitioa
Soil development .........................................................................................................................................................................
Soi1 classification .........................................................................................................................................................................
5
5
...........................................................................................................................................................
Sutvey procedure ........................................................................................................................................................................
Mapping units ..............................................................................................................................................................................
6
6
6
soil associations ................................................................................................................................................................................
Soils developed in non-compact (ablation) tiil .....................................................................................................................
Juniper association ....................................................................................................................................................
Monquart association ................................................................................................................................................
Thibault association ...................................................................................................................................................
--LA Soils developed in compacted (lodgment) till .......................................................................................................................
Carleton association ..................................................................................................................................................
Holmesvllle association .............................................................................................................................................
Violette association ......................................... ..- ......................................................................................................
Plnder association ......................................................................................................................................................
.
Land types developed in organic deposits.. ...........................................................................................................................
Bog ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Fen ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Swamp .........................................................................................................................................................................
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
of soil map tits
for varions uses........................................................................................................................
Interpretation of soi1 map
Interpretation for
Interpretation for
Interpretation of soi1 map
Interpretation for
units for agriculture ...................................................................................................................
trop production .........................................................................................................................
agricultural engineering uses....................................................................................................
units for forestry use.................................................................................................................
tree production.. ........................................................................................................................
12
12
12
12
14
14
Survey and mappiag me-
<#
_ Interpretation
-
-
List of referem
.............................................................................................................................................................................
16
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
Appe*l
Soil map unit interpretations for selected uses....................................................................................................................
17
17
Appenda IL ......................................................................................................................................................................................
Morphological descriptions and analyses for soi1 associations.............................................................................................
33
33
iv
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND MAPS
n;igures
.......................................................................................................................
Figure 1. Woodstock-Florenceville survey area
Figure 2. Climatic regions of New Brunswick.. .......................................................................................................................
Figure 3. B&ock geology of the surveyed area.. ...................................................................................................................
Tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Climatic data summary ................................................................................................................................................
Percentage frequencies of weekly precipitation.. .....................................................................................................
Descriptive summary of soils......................................................................................................................................
Requirements for and installation limitations to subsurface drainage ................................................................
Requirements for and operational limitations to deep ripping ...........................................................................
Soil limitations to farm road construction ...............................................................................................................
J
2
2 ’
4 ,\J
31J
6
13 1
x4
14
1
mps
1 - Limestone ... .... ...... ..... ..... .. .... ...... ....... ... .. ..... ...... ..... .. ..... ..... ........ ...... ...... ...... ..... .. .... ...... ...........................................
in pocketlj
2 - Union Corner ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ...... .... ...... ....... ....... ...... ..... .. ..... ...... ..... ..... .. ..... ..... ...... .................................. in pocket
3 - Debec .... ..... ...... ..... .... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ....... ... .. ..... ....... ...... ...... ..... .. ..... .. ..... ...... ..... .................................................. in pocket
I
-
V
YACKINOWLED~~~~EN~~
-
ij
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of
the different people that helped directly or indirectly in the
r preparation of this survey. Special thanks are extended to
fir.
Kajetan Mellerowicz for helping in the production of this
report, the summer assistants who aided in tïeld work, and
to the typists of the Agriculture Canada Fredericton Research Station who took part in the typing of tti report. We
“also extend our appreciation to Mr. Charles Tarnocai of the
Agriculture Canada Land Resource Research Centre for hi
’ valuable suggestions during the correlation of this project
Land for editing the manuscript and coordinating the publication of the report. Mr. John MacMillan of the New Brunswick
Department of Agriculture also assisted in the initial soii
i
correlation phase. The soi1 maps were prepared under the
Y
.
direction of Mr. Brian Edwards of the Cartography Section,
Land Resource Rcsearch Centre. Analytical determinations
were conducted by Mr. Bernard Sheldrick and the Analytical Services Laboratory, Land Resource Research Centre.
Sincere thanks and appreciation are extended to Mr. Colin
Bowling, Timber Management Branch, N.B. Department of
Natural Resources and Energy, for writing the section
dealing with interpretations for tree production; and to Mr.
Gordon Owen and Mr. Paul Milburn, Agriculture Canada,
Research Station, Fredericton, and Mr. Clair Gartley and
Mr. Rare1 Michalica, N.B. Department of Agriculture, for
their valuable suggestions that helped in the interpretation
of the agricultural engineering uses section.
Y’
This soi1 survey covers an area of approximately 12,100
ha in the Woodstock-Florenceville area of Carleton County,
New’ Brunswick. The area is bordered by latitude 46’00
in the south, latitude 46’06’ in the north, longitude 67’ 35’
in the east, and the Canada-United States border in the west.
The average elevation of the surveyed area is
approximately 150-180 m above sea level. Slopes vary
between 2 and 30%. The soil parent materials are dominated by morainal deposits. These morainal deposits are
mainly lodgment tills with minor ablation till. They are
deposited over a variety of bedrocks of Silurian, Ordovician
and Cambrian origins in the form of slate, sandstone, shale
and limestone. A minor area is underlain by Devonian-aged
granite. The area is located in New Brunswick climatic
region number fïve. Mean annual precipitation is 91.3 cm
and mean annual temperature is 4.7’C. Cleared lands
account for 21% of the total mapped area. They are mostly
under hay or pasture. The forested land consists of 40% J
mixed wood, 30% softwood and 30% hardwood.
/
The minera1 soils are domina& by moderately well to
imperfectly drained Podzols but with significant areas of
poorly drained Gleysols. The soils are loamy textured with
10 to 30% coarse fragment content. Solum development
averages 40 to 70 cm. Subsoils are commonly dense and
compact, restrictmg bath root growth and water movement.
Soil depth to bedrock is variable, with large hectarages of
veneer phases mapped.
*j
u
’ ’
d
The mappcd soifs are dcscribed in detail and their 1
location and geographic distribution are displayed on the J
maps in the pocket on the inside of the back caver of the
report. The soi1 map units suitability for selected agriculture and forestry uses are presented in tables in the report.
bd
-
-
.Y
This soi1 survey report is the first in a series that deals
with the soils of the Woodstock-Florenceville area of New
* -Brunswick, Canada.
w
The Woodstock-Florenceville area forms the southern
half of the New Brunswick potato belt. It is located in
western New Brunswick, extending from the Canada-United
“j States border eastward to approximately lon itude 6’T”20’,
and from latitude 46’00’ north to latitude 468 35’.
4”
c
In 1944, PS. Stobbe and H. Aalund published the Soi1
Survey of the Woodstock Area at a scale of 1:63,360.
While this study provides an excellent overview of the
distribution and characteristics of the regional soil types it
does not provide the detailed soil resource information
required for present day agricultural land management
decision-making. It was thus necessary to resurvey the soils
of the area at a much larger scale of 1:20,000.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEYED AREA
LOCATION
AND EXTENT
The surveyed area is located southwest of Woodstock
- more specifically it occupies the area south of Poverty
Peak to north of Benton Ridge, from the plateau west of
the St. John River to the Canada-U.S.A. border. This
covers an area of approximately 12,100 ha as represented by
the following orthophoto map sheets:
Man sheet no.
10 46000 67600
10 46000 67700
10 46500 67600
Map sheet name
Limestone
Union Corner
Debec
mm occurring as rain and 240 cm of snow (240 mm of
vat.er equivalent).
V
Map index
reference no.
1
2
3
The location and extent of the survey area are shown
in Figure 1 and denoted by index reference nos. 1, 2 and 3.
1, 2. ___, 11
Climalic
rcgianr
1
Figure 2 Climatic regions of New Brunswick.
Mean annual temperature in the area is 4.7’C. July
is the warmest month averaging 19’C and January is the
coldest at -ll’C, resulting in a mean annual range of
temperature of 30°C. Extreme average monthly temperatures (maximum and minimum), however, have a range of
43’C, varying from a mean monthly maximum temperature
high of 26’Cin July to a mean monthly minimum temperature low of -17oC in Januaty and February. Mean annual
growing degree days (greater than 5’C) average 1782. Of
this total over 90% (1632 growing degree days) occur in the
May to September period. Precipitation is usually ample
during the growing season (Table 2) with most frequent
weekly precipitation rates of either 2.6-10 mm or 11-20 mm.
Between the beginning of May and the end of September
the probability of daily precipitation varies from 51 to 66%.
J
.
‘~i
-
Figure 1. Woodstock-Florenceville Area.
Map sheets 1, 2, and 3 are covered in this report.
TOPOGRAPHY
CLIMATE
‘IXe sutveyed area falls within New Brunswick climatic
region number 5 (Figure 2) as described by van Groenewoud (1983). Tables 1 and 2 summarize some of the climatic data reported in that region.
According to Bostock (1970), the area lies in the
Chaleur Upland Physiographic Region of New Brunswick. The topography is mainly undulating but there are some
areas of rolling topography and a few areas of hummocky _ .
meso-topography.
The areas of hummocky meso-topog_
raphy are located in the southwestern portion of the
surveyed area. They are denoted on the soils maps by
variable slope symbols. Hummocky meso-topography
Mean annual precipitation averages 913 mm, with 673
AND DRAINAGE
J
rable 1. CTimatic data summary for surveyed area.
*
-
vlean total rainfall (mm)*
%ïean monthly temp. C+C)*
Mean max. temp. (oc)*
‘&an min. temp. @Z)
-dean total snotill (cm)***
Mean growing degree days
(basis 5OC)
L
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
oct
Nov
Dec
Year
21
-11
-5
-17
53
-
14
-10
-4
-17
51
-
25
-4
2
-9
44
2
49
4
10
-2
18
31
66
Il
18
4
1
197
94
16
23
10
0
336
77
19
75
18
78
13
83
7
:2
0
445
1:
0
402
2;
0
252
11
3
98
64
1
6
-4
17
18
27
-8
-3
-13
53
1
673
4.7
240
1782
Source: van Groenewoud (1983). Climatic region no. 5 (1954-1979 data).
**Source: Atmospheric Environment Service (1982), Canadian Climate Normais, Volume 4, Degree Days Wcodstock
Station (1951-1980 data).
fiable 2 Percentage frequencies of weekly precipitation amounts (mm), 1886-1972*, Woodstock, New Brunswick
Week
legins
Tun
\Lc
n
jul
Aug
-7
-Sep
-
Percentage Frequencies
mm
0.252.5
mm
2.6
10
mm
ll20
mm
2130
mm
3140
‘mm
63
64
5s
59
13.0
12.7
17.0
9.8
16.7
20.0
6.4
13.7
m**
25.5
19.1
25.5
13.0
16.4
29.8
23.5
18.5
14.5
14.9
15.7
1.9
3.6
8.5
7.8
2.1
2.0
4
11
18
25
66
63
64
61
10.5
7.4
3.6
9.6
5.3
7.4
9.1
11.5
10.5
25.9
29.1
19.2
38.6
29.6
18.2
23.1
12.3
11.1,
23.6
17.3
8.8
7.4
5.5
9.6
7.0
3.7
5.5
5.8
5.3
1.9
2
9
16
23
30
63
59
64
64
63
16.7
5.9
1.8
10.9
7.4
7.4
9.8
10.9
12.7
13.0
18.5
27.5
21.8
21.8
25.9
18.5
29.4
27.3
23.6
22.2
22.2
15.7
23.6
18.2
14.8
3.7
3.9
10.9
7.3
7.4
7.4
2.0
1.8
5.5
5.6
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
6
13
20
27
60
62
62
56
19.2
13.2
9.4
16.7
9.6
15.1
7.5
6.3
21.2
20.8
34.0
27.1
15.4
22.6
18.9
18.8
13.5
11.3
17.0
14.6
3.8
7.5
9.4
2.1
7.7
7.5
1.9
4.2
5.8
3.8
6.3
1.9
2.1
3
10
17
24
53
53
51
56
19.6
8.7
9.1
18.8
19.6
6.5
11.4
6.3
13.0
26.1
17.4
28 3
A
25.0
25.0
22.922.9
10.9
15.2
20.5
16.7
2.2
15.2
4.5
6.3
4.3
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
4.3
2.2
2.2
U
-hrfay
Probab.
of
daily
precip.
%
7
14
21
0
* Source: van Groenewoud (1983).
**Numbers that are underlined represent the highest frequency.
4150
mm
5160
mm
6170
mm
5.5
1.8
7180
mm
Sl90
mm
Maximum
reported
91
precip.
in
mm
mm
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
3.6
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.1
32.5
63.5
121.4
62.5
72.1
109.5
78.0
111.0
161.8
138.7
59.7
46.0
81.3
86.4
92.2
69.9
96.3
60.5
68.1
73.2
72.1
impacts significantly on soil and trop management, especially machinery use.
of morainal deposits. There is a complex interrelationship
of lodgment tills with minor ablational tills which often
contain glaciofluvial deposits (Rampton and Paradis 1981). -.+
The average elevation of the surveyed area is ap- These morainal deposits are frequently underlain by a
proximately 150-180m (500-600 ft) above mean sea level weathered bedrock. The differentiation of ablational from
(AMSL) with the highest point being Oak Mountain at 2’7.5 lodgment tills becomes difficult, especially where the till is
relatively thin and may be affected throughout by soi1 “,$
m (900 ft) AMSL.
forming processes (Gadd 1973, Lee 1962).
Slopes vary between 2 and 30%. Small lakes and
Where calcareous and argillaceous sedimentary and ti
swamps occur in many of the depressions and valleys.
metasedimentary rocks dominate, the overlying till tends to
be of coarser texture, with sub-rounded to angular rock
GEOLOGY
fragments;
whereas, when shales and slates dominate, the
BEDROCK GEOLOGY
overlying
till
tends to be of fmer texture, with flat rock Venugopal(l979) classifies the different bedrock formafragments.
tions underlying the sutveyed area as follows:
- Devonian (most recent): mainly in the form of
Benton granite, green diabase and fine grained
gabbro.
- Silurian: in the form of slate, sandstone, shale, minor
limestone and conglomerate and siltstone.
- Ordovician-Silurian: in the form of limestone and
slate.
- Ordovician: in the form of green, intermediate to
mafïc volcanic flows, tuffs and breccia.
- Cambrian-Ordovician (oldest): in the form of
metaquartzite (light green), with thin interbeds of
light green to olive green slate, sandstone and
siltstone.
Figure 3 illustrates the bedrock geology of the surveyed
area.
VEGETATION
Cleared land accounts for approximately 2560 ha (6321
ac) or about 21% of the total area surveyed. The rest is
under forest caver.
Most of the cleared lands are either under hay or
permanent pasture. A small portion is in grain and only a
very few hectares are under potato culture.
Forest caver type varies not only .with parent material
and drainage, but is also dependent on whether or not the
land was once farmland and has since been abandoned and
let go back to forest. Agricultural Statistics (1982) show a
33% reduction in the amount of improved farmland in
Carleton County over the past 30 years. Field observations
during the survey corroborated this.
Well drained loamy and coarser textured soils on
elevated locations support mainly hardwood regrowth. Other
well drained soils grow mixed woods dominated by spruce.
Finer textured, well drained soils of Silurian origin support
mostly maple, yellow birch, and beech. Mixed softwoods
and hardwoods grow on intermediate slopcs with loamy and
finer textured soils, whereas softwoods dominate the level
and depressional sites where fïner textured poorly and
imperfcctly drained minera1 and organic soils occur. On
the poorly drained minera1 soils and organic swamps and
fens, cedar, spruce, fii and some larch, hemlock, red maple,
pine and ash are the dominant trees, with sphagnum moss
and sedges as under caver. Soils with intermediate drainage
usually have mixed woods of spruce, white birch and poplar.
Figure 3. Bedrock geology of the surveyed area.
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY
Landforms of the surveyed area are mainly composed
According to information collected by the Timber
Management Branch, N.B. Department of Natural Resources in 1985, 40% of the area occupied by forest is mixed
wood, 30% softwood, and 30% hardwood.
Y
5
SOIL DEVELOPMENT
-
AND CLASSIFICATION
%OIL DEVELOPMENT
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Soil profile formation is the end result of the interaction of the following factors: climate, vegetation, microor*ganisms, drainage, parent material and time. Soil profiles
cons% of “horizons” or layers of soil material approximately
parallel to the land surface which differ from adjacent layers
:-in properties such as colour, structure, texture, consistence
and chemical, biological and mineralogical composition as
indicated in the Canadian System of Soil Classification
; (Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soi1 Survey
7987).
The soils are classified according to The Canadian
System of Soil Classification (Agriculture Canada Expert
Committee on Soil Survey 1987).
Five soi1 orders are identified in the surveyed area.
They are:
Soils do not have Sharp boundaries, but rather grade
,from one into another over a transitional zone. Also, since
a soil has depth as well as area, its features may vary both
vertically and laterally. It is therefore necessary to arbitrar; ily choose ranges in features for each soil named.
y-r
Detailed descriptions of these orders cari be found in
the above mentioned publication.
Brunisolic Order
Gleysolic Order
Luvisolic Order
Podzolic Order
Organic Order
6
-
SURVEY AND MAPPING METHODS
SURVEY PROCEDURE
The survey was carried out at two levels of intensity,
one for cleared lands and the other for forested lands. The
inspection density (the amount of ground truthing, i.e.,
actual digs or observations) reflected these levels of intensity.
The inspection density in cleared cultivated lands averaged
one inspection for each tïve hectares (12 acres), whereas in
the forested lands it averaged one inspection for each 20
hectares (50 acres). The cleared cultivated lands are
therefore more precisely mapped.
Colour aerial photographs at a scale of 1:12,500 were
used for field mapping. E&h aerial photograph was pretyped
and then ground truthed. Field procedures involved describing the soils at preselected sites using a combination of free
mapping and the transect approach (Wang 1982). During
free mapping the soils are observed at strategic points on the
landform, such as crests, midslopes, toes and depressions, etc,
and other locations required to establish soi1 boundary lines.
The transect approach consisted of running transects perpendicular to contour lines (i.e., up and down slope) with
observations at fued intervals along the transect. Transects
were selected to cross a maximum number of pretyped soi1
units. Approximately 1500 observations were made. In.
minera1 soils, pits were usually dug to a depth of 1 m, or toY
a lithic (bedrock) contact in shallower soils. Organic soils
were observed to a depth of 1.6 m, or to the minera1 soi1
contact. Soil auger and probe holes were also used to__
obtain supplementary information wherever it was needed.
As the soil profile was exposed, depth and sequence of
soil horizons were recorded along with other soi1 and site”
information.
MAPPING UNIT-S
‘J
It is important here to reiterate that on soi1 maps, the
boundaries between soil units are shown by single lines,
however, soils rarely have such Sharp boundaries, but more
often form complex patterns on the landscape (Valentine 1981, Mapping System Working Group 1981). The mapping unit for thii report consists of a soi1 association, i.e., a
soil with a defined central concept (Table 3) together with “’
Table 3. Descriptive summary of the central concepts of soils found in the surveyed area.
soil
Name
Symbol
Lithology
(Parent
Material)
Soi1
Soi1
Coarse Texture*
Depth to Classifii
Colour Reaction Fragments (subsoil)
Compact
cation
(subsoil) (SO~U~/ (% in
(not bedrock)
subsoil)
subsoil)
Soils developed in noncompact (ablation) till
Juniper
Ju
granite, basalt yellow 4.5-5.51 20-50
brown 4.5-5.5 ’ cobbles, (2%
stones,
clw)
gravels, and
boulders
>l m
O.HFP
Comments
v. minor occurente
-.
-
,-
Monquart
Mo
sandstone andl yellow 5.5l5.5
or quartzite
brown to
with or wlo
olive
argillite, slate,
shale, shist,
and siltstone
20-40
SL-L
angular
(<20%
cobbles,
clay)
stones, and
gravels
>1 m
O.HFP
(but SI. firm
at 60 cm)
friableequivalent
of Holmesville
Thiiult
Th
weakly talc.
slate, shale,
siltstone, and
quartzite
10-30
L-SL
flat
(<20%
gravels
W
(channers)
>l m
coarse textured
equivalent of
Caribou. Resi- -dual material at
soil-bedrock in- - terface
-
yellow 4.5-5.51
brown to 4.5-6.0
olive
O.HFP
O.MB
O.SB
%.A
Table 3, Descriptive summary of the central concepts of soils found in the surveyed area. (continued)
l-d soil
Name
c )
6
Symbol
Lithology
(Parent
Material)
soil
Soi1
Coarse Texture*
Depth to Classf;
Colour Reaction Fragments (subsoil)
Compact
cation
(subsoil) (SO~U~/ (% in
(not bedrock)
subsoil)
subsoil)
Soik developed in compact Qogdment) tïll
Carkton
Cr
non to weakly vellow
+Y,
L
10-30
L. Sil-CL
channers (>20%
and ang.
clay)
gravels
> cobbles
<l m
usually
40-60 cm
O.HFP
O.SB
O.MB
Hohesvilk
Ho
sandstone ami/ yellow 4.5-6.01
or quartzite
brown to 4.5-6.0
with or w/o
olive
argillite, slate,
shist, shale,
and siltstone
15-30
angular
cobbles
>gravels
L-SL
(<20%
clay)
4 m
usually
v.tïrm at
40-60 cm
O.HFP
O.SB
Pïnder
Pi
granite with or yellow
w/o quartzite
brown
and/or sandstone
20-30
cobbles,
stones,
L-SL
cl m
usually
40-60 cm
O.HFP
Violette
Vi
sandstone andl yellow 4.5-6.01
or quartzite
brown to 4.5-6.0
with or w/o
olive
argillite, slate,
shist, shale,
and siltstone
15-30
angular
cobbles
> gravels
L-CL
(>20%
W
<l m
usually
v.firm at
30-50 cm
O.HFP
PZ.GL
v
Y
I
CI
- .
i
Land types devkpxi
BO
Bcs
:
4.5-5.5/
talc. shale, - br-own to 5.5-7.0
slate, and silt- olive
stone with or
w/o sandstone
4.5-5.51
4.5-5.6
Comments
heavy textured
equivalent of
Holmesville
in orgati deposits
sphagnum peat yellow
(underlain by to dark
either Woody
brown
or sedge peat)
<5.0
throughout
-
fibricmesic
>1.6 m TY or ME.F
(terric T or TME.F
phase
0.6-1.6 m)
ombrotrophic
enviroment due
to SI. eIevated
nature, vexy
poorly drained.
5.5-7.5
-
mesichumic
>1.6 m TY or Hu.M
(terric TY or Me.H
phase T.M or H
0.4-1.6 m)
eutrophic environment, very
poorly drained.
dark
5.5-7.5
brown to
reddish
brown
-
mesichumic
>1.6 m TY or Hu.M
(terric TY or Me.H
phase T.M or H
0.4-1.6 m)
eutrophic environoment,very
poorly drained.
G
t
Fen
Fe
sedge peat
S=nP
sw
Woody peat
.
.
2
h
* Texture
C - clay
L - loam
S - sand
Si - silt
dark
brown
** At subgroup level of classification
Minera1 soil (for the well drained members only):
O.HFP - Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol
O.MB - Orthic Melanic Brunisol
O.SB - Orthic Sombric Brunisol
PZ.GL - Podzolic Gray Luvisol
organic soil:
- Fibrisol
F
H - Humisol
Hu - Humic
M - Mesisol
Me - Mesic
T - Terric
TY - Typic
8
minor soil(s) inclusions amounting to as much as 20% of
the surficial area of the mapping unit. The soil association
is the quivalent of a soil catena--soils that have developed
on the same parent material but differ in drainage characteristics because of topographie position. The map symbol
identifies the soil association, the surface texture, a soi1
phase where applicable, an overall drainage class, a slope
class, and stoniness, boulderiness, and rockiness classes
where applicable. The mapping unit symbol and its-parameters are indicated in the map legend. The geographic
distribution of these map units is depicted on the soi1 maps
(inside back caver of report).
-
v
The major@ of the soils of the surveyed area have
formed on glacial till parent material. Minor inclusions of
colluvial and residual materials that strongly resemble the
overlying or underlying till were not differentiated.
kh
Soils which have developed on non-compacted (ablatioMI) till are the Juniper, Monquart and Thibault associations;
,soils which have developed on compacted (lodgment) till are
the Carleton, Holmesville, Violette and Pinder associations;
and soils which have developed on organic deposits are the
Rog, Fen and Swamp land types.
U
SOILS DEWLOBED
^ (ABLATIO~TILL
ke
IN IdONCOh4PACI
JUNIPER ASSCKWTION
The Juniper Association occupies the smallest area of
k any association mapped in this report. It covers only 30 ha.
It is mainly found in the Limestone map sheet, where it
occurs on hilltops and other well drained Upper slope
: positions.
t=
The soi1 parent material appears to be non-compacted
ablational or semi-residual material derived mainly from gray
f and red granite, basalts, felsites and volcanics. It often
contains 20-50% cobbles, stones, gravels and boulders. The
-fine earth materiai is a yellowish brown, friable to loose,
acidic sandy loam throughout. Depth of the solum ranges
‘& from less than 50 cm to more than 80 cm. This soi1 is
classified as an Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol.
Juniper soils are associated mainly with the Pinder
association, which they resemble very closely in the Upper
solum. They are differentiated on the basis of compactness.
Pinder soils have dense, compact subsoils, whereas Juniper
‘N soils are friable to loose. Pinder soils are alsp higher in clay
content. Juniper soils have a very limited capability for
agriculture. They are best suited for forestry. High coarse
- fragment content, droughtiness and topography are the main
limitations.
k
MONQUART ASSQCIATION
The Monquart Association also occupies a limited area
of only 57 ha, mainly in the Limestone mapsheet.
This soi1 has formed in relatively deep non-compact
- (ablational) till derived from sandstone and/or quartzite with
_ . or without slate and shale. The coarse fragment content is
20-40%, with angular cobbles and stones greater than gravels.
‘+ The fine earth material is acidic, sandy loam to loam
textured, slightly firm to friable at 60 cm, and a yellow brown
to olive colour (10 YR to 2.5 Y). It is classified as an
Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol and is associated with the well
drained members of the Holmesville, Violette and Carleton
Associations. Subsoil compactness is the differentiating
criteria, with the latter three associations being firm to very
firm in comparison to the friable to only slightly firm subsoil
of the Monquart Association.
These soils are very suitable for agriculture and could
be rated as Class 2 in the soil capability classification for
agriculture where the slopes are less than 5%.
THIBAULT ASSOCIATION
The Thibault Association covers about 42 ha. Most of
it is located in the Limestone map sheet area.
The parent material consists of a thin till and discontinuous residual material over bedrock, thus a large portion
of this association is mapped as a veneer phase. Origin of
the soil parent material in shallow (i.e., less than 50 cm to
bedrock) phases is difficult to confirm. Conceivably it may
have been deposited as a lodgment till which has sinue been
loosened by soil formation. The till is derived from weakly
calcareous quartzite, slate and shale. The soi1 is friable with
a loam to sandy loam texture, and coarse fragment content
of 10 to 30% flat gravels (channers). lhe parent material
is acidic to neutral in reaction and the colour is yellow
brown to olive (10 YR to 5 Y). The soi1 is classilïed as
either Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol, or Orthic Melanic or
Sombric Brunisol. These soils are generally considered to
be Class 2 in the soi1 capability classification for agriculture,
except ‘in the case of the shallow to bedrock phase, where
it may be downgraded to as low as a Class 5R, depending
upon depth to bedrock.
Thibault soils are usually associated with the Carleton
Association. Subsoil compaction is a differentiating criteria.
Thibault is non-compact; Carleton is compact.
SOTI DEVELOBED
(LODGMENT)
TILL
IN COMPACTED
CARLETON ASSOCIATION
The Carleton Association covers the largest portion of
the surveyed area, with some 4639 ha identified. The
parent material of this soi1 is considered to be a lodgment
till derived from non- to weakly calcareous slates and shales,
with or without a sandstone component.
The profile
texture is silt loam or loam to clay loam averaging more
than 20% clay. Coarse fragment content is 10-30%, with
channers and angular gravels being greater in abundance
than that of cobbles. The subsoil has a firm consistence
when moist. It is neutral to acidic in reaction. The
10
Carleton Association is usually associated with the Thibault,
Violette, Holmesville and Monquart Associations. It is
differentiated from the Thibault and Monquart soils on the
basis of its compact subsoil and higher clay content (fine
loamy versus coarse loamy). Holmesville soils are lighter
textured and of different lithology. The Carleton-Violette
division is primarily one of lithology and associatcd features.
The drainage of this association varies from well to
poorly drained. It occurrs over a wide range of topography.
Poorly drained Carletons on lower slopes and depressions
tend to be higher in pH, i.e. values of 6.5-7.5, than the well
to imperfectly drained members of the association, which are
usually less than pH 6.5. The well drained members of this
association are rated as Class 3D in the capability classification for agriculture, whereas the poorly drained members
are Class 5W.
Because of its wide range in drainage conditions, soils
of the Carleton Association include Orthic Humo-Ferric
Podzols (well to moderately well drained virgin sites), Orthic
Melanic or Sombric Brunisols (well to moderately well
drained cultivated lands), gleyed phases of the aforementioned on imperfectly drained sites, and Orthic or Orthic
Humic Gleysols under poorly drained conditions.
HOLMESVILLE
ASSOCIATION
The area covered by the Holmesville association
amounts to 3891 ha. The strongly to moderately compacted
lodgment till parent material is derived from sandstone
and/or quartzite mixed with vatying amounts of slate, schist
and shales. Coarse fragments account for 1530% in the
subsoil. They are angular and mostly cobble sized with
lesser amounts of gravels. The texture is sandy loamy to
loam with a clay content of less than 20%. Subsoil reactiori
is usually acidic, however, some poorly drained members
have neutral subsoil reactions due to inwashing of bases.
The compacted layer is firmer than that of the Carleton
Association. It is encountered at approximately 40-60 cm
from the surface. Soi1 colour ranges from yellowish brown
to olive (10 YR to 5 Y).
The soils associated with the Holmesville Association
are the Violette, Carleton and Monquart Associations.
Monquart differs from Holmesville in that it is non-compact
in the subsoil. Violette and Carleton are fine loamy in
particle size class whereas Holmesville is coarse loamy.
Carleton soils also differ in lithology.
Drainage of the
Holmesville association ranges from well to imperfectly to
poorly drained. Under virgin conditions, these drainage class
members are classified as Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols,
Gleyed Humo-Ferric Podzols, and Orthic or Orthic Humic
Gleysols, respectively.
In terrns of agricultural capability, the Holmesville
association cari be classed similarly to that of the Carleton
association, but with the additional limitation of “P” (stoniness). In the event that these stones are picked, these soils --cari be managed in a simiiar manner to soils of the Carleton
Association.
Cd
VIOLEITE A!XXXXATlON
The Violette Association covers about 1733 ha. ‘lhe
parent material was deposited as a strongly to moderately
compacted lodgment till. It is a loam to clay loam texture -with 15-30% coarse fragment content (similar in lithology to
that of the Holmesville association). The subsoil is tïrm
when moist, has a yellowish brown to olive colour (10 YR to 2.5 Y), and is acidic in reaction. The Violette Association is closely associated with the Holmesville Association
but is finer in texture.
It is also associated with the
Carleton Association which is similar in texture but different in lithological composition and consistency, Violette having
the fiimer subsoil of the two.
Impeded drainage is more the rule than the exception. The majority of these soils are imperfectly drained (Gleyed
Humo-Ferric Podzols or Gleyed Podzolic Gray Luvisols) or
poorly drained (Orthic Gleysols). Moderately well drained sites (Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols or Podzolic Gray Luvisols) are less abundant.
Well drained soils are rated Class 4DW (undesirable structure and permeability and seasonal wetness) in the
capability classification for agriculture, thus requiring slightly .
more demanding management than the Carleton and Holmesville associations.
PINDER ASSOCIATION
This association is mainly found in the southeast section of the Limestone map sheet. The area covered by the
Pinder Association amounts to approximately 627 ha.
These soils are usually well to imperfectly drained,
moderately shallow (50-100 cm to bedrock), stony and rocky.
The parent material was laid down as compacted lodgment
till of granitic lithology with lesser amounts of green
quartzite and/or sandstone. It has a sandy loam to loam
texture with 20-30% cobbles, stones, gravels and boulders,
a firm moist consistence and a yellowish brown colour.
Subsoil reaction is acidic.
The soils are classified as Orthic or Gleyed Humo-Ferrit Podzols, depending upon drainage, and are usually
classed as Class 5PR (stoniness and rockiness) or worse in
the soi1capability classification for agriculture because of the
stoniness and bedrock problems. These soils are best suited
for forest production,
-
.-.’
--~
_
11
c,
LAND TYPES DEVELOPED IN ORGANIC
DEPOSI’IS
Organic soil land types are subdivided into Bogs, Fens
and Swamps. The Swamps have the highest area coverage
- amounting to approximately 680 ha. The Bogs and Fens
caver much smaller areas, approximately 76 ha each. In
general these soils are poorly to very poorly drained and of
no immediate agricultural importance.
-
SZZ
BOG
In bogs the dominant peat material is Sphagnum moss
mixed with a small amount of leaves and Woody material
from Ericaceous shrubs, spruce and tamarack. This material
is usually underlain by either Woody or sedge peat. Due to
the slightly elevated nature of the bog landform, it tends to
be disassociated from nutrient rich ground water.
The peat is yellowish to dark brown in colour, fibric to
1 mesic in decomposition, with a rubbed fiber content usually
L greater than 50%, loose and spongy in consistence, and the
pH (C&l ) is less than 5. - Thë minera1 soil contact is
usually greater than 1.6 m, but in the terric phase is at
0.6-1.6 m below the surface. Bogs are poorly to very poorly
drained. They are classified as either Typic or Mesic
Fibrisols for the deeper peats and as either Terric Fibrisols
or Terric Mesic Fibrisols for the shallow to minera1 soil
- phases.
: iFEN
The dominant peat material is the Carex spp. with
v
some Eriophorum spp. These deposits are considered
eutrophic (nutrient rich) in nature due to their close
association with minera1 rich ground waters. The peat
material is moderately decomposed but the plant remains
are still readily identifiable by the naked eye and usually
contain large amounts of very fine roots of the above plant
species. Rubbed fiber content averages less than 10% to as
much as 25%. The pH is greater than 5 and the bulk
density varies from 0.1-0.2 g/cm . These soils are usually
found along water courses--thus the name stream fen and
shore fen. They are classified as Typic or Humic Mesisols
or Typic or Mesic Humisols for deposits deeper than 1.6 m
and as Terric Mesisols or Terric Hurnisols for peats with a
minera1 soil contact at 0.4-1.6 m below the peat surface.
SWAMP
Peat materials found in swamps have formed from
forest vegetation on poorly to very poorly drained sites.
The peat is composed of wood, leaves, needles, feather
mosses and other forest debris. Strong water movement
from the deposit margins or from minera1 soils results in a
nutrient rich environment.
This peat is generally moderately to well decomposed
but has a slightly matted appearance. The colour is dark
brown to reddish brown, pH greater than 5, and the peat
material is in a mesic to humic state of decomposition with
a rubbed fiber content that averages 10%.
Where depth to the minera1 soil contact is greater than
1.6 m swamps are classified as either Typic or Mesic
Humisols or as Typic or Humic Mesisols. Swamps having
a depth of 0.4-1.6 m to the minera1 soi1 contact are classified as Terric phases of the above listed taxa.
12
INT’ERPRETATION OF SOIL JMAP UNI33 FOR VARIOUS USES ;Soil sut-vey interpretations are predictions of soi1 behaviour for specified land uses and specified management
practices. They are based on the soi1 and site properties
that directly influence the specified use of the land. The
interpretive methods used are outlined below. Soi1 map
unit interpretations for selected agricultural and forestry
uses are listed in Appendix 1.
INTERPRETATION OF SOIL MAP UNITS
FOR AGRKXJLTURE
INTERPRETATION
FOR CROP PRODUCI-ION
In this section the soi1 map units are interpreted for
agricultural crops of economic importance in the Province
of .New Brunswick. Soi1 and site criteria such as texture,
pH, available water, bulk density, rooting depth, drainage,
slope, stoniness and rockiness were used to establish the
suitability of each map unit for alfalfa, apples, barley, general
field crops, potatoes, spring cereals, timothy, general vegetable crops and winter wheat production. These interpretations are based on established guidelines for agriculture as
liited in the ‘Compendium of Soi1Survey Interpretive Guides
Used in the Atlantic Provinces” (Atlantic Advisory Committee on Soil Survey, 1987). Tire soils are evaluated and
placed into interpretive groupings, which are expressed in
terms of suitability. Three suitability classes are used:
Suitable: The soil map unit is relatively free of problems,
trop yiekis are high under optimum management, and costs
of development or maintenance are not high.
Modexately Suitable: The soi1 map unit has limitations th’at
do not meet some of the requirements for trop production.
Some of these limitations cari be overcome by special
management techniques. The costs of developmcnt and
maintenance are greater than the suitable rating.
Not Suitablez The soi1 map unit has one or more restrictive properties that make development costs impractical and
prohibitive.
INTERPRETATION
FOR AGRICULTURAL
ENGINEERING USES
1. Requirements for and installation limitations to subsurface drainage: The purpose of agricultural drainage is to
provide an aerated root zone environment suitable for plant
growth and to ensure trafficable conditions for timely field
operations. Several factors may lead to excess soi1 water-high annual precipitation, soils with massive or dense subsoils
which cause slow downward movement of water resulting in
perched water tables, and low lying areas that are poorlydrained because of either naturally high water tables or
inflow of seepage water. Benefits of subsurface drainage
include: promotion of earlier warming and drying of thesoi1 in the spring; deeper root penetration and thus
healthier and more vigorous plant growth; improved soi1
structure and workability; increased infiltration and reduced
surface runoff; less soi1 heave; and the potential to grow awider range of crops. Agricultural land drainage is discussed
in detail in “Farm Drainage in the Atlantic Provinces”
(Advisory Committee on Soi1 and Water, 1986). The neecifor land drainage and the limitations to subsurface “tile
drainage” are shown in Table 4. Drainage requirements are
based on existing natural drainage conditions. Some crops
are more tolerant of off drainage than are other crops. Thedrainage requirements described in Table 4 Will allow for a
wide range of crops including those that are more demanding. Less demanding crops Will also benefit from improved. _
soil drainage conditions, but to a lesser extent.
Tile
drainage installation limitations relate to soi1 and lanclscape
properties that affects tube installation or otherwise impact upon the efficacy of the system. These properties are depth
to bedrock, depth to a compact, slowly permeable subsoil;
land gradient (slope); and presence of bedrock exposures.
Four degrees of limitations are used:
Slight to None: The soi1 is relatively free of problems or
the limitations cari be easily overcome.
Moderate: Limitations exist, but they cari be overcome with
good management and careful design. Input costs should be
carefully assessed.
.Severe to Very Severe: Limitations are severe enough to
make use or application questionable, because of costs of
overcoming them or of continuing problems expected with-’
such use. Severe to Very Severe does not mean that the
soil must be excluded from a particular use or application,
but it indicates the difficulty of attempting to put the soi1 to._
that use or application.
Umuitable: Although modern equipment and knowledge
make it possible to overcome most limitations, this limitationmeans that the input required to utilize soils rated as
unsuitable is too great to justify the effort under existing
conditions.
The degree of limitation (Slight to None, Moderate, Severe _
to Very Severe, or Unsuitable) is determined by the most
restrictive or severe rating assigned to any of the listed soil/landscape properties.
-
-
13
-Table 4. Rcquirements for and installation limitations to subsurface drainage.
a) Requirement for drainage:
Drainage class
Rapid to well
Moderately well
Imperfect to very poor
‘L-M:
II
Degree of rcquirement
not required
may be required
required
,.
b) Installation limitation:
1 I
W’
SoiULandscape
propertics
slight to
none
moderate
severe to
very severe
Depth to bedrock
Depth to compact
Slope %
Rockiness class
(bedrock exposure)
>lOOcm
>loo cm
2-15
O-100 cm
30-1OOcm 40 cm
<2
>15
Rl*
>Rl
unsuitable
40
cm
*sec: soi1 map legend for explanation of codes.
y 2 Requirements for and Operational Limitiations to Deep
%Ripping: Compacted subsoils present a serious limitation to
trop production in the survey area. Compacted subsoils
have developed by natural processes and commonly extend
through the entire subsoil, with the Upper boundary often
as shallow as 30 cm. Compactcd subsoils retard trop
development by impeding root penetration, slowing downward water movement, restricting water storage capacity, and
limiting oxygen and nutrient supply. Compacted subsoils
also increase the risk of winter trop injury and soi1 erosion
Table 5. Requirements for and operational limitations to deep ripping.
a) Requirement for deep ripping:
”
Depth to compact*
layer
Degree of requirement
.
not required
may be required
required
X55 cm
40-65 cm
c40 cm
,‘-r:
*Compact:
bulk density > 1.6 g/cm3
b) Operational limitiation:
hl
Soil/Landscape
properties
C
I
Slope %
Rockiness
Depth to bedrock
Drainage
Subsoil texture*
slight to
none
<9
>lOO cm
rapid-mod. well
SL, L, SIL
moderate
9-15
Rl
50-100 cm
imperf.-pour
SICL, CL, SCL,
c, SIC, SC
*sec: Expert Committee on Soi1 Survey (1982).
severe to
very severe
>15
>Rl
<50 cm
very poor
HC
14
(Michalica, 1984). Deep ripping or subsoiling is a form of
deep tillage that loosens the compacted subsoil withoutinverting soil layers. Table 5 (previous page) indicates the
requirement for and operational limitations to deep ripping.
The need for conducting deep ripping is a function of the
presence of a compacted subsoil and the depth to the
compacted subsoil. The requirements for decp ripping have
been established to allow for a wide range of potential
crops, many of which have requirements for a deep available
rooting zone. Less demanding crops, such as timothy and
clover, are capable of successful growth on even the more
shallow soils (i.e., less than 40 cm to compact), but the
range of crops that cari be profitably cultivated on these
soils is restricted by the limitcd available rooting zone and
related properties. Operational limitations ta decp ripping
are: slope, rockiness, depth to bedrock, drainage, and
subsoil texture. Three degrees of limitation (slight to none,
moderate, and severe to very severe) are rated for operatio-
na1 limitations to deep ripping. Class defmitions for these
degrees of limitation are the same as for subsurface drainage, as previously defined.
3. Soil Limitation to Farm Road Construction: On-farm
roads are requit& in both field and forest areas to provide
access to the work zone. Construction and maintenance
costs of on-farm roads cari be minimazed by laying out a
system or network that takes advantage of more suitable
routes, avoiding problem areas. It is assumed that these
roads will be constructed from on-site materials. Criteria
used in rating soils for limitations to farm road construction
are listed in Table 6. Properties considered are: drainage,
subsoil texture, slope, stoniness, and rockiness. Three
degrees of limitation (slight to none, moderate, and severe
to very severe) are listed and defimed as per the classes for
subsurface drainage.
--
-
-
Table 6. Soi1 limitations to farm road construction.
Soil/Landscape
properties
slight to
none
moderate
severe to
very severe
Drainage
Subsoil texture
Slope %
Stoniness*
Rockiness*
rapid-mod. well
s, Ls, SL, L
<8
SO-S3
RO-R2
imperfect
SIL, SCL, SICL
8-15
s4
R3, R4
poor-very poor
CL, c, SIC
>15
SS
R5
* see: soi1 map legend for explanation of codes.
INTERF’TETATION OF SOIL MAP UNITS
FOR FORESTRY USE
by C. Bowling1
lNew Brunswick Depertment
Energy
of Natural Resources and
INTERPRETATION
FOR TREZ PRODUCPION
It is obvious to a11that New Brunswick is a forested
province; even in the ‘potato belt’, many farms have both
cultivated tïekis and woodlots. What may not be as obvious,however, is the fact that New Brunswick is facing a
wood supply shortage that is predicted Will occur in approximately 15 years and could last for up to 20 years. This
is due to a lack of stands in the 20 to 40 year age classes.
In order to reduce this ‘gap’ in wood supply, we are relying
upon having sufficient volume available from plantations.
There has recently been an attempt to quant@ the
growth of plantations on a variety of soi1types. This work
has been carried out within the Timber Management
Branch, New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources
and Energy. The interpretation tables in Appendix 1
contain best estimates of the growth of black spruce, white
spruce, and balsam fm for each soi1 map unit contained in
this soi1 survey report. These estimates assume an initial
plantation density of 2000 trecs per hectare with zero losses.
Each ce11 in the table contains a code from 1 to 7.
The classes are as follows:
12 3 4 5 6 7-
27.5-32.5 years to operability
32.5-37.5 years to operability
37.5-42.5 years to operability
42.5-47.5 years to operability
47-5-52.5 years to operability
52.5-57.5 years to operability
>57.5 years to operability
These codes represent classes of time it would take, from
the date of planting, for that particular plantation to
bccome operable. A stand is considered operable when the
averagetree volumeis 0.12 m3. A tree of this volume
would be approximately 18 cm in diameter at 1.3 m above
the ground.
-
Y
15
For example, the soil map unit HoLI2fSZ has the
LI foilowing ratings: bS - 3; WS - 1; bF - 3. This means that
both a black spruce (bS) and a balsam fir @F) plantation
would become operable between 37.5 and 42.5 years after
- planting on that soil. A white spruce (wS) plantation,
however, would be operable in less than 33 years.
Many different soil units have the same ratings for
growing plantations. There is insufficient data to show
growth differences for many of the variables describing the
soil map units. Drainage was the dominant criterion upon
which the ratings are based.
16
LILFT OF REFERENCES
Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soi1Survey. 1987.
The Canadian System of Soi1 Classification, Research Branch
Publication 1646, 164 pages.
Agricultural Statistics. 1982. N.B. Dept. of Agriculture and
Rural Development, 67 pages.
Atlantic Advisory Committee on Soi1and Water. 1986. Farm
Drainage in the Atlantic Provinces. Atlantic Provinces
Agricultural Co-ordinating Committee, Atlantic Committee
on Engineering Publication No. 3. AGDEX 752. 18 pages.
Atlantic Advisoty Committee on Soi1 Survey. 1987. Compendium of Soi1 Survey Interpretive Guides Used in the Atlantic
Provinces. 149 pages.
Bostock, H.S. 1970. A provisional physiographic map of
Canada. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 64-35, 1964.
and Geol. Sui-v. Cari. Map 1245A.
Expert Committee on Soil Survey. 1982. The Canadian Soi1
Information System (CanSIS) Manual for describing soils in
the field, Day, J., Editor, LRRI Contribution No. 82-52.
Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, 165 pages,
Gadd, N.R. 1973. Quaternary geology of Southwest New
Brunswick With Particular Reference to Fredericton Area.
Geol. Sur~. Car-r., Paper 71-34, 31 pages.
Lee, HA. 1962. Surficial Geology of Canterbury, Woodstock, Florenceville and Andover Map Areas, York, Carleton
and Victoria Counties, New Brunswick. Geol. Surv. Cari.,
Prelim. Paper 62-12, 8 pages.
Mapping System Working Group. 1981. A Soi1 Mapping
System for Canada. LRRI Contribution No. 142. Research
Branch, Agriculture Canada, 94 pages.
Michalica, K. 1984. Subsoiling to Improve Compacted Soils in New Brunswick. Factsheet Order No. 84-007, AGDEX
514/24. Plant Industry Branch, New Brunswick Department
of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Rampton, V.N. and S. Paradis. 1981. Quaternary Geology
of Woodstock Map Area (21 J) New Brunswick. Map
Report 81-1. Minera1 Development Branch, N.B. Dept. Nat. Resources, 37 pages.
Sheldrick, B.H. 1984. Analytical Methods Manual. LRRI -Contribution No. 84-30. Research Branch, Agriculture
Canada, 189 pages.
Stobbe, P.S. and H. Aalund. 1944. Soi1 Survey of the Wood- stock Area, New Brunswick. Dominion of Canada-Department of Agriculture, 62 pages.
Valentine, K.W.G. 1981. How Soi1 Map Units and Delinea- .’
tions Change With Survey Intensity and Map Scale. Cari. J.
Soi1 Sci. 61: 535-551.
van Groenewoud, H. 1983. Summary of Climatic Data
Pertaining to the Climatic Regions of New Brunswick.
Canadian Forestry Service, Information Report M-X-146, Maritimes Forest Research Centre, 70 pages.
Venugopal, D.V. 1979. Geology of Debec Junction-Gibson
Millstream-Temperance Vale, Meductic Region. Map Report 79-5. Minera1 Resources Branch, Dept. of Nat. Resources,
New Brunswick, 36 pages.
Wang, C. 1982. Application of Transect Method to Soi1 Survey Problems. LRRI Contribution No. 82-02. Research
Branch, Agriculture Canada, 34 pages.
-
-
17
-APPENDIX
1
‘?3OlL MAP UNlT lINT’ERPRETATIONS FOR
SELECTED USES
Thii section lists soil map unit interpretations for: alfalfa,
-barley, field crops, potatos, spring cereals, timothy, vegetable
4
crops, winter wheat, subsurface drainage, deep ripping, farm
roads, and tree production (black spruce, balsam fir, and
*hite sPrua)-
Table
18
7.
Soi1
map
unit
interpretations
for
selected
Agricultural
Crop
Soi1
Unit
Map
Symbol
AC
HA
f
a
e
s
e
y
Production
agricultural
and
forestry
Use
Engineering
uses.*
Forestry
Applications
Tree
Use
Production
lpe
dss
1
-
-
-
-
--
-,
-
Cwp
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
qhe
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slightto
No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Applications:
Tree
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very
Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
before
use.
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
US q White
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
-
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
I
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Di
ep
eD
R-S
1MR-M
1
MS
1 R-S
/MR-M
1
MS
r
I
I
T
W
SCi
I
s
II
II
I1
Cr(m)L/6cS3Rl
1 69.8
1 28.221NS(NSIMSlMS
INS(MS
IMSINS
1M.S
Cr(m)L/6dS2
1 33.9
1 13.72)MSINSjMS[MS
INSIMS
IMSINS
jM!j
I
I
II
il,
Cr(m)L/7bS3Rl
83.1
11
III,
33.62
NS NS NS NS
II
NS NS
(cont'd)
NS NS
1Tree
_ Applications
. .
D
r
a
i
n
P
t
uSeS*
NS
19
Forestry
IEnaineerinq
0
forestry
Use
Cro. D Production
A
1A
6
fpaFCapemVCiW
aorirtrroernh
and
Use
Production
R
R-S
F
MR-M
R
o
Operability
Glass
MS
II
1,
I
r
I
I
1 ~~.~O~NSINS(NSINS
INS(NS
INSINS
(NS
1 R-S
1MR-S
1
NS
~~.~~(Ns[Ns(Ns(Ns
(NS(NS
INSINS
INS
1 R-S
IMR-S
1
NS
Cr(m)L/8cS1
1 38.6
Cr(m)L/9bS1
1 93.121
Cr(m)L/9bS2
16.5
6.67
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-S
MR-S
NS
Cr(m)L/9bS2R1
26.7
10.78
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-S
MR-S
NS
Cr(m)L/9cS2
1 44.461
18.0
INSINS
INSINS
INS
1 R-S
IMR-s
1
NS
7
7
7
Cr(m)SiL/lOaS1
1177.4
1 71.791Ns]Ns\NsINS
INSINS
(NS~NS
INS
1 R-S
IMR-s
1
NS
7
7
7
I
I
II
11
I
I
I
I
S
#4
3
3
_
MS
5
6
6
Cr(m)SL/3b-dS2
124.5
INSINSINSINS
IIII
50.39
MS S
S
S
S
.
S
.
MS
S
.~.
MS MS NS
MR-S
R-S
MR-M
.~..
MR-S
Cr(pILl6bSp
22.1
8.94
MS NS MS MS
Cr(s)CoL/3dS3R1
18.6
7.50
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
NS
MR-S
S
4
3
3
Cr(s)gL/ZcS2
29.64
12.0
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
MS NS
NS
NR
MR-S
S
4
3
3
Cr(s)gL/ZeSlRl
51.8
20.96
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
NR
MR-S
MS
5
4
4
Crop
Production:
= Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Uot Suitable
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
7he
ratfng
does
NS MS
S
.
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slightto
No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Tree
Applications:
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
before
use.
Production:
bS = Black
Spruce
bF = Balsam
Fir
WS = White
Spruce
Table
7.
Soi1
map
unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
and
forestry
uses*
--
(cont'd)
20
Agricultural
Crop
Production
Use
Forestry
Engineering
Applications
Tree
Use
Production
_
R
Di
Operability
Class
MR-S
(
MR-M-S
S-MS
4
5
5
_
--
-
Cmp
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderatelv
NS = Not Suitable
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
rhe
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Reouired
= MaY Be Required
= Mot Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Tree
Applications:
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Verv
Severe
Limitation
*
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
WS = White
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
-
-
.
investigation
before
use.
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
I
I.-.
A
1A
f
a
11
f
a
Area
Soi1
Unit
Map
Symbol
AC
347.3
Cr(v)L/3cS2
I
Cr(v)L/3cS2Rl
HA
B
a
r
1
e
y
p
p
e
s
FCa
irt
eoo
lpe
dss
Production
..
:,:!
P
T
t SCi
pem
rro
iet
nah
gly
and
forestry
uses*
Use
(COnt'd)
21
Forestry
Engineering
Applications
Tree
Use
Production
w
VCIW
ernh
gote
tpea
.Srt
1140.56 MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS
Il,,
I
18.04
1 44.7
II
MS MS MS MS
,1
MS MS
I
MS MS
I
MS
W-S
MR-M-
Cr(v)L/6bSgRI
157.2
63.61 NS NS MS MS NS MS MS NS
MS
R-S
MR-M-
Cr(vW6cSl
169.5
68.56 MS NS MS MS NS MS MS MS MS
R-S
MR-M-
I
11.3
Cr(v)L/6cS2
Cr(vIL/dcSpRl
293.2
Cr(v)L/6cSgRl
18.6
Cr(v)L/6dSlR2
98.2
Cr!v)L/6eSqRl
Cr(v)L/9bS2
..: Crop
118.62
39.74
III,
does
MS
R-S
MR-M-
MS
5
6
6
NS MS
MS MS
MS
R-S
MR-M.
MS
5
6
6
MS
R-S
MR-M.
MS
5
6
6
NS
R-S
MR-S
MS
5
6
6
R-S
MR-S
MS
5
6
6
R-S
MR-S
NS
7
7
7
NS NS
NS NS
19.96’NS NS NS NS US NS
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
rating
MSMS
XI
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
%e
NS NS NS NS
7.84 NS NS NS NS
1
49.4
MS NS MS MS
NSMS
7.50 NS NS MS MS NS MS MS NS
19.4
I
,>
4.57MSNSMSMS
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Rippinq:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
NS NS
NS NS
II
NS
I
NS NS
r
NS
Tree
Applications:
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
before
use.
Production:
bS = Black
SprUCe
bF = Balsam
Fir
wS = White
Spruce
Table
22
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretatlons
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
l
Area
Soi1
Unit
Map
Symbol
CrgcL/9aS2
CrgL/3cSl
AC
HA
24.6
9.95
1 62.9
forestry
uses*
(cont'd)
Use
Production
I,:.”
and
Forestry
Engineering
Applications
Tree
A"I
:
1A
B
t
f
fpaFCapemVCiW
p a FCa
a P rr irt
11
1 eoo
.f
e e lpe
a s y dss
NS NS NS NS
T
SCi
pem
rro
iet
nah
gly
wW
VCiW
ernh
gote
tpea
.srt
NS NS
NS NS
NS
MS S
IFISIS
1sS IMS
MS 1sS
I
1,
I
,II,
CrgL/3cS2
49.2
19.89
MS MS S
S
MS S
CrgL/4(c-d)S2
49.89
20.20
MS MS S
S
MS s
CrgL/CaS2
5.7
2.29
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
CrgL/gbS3
65.0
26.28
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
0
:r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Di
ep
ep
Pi
R-M
MR-S
1 MI-N
MR-N
MR-N
IMR-N
;
-_
(S iMS fm
CrgSiL/3cS2
1 13.0
CrgSiL/4bS3
30.7
12.42
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
CrgSiL/6cSl
23.8
9.61
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS MS
5.24(~sl~sIs
1s
5.75
MS NS MS MS
CrgSiL/odSl
14.2
I
I
CrgSiL/9bS3
( 48.6
1 19.64lNSINSINSINS
1
I
CrL/lOaSl
3.7
I
1.47
CrL/2dS2
4.9
1.95
CrL/2eS2
30.8
CrL/EeS3
CrL/3bSl
,
,
IMSIS
,
1
I
NS MS
MS NS
INSINS
,
,
S
,
NS NS
,
1
1s
[ I+N
[MR-N
1 R-M
IMR-S
,
I
NS
7
7
7
MS
INS
,
NS NS
,
,
MS
MS MS
MS MS
12.47
NS MS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
8.0
3.24
NS MS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
MS
4
3
3
14.3
5.75
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
S
4
3
3
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
S
4
3
3
CrL/3bS2
248.4
CrL/3bS3
23.7
9.59
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
S
4
3
3
CrL/3cSl
1 33.3
13.46
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
S
4
3
3
CrL/3cS2
139.4
56.35
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
S
4
3
2
Crop
100.48
MS S
,
1s INS
lNS[NS
NS NS NS NS
I
I
-
R
1
I
Production
.‘:!
MS MS S 1sS
1 25.45
25.45jnsI~s]s
1
Use
Engineering
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slightto
No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
Applications:
Tree
B. Farm Roads:
S = Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
Production:
bS = Black
Spruce
bF = Balsam
Fir
WS = White
Spruce
-
,--
-
-
*The
rating
does
not
preclude
the
need
for
on-site
investigation
before
use.
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
Production
Soi1
Unit
FCa
SCi
oem
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
D
B
a
i
uses*
Applications
D
r
Tree
Use
Production
R
W
Di
f
VCiW
(cont'd)
Forestry
Engineering
T
A
forestry
Use
P
A
1
f
and
R
Map
Symbol
CrL/6cS2
‘CrL/6cS3
CrL/6dSl
CrL/6dS2
CrL/7cSl
CrL/8bS2.
CrL/9a
CrL/9aS1
CrL/9aS2
CrLPcSl
CrL/kSp
CrL/9dS]
CrSciJlOaS1
CrSiL/lOaS3
CrSiL/lObS2
CrSiL/EcSl
CrSiL/ZeS2
CrSiL/2fSl
CrSii/3cS1
CrSiL/3cS2
CrSiL/6aSl
CrSiL/6bS2
CrSiL/6dS2
/ CrSiL/ïbS2
...'.
~ CrSiL/icSj
CrSiL/BbSl
CrSiL/9bSl
CrSiL/9bS2
CrSiLPcSp
Fe
461.7
Crop
187.0
Engineering
Phduction:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
ZThe
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
NS NS
NS
W-N
NR
MS
Tree
Applications:
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
7
before
use.
7
7
Production:
bS = Black
SprUCe
bF = Balsam Fir
WS = White
Spruce
Table
24
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
and
forestry
Production
Forestry
Engineering
Applications
c
n
9
Map
Symbol
MR-M
Ho(m)gL/3bSl
Ho(m)gL/3cS2Rl
10.5
4.25
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
Ho(m)gL/SdS2
20.1
8.12
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
98.9
Ho(m)L/2dS2
40.00MSS
1
I
S
I
1
,
S
S
,
,
S
,
1
-c
(cont'd)
Use
Di
ep
ep
Pi
Soi1
Unit
uses*
Tree
R
F o
a a
rd.
m s
Use
Operability
Class
bS
bF
wS
S
3
1
3
S
3
13
S
3
13
S
3
1
1.7
0.66
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS
S
3
13
Ho(m)L/ZfSq
9.4
3.80
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
3
13
Ho(mlL/2#3Rl
50.2
20.32
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
Ho(mIL/3c-eS2R2
11.3
4.55
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS NS NS
Ho(m)L/3c-eS3Rl
Ho(m)L/3cSl
Ho(m)L/ScSlRl
28.53
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
127.87
51.77
S
] 47.5
1 19.221s
52.1
Ho(m)L/3cS3
20.17
Ho(m)L/3dS2
3
1,
70.6
Ho(m)L/3cS2
-.
,
Ho(m)L/2dS2R3
1I11
_
Production
S
S
S
S
S
15 1s
IS
1 FR-S
IMR-M
IS
JS 1s
IS
1s
IS
1s
1 m-s
IMR-M
S
S
s
S
1s
21.08
MS S
S
8.16
NS S
MS MS
MS MS
61.8
24.99
MS S
S
S
Ho(m)L/3dS3
122.2
49.41
NS S
MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
Ho(m)L/3eS2
163.1
66.02
NS MS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
S
S
-
-
MS NS
\S
-
I
Ho(mIL/3eSgRl
12.7
5.12
NS MS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
Ho(m)L/3fS2
15.37
6.22
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
Ho(m)L/6aS3
1116.4
Ho(m)L/6b-dS3
1 47.09\NS\NS\MS[MS
5.6
Ho(m)L/6bSl
2.25
Ho(m)L/6cSlRl
NS NS MS MS
1123.7
1 50.05lMS[NSIMSIMS
r
I
35.4
Ho(m)L/6cSL
1 21.7
I
14.31
1
\NSjMS
,
1
,
MS NS MS MS
8.771MsI~s[~
1~s
\MSlNS
MS MS
INSIMS
IMSIMS
1
I
I
NS MS
INSIMS
\Mis \ R-S
If
iS MS
JMR-M
.-
NS
IMS 1 MR-S
IMR-M
MS
16
15
16
,
-
MS
IMSIMS
Ibis
1 R-S
(MR-M
-
Ho(m)SiL/6cSlRl
Crop
1 23.6
1
9.54/MSINS~Ms/Ms
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
XThe
rating
]NS[MS
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slightto
No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
IMS/MS
IMS 1 MR-S
IMR-s
MS
5
Tree
Applications:
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
6
6
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
US = White
-
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
investigation
before
use.
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
Y
Production
--
Area
FCa
irt
eoo
sci
pem
rro
iet
Applications
D
r
25
Tree
Use
Production
R
W
VCiW
ernh
gote
(cont'd)
Y
n
a
Di
ep
ep
pi
F:
a
R-S
MS
5
6
a
Operability
Class
327.5
132.54
Ns NS NS N.3
NS NS
NS iS
NS
NS
Ho(v)coL/3eSgRl
55.7
22.54
NS MS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
W-S
WI-S
MS
3
13
Ho(v)gL/SdS2RL
26.7
10.78
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
MS
MR-S
FR-S
S
3
13
Ho(v)L/2cS3Rl
37.9
15.33
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
NR
w-s
S
4
2
4
Ho(v)L/ZfS2Rl
43.9
17.75
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
NR
l'l7-S
NS
4
2
4
Ho(v)L/2hS2R2
28.4
11.48
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
NR
MR-S
NS
4
2
4
Ho(v)L/3c-dS3
75.01
30.37
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
MR-S
M-S
MS
3
13
Ho(v)L/3cS3
60.05
24.31
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
WI-S
M-S
S
3
13
Ho(v)L/3dS3Rl
15.7
6.33
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
PR-S
W-S
S
3
1
3
Ho(v)L/6s+2Rl
24.7
9.98
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS MS
MS
R-S
N-S
MS
5
6
6
HocoL/PdS3
148.62
60.17
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
US
NR
M-N
S
3
13
HocoL/2cS4
30.7
12.39
NS MS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
NR
MR-N
S
3
13
HocoL/ZdS2
60.6
24.49
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
MS
NR
MR-N
S
3
1
1358.1
144.93
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
MS
NR
)rR-M
MS
3
1
Ho(s)L/6bSjRl
h’
t
uses*
Forestry
Engineering
T
6
a
r
1
forestry
Use
P
A
1A
f
p
a P
11
and
HogL/2cS2
HogL/3bS2
36.5
14.74
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
MS
MR-M
MR-N
S
3
13
HogLl3cS2R4
40.01
16.20
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
NS
FIR-S
MS
3
1
Crop
Engineering
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Mot Suitable
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
' M
%
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Oeep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Tree
Applications:
B. Farm Roads:
S = Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Mot Suitable
investigation
before
use.
6
3
3
3
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
US = White
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
26
Table
7.
Soil
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
and
forestry
~dcu’tur; Use
Engineering
Applications
uses*
(cont'd)
Forestry
Tree
Use
Production
-
t
-
-
-
Crop
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
qhe
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slightto
No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Tree
Applications:
B. Farm Roads:
S = Severe
6 Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
US = White
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
-
investigation
before
use.
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
r-
top
t
uses*
W
(cont'd)
27
Forestry
(Engineering
SCi
forestry
Use
Production
IA IS
and
Applications
ITree
Use
Production
Di
ep
a
;:
Soi?
Unit
Map
Symbol
;
HoL/ScS2
79.3
32.09
MS NS MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
MS
R-N
W-M
MS
3
3
3
HoL/5dS2
11.0
4.42
MS NS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
R-M
MI-M
MS
4
5
5
HoL/6aS2
28.9
52.19
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS MS
MS
R-M
MR-M
MS
5
6
6
HoL/6bS1
48.231
19.531MSINSk$S
HoL/6bS3
191.3
117.89
NS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS NS
HoL/6cS2
.55.3
184.25
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
HoL/6cS3
71.6
29.0
NS NS MS MS
-HoL/6dS2
159.36
104.97
MS NS MS MS
HoL/6dS3
38.0
HoL/6eS2
14.9
HoL/7bS1
.00.441
~o.~~~NsIN~[Ns~Ns
HOL/7C+
35.8
14.46
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
HoL/8bS4
32.8
13.28
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
HoL/9aS4
65.0
26.27
NS NS NS NS
Hoi/gbQ
13.69
5.54
HoLPbS2
8.1
HoLPbS3
.28.6
tlOL/9CS2
56.4
.HoSiL/2dS2
45.3
18.31MSMSMSMS
MSMS
MSNS
MS
NR
W-N
S
3
1
3
HoSiL/PeS2
46.2
18.67
MS NS
NS NS
NS
NR
MR-M
MS
3
1
3
HoSiL/3cSl
98.7
HoSiL/3cS2
168.3
189.49
MS MZ MS MS
MS MS
MS MS
MS
MR-N
MR-N
S
311
HoSiL/3dS1
107.9
43.64
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
MR-N
W-N
S
3
1
3
HoSiL/SeSq
1.5
0.58NSMSNSNS
MSNS
NSNS
NS
MR-N
FR-M
MS
3
1
3
HoSiL/4bS2
34.3-I
13.86/MSjMSIMSjMS
IMSlMS
jMS]MS
MR-M
1 MR-N
HoSiL/4bS3
34.5
13.93
NS MS NS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
MR-M
MR-N
S
3
1
3
HoSiL/SdS2
81.2
32.85
MS NS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
R-N
MR-M
MS
3
3
3
HoSiL/6dS2
17.0
6.87
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS NS
MS
R-N
MR-M
MS
5
6
6
HoSiL/6eS4
17.3
HoSiL/9cSp
15.2
7
7
Crop
R-M
I m-N
NS
R-M
M-N
MS
5
6
6
MS MS
MS
R-N
W-N
MS
5
6
6
NS MS
MS NS
MS
R-N
FR-M
MS
5
6
6
NS MS
MS NS
MS
R-N
MR-N
MS
5
6
6
NSMS
MSNS
MS
R-N
MR-N
MS
5
6
6
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-N
MR-M
MS
R-M
1 MR-N
NS
R-M
MR-M
MS
5
6
6
NS NS
NS
R-M
m-M
NS
7
7
7
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
NS
7
7
7
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-M
NS
7
7
7
3.27
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-M
NS
7
7
7
52.OL
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
NS
7
7
7
~NS~NS
INS
R-M
1 MR-s
15.35NSNSMSMS
6.0
INS~NS
1 ~~.~~\NsINs(NsINs
IN~[N~
NS MS NS NS
I 39.93fMSiMSIMSIMS
1
IMSIMS
6.09
NS NS NS NS
does
NS NS
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
not
preclude
Orainage,
Deep Rippinq:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
IMSlMS
IMS
INSINS
INS
IMSIMS
IMS
I
1
1
1
}FIS 1
MR-N
i W-N
1
1
1
1
1
IMSINSINSINS INS 1 R-N 1 W-M I
~.OIINSINS~NSINS
M
rating
NS NS NS NS
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
f7he
INSTMS
for
on-site
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
MS
NS
S
S
MS
15
6.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
before
use.
16
16
6
1
:
1
:
16
I 7 17 I 7
13
Il
13
3
l 3I 1I 3
151616
NS
7
Tree
Applications:
investigation
MS
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
ws = White
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
Table
7.
28
Soi1
map unit
/
interpretations
selected
agricultural
and
m
Map
Symbol
AC
Ju(v)CoL/2gS3R2
f
p
a
f
P
e
s
7
e
y
.f
Engineering
(1
T
SCi
pem
rro
iet
nah
gly
FCa
irt
eoo
lpe
dss
W
vc
VCiW
ernh
;:gote
tpea
tP
..srt s
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
NS NS NS NS
NS
JugL/2dS3
60.9
24.62
NS MS NS NS
NS
Mo(m)gL/3dS3
33.93
13.74
NS S
MS
ii---
(NS
NR
NS
NR
NS
NR
1
30.0
12.11
33.4
Mo(v)gL/2eSS
I
5.971NS[MSINSINS
NS MS NS NS
13.50
I
NS MS NS NS
I
,
,
,
Tree
Use
Production
_
- I
F
a
r
m
n
9
5.40
1 14.8
Forestry
R
Di
ep
ep
Pi
13.4
MS MS
(cont'd)
C
a
Mo(v)gL/ZdSf;
uses*
Applications
HA
Mo(m)L/3eSSRl
forestry
~t-7G-&?cu’t”r~
“se
t
Area
Soi1
Unit
for
NR
NS
0
a
d
s
Dperabilitv
Cl ass
ll-r-bS
1
6
bF
[
6
WS
j
i
NR
-y-j+
NS 131213
-
,
MogL/2fS3
28.4
11.49
NS NS NS NS
NS
NR
pi(m)L/2dSl
91.47
37.04
NS MS MS MS
MS
FR-M
Pi(m)L/2dSjRl
20.5
8.28
NS MS MS MS
MS
MR-M
c
s
i
PI513
NR-M
WR-M
*
--
MR-M
m-s
I
W-M
I
S
1
4
4
4
MR-M
WI-M
MR-M
MR-M
qqq
Ml?-M
MR-M
MR-M
MS
141515
MS
141515
-
MS
4
5
5
FR-M
MS
4
5
5
-ici-
NS
KG-
MS
la-s
MS
I
6
5
I
6
1
5
6
-
5
141413
FR-N
MI-N
II(R-M
Crop
S
MS
NS
Production:
Suitable
Moderately
Not Suitable
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
qhe
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Applications:
Tree
B.
S
Farm Roads:
= Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
before
use.
Production:
bS = Black
Spruce
bF = Balsam Fir
wS = White
Spruce
-
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
l-l
Area
Soi1
Unit
Map
Symbol
AC
A
p
i
f
a
HA
B
a
r
1
e
y
7
e
s
t
FCa
irt
eoo
lpe
dss
SCi
pem
rro
iet
nah
gly
-l-I"Ch l
ernh
gote
tpea
. srt
r
a
i
n
a
9
e
l
Applications
-4-
n
9
MS
MS
MR-N
iii
NS
MS
MR-N
MR-N
NS
MS
MR-N
W-N
NS
MS
MR-N
MR-N
NS
MS
R-N
Ht-M
NS
NS
R-M
MR-M
NS
NS
R-N
W-M
NR
Th(s)gL/2dSlRl
64.4
5.82MSMSMSMS
26.07
NS NS NS NS
Tree
F
a
rd
pP
NR
14.4
(cont'd)
29
Use
Production
R
Di
ep
M7-M
Th(m)gL/3dS2Rl
uses*
Forestry
Engineering
T
forestry
Use
Production
P
A
1
f
and
MSMS
MS NS
MS
MR-M
NS NS
MS NS
NS
NR
R
o
a
I
h
Operability
Class
Ms 1414
I 3
4-K-b
üi-fq-+
NR
NR
S
141213
s
151314
HR-S
NR
I
NS
MR-s
Vi(m)L/3cS3
1
_,..v~
40.721
16.491NS1MSIMSIMS
IMSIMS
I
7
I
7
7
W-M
IMS
MR-M
M7-M
MR-M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.I
I
Vi[m)L/7cS2
56.4
22.70
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS (NS
Vi(m)L/9bSl
91.95
37.21
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
Vi(m)L/9bS2
18.69
7.56
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
Vi(m)L/9bS4
17.6
7.11
NS NS NS NS
Vi(m)L/9cS3
42.8
17.29
Vi(m)L/9dSl
88.9
Vi(p)gSiL/lOaS2
12.4
Vi(p)gSiL/lObS21
33.9
Vi(p)L-cL/lOaS2
140.1
Vi(p)SiL/lOaS2
MR-M
NS
R-S
W-M
NS NS
NS
R-S
MR-M
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-S
w-s
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-S
MR-M
36.00
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-S
MR-S
5.01
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M-!
W-S
INS~NS
rating
does
1
R-M-!
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M-!
7.2
2.91
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M-!
50.9
20.58
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
MR-S
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
tThe
INS
NS NS NS NS
CropProduction:
S = Suitable
MS =.Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
INSINS
56.67
'
Vi(v)L/3a-cS3
R-S
1 ~~.~~~Ns~Ns~Ns~Ns
1
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Requfred
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
NS
-4-g++-
m-s
w-s
FR-S
W-M
NS
I
I
I
17
17
17
S
2
Tree
Applications:
B.
S
Fan
Roads:
= Severe
to Very
Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
171717
before
use.
13
Production:
bS = Black
bF = Balsam
us = White
Spruce
Fir
Spruce
Table
30
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
for
selected
Agricultural
Crop
and forestry
agricultural
uses*
Use
Production
(cont'd)
Forestry
Engineering
Applications
Tree
Use
Production
-
R
Di
ep
ep
pi
Soi1
Unit
Map
Symbol
F
a
r
m
n
9
R
o
a
d
s
Vi( v)L/6cSlRl
ViCosiL/7cSj
1 192.661
78.0
INSJNS(NSINS
JNS(NS
IN~\N~
[NS [
R-N
VigL/8bSl
38.0
15.36
1
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
I
NS NS
NS
R-M
VigL/9bS2
192.66
78.0
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
VigSiL/lOaS3
146.1
59.13
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
(MS 1
R-M
VigSiL/6bS2
1
70.0
I
ViLcl/9bSg
116.3
ViL/lObSj
f 28.301MSINSIMS(MS
INSIMS
\MSIMS
1
II
r1
III,
47.07
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS
525.75
212.75
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
ViL/lOcS2
41.99
17.0
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-N
ViL/lOcSj
37.0
14.98
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-N
ViL/3cS3
24.92
10.09
NS MS NS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
MR-N
ViL/3dSl
30.11
12.19
MS MS MS MS
MS MS
MS NS
MS
ViLj4cS3
38.08
15.42
NS MS MS MS
MS MS
ViiJ6bS2
22.0
8.91
MS NS MS MS
ViL/OcSl
118.5
48.00
ViL/6cSp
165.6
ViL/6dSl
I
I
NS
1
I
171717
W-M
MS
4
MR-s
NS
777
M-S
L
--
4
4
_
j-y-j-+
M-N
_
}
S
l
2
l
1
l
3
MR-N
MS
2
1
3
MS NS
IN-N
S
2
1
3
NS MS
MS MS
MR-N
4
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS 1MS 1MS (
R-N
MR-N
4
1
l
141414
67.01
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS MS
MS
R-N
U!t-N
MS
4
4
4
21.5
8.67
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS NS
MS
R-N
M-M
MS
4
4
4
ViL/6dS2
42.9
17.33
MS NS MS MS
NS MS
MS NS
NS
R-N
PR-N
MS
4
4
4
ViL/7cSp
69.16
28.0
NS NS NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-N
MR-M
MS
5
6
5
I
(
MS
MS
I
I
Cmp
Engineering
Production:
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
vhe
rating
does
not
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Rippinq:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Limitation
the
need
for
on-site
Applications:
Tree
5. Farm Roads:
S : Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
Suitable
NS = Not Suitable
I
1
4
--
I
Production:
bS = Black
Spruce
bF = Balsam
FitWS = White
Spruce
investigation
before
use.
Table
7.
Soi1
map unit
interpretations
1
for
selected
agricultural
Agricultural
Crop
P
T
Soi1
Unit
Map
Symbol
W
iet
gote
gly
.srt
Di
ep
ep
pi
'ree
n
9
F
a
r
m
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-N
MR-M
NS
ViSCL/gbSl
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
NS
ViSiCL/lObSq
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
NS
ViSiL/lOaSE
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
HR-S
NS
ViSiL/6aS8
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-M
MS
ViSiL/OcSp
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-N
W-M
MS
ViSiL/7bSE
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-M
MS
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-M
MS
ViSiL/8bS8
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
ViSiLf9aSE
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
NS
R-M
MR-S
13.7
1
5.521NSINZ
Use
Production
R
o
a
d
s
Operability
Cl as5
bS
1 bF
1 WS
1
NS NS
YiSiLficSE
31
R
ViL/BcSg
r
(cont'd)
TI
Applications
cl
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
t-r
b
uses*
Forestry
Engineering
SCi
pemYCiW
forestry
Use
Production
B
i
a FCa
rirtrroernh
1 eoo
elpenahtpea
y dss
and
ViSiLl9bS8
ViSiLPbS3
ViSiLPeS3
ViSiLj3dSB
ViVcoL/9aS6
trop
7.7
Produc
S = Suitable
MS = Moderately
NS = Not Suitable
1
3.091NS(N!
:ion:
-
Engineering
A.
R
MR
NR
N
Suitable
M
fThe
rating
does
net
preclude
Drainage,
Deep Ripping:
= Required
= May Be Required
= Not Required
= Slight
to No
Limitation
= Moderate
Lim;tation
the
need
for
on-site
L-IL-P
ree
Applications:
B. Farm Roads:
S = Severe
to Very Severe
Limitation
MS = Moderately
SuItable
NS = Not Suitable
investigation
NS
before
use.
Production:
bS = Black
Spruce
bF = Ealsam
Fir
WS = White
Spruce
33
Ld
APPmmIx
II
---MOWHOLQGICAL
DESCRIPTIONS AN-D
ANALYSES FOR SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
This section lists selccted profile descriptions of the soil
Y associations mapped in the survey area. Some physical and
chemical analyses are also provided.
k
The soil profile morphology is describcd in defined
terminology according to established guidelines (Expert
Committee on Soit Survey, 1982). Classification is based on
-, the Canadian System of Soil Classification (Agriculture
Canada Expert Committee on Soi1 Survey, 1987). Profile
descriptions usually include: horizon designations and depths,
. colour, texture, mottling (where present), structure,
k-
L.
consistence and coarse fragments. Site parameters are also
recorded: location, elevation, parent material, slope, soi1
moisture and drainage, stoniness, rockiness and present land
use.
Chemical and physical analytical procedures used are
those specified by Sheldrick (1984). Determinations consist
of pH (84-001), % carbon (84-013), % nitrogen (84-021),
exchangeable cations (84-004), particle size distribution
@t-026), bulk density @I-029), field capacity and wilting
point (84-036); and specifically for organic soils, fiber
content (84-044) and calorific value (bomb calorimeter
method).
P
Association:
Site
No.:
84-03
Location:
Lat:
46' DZ' 24",
Long:
67' 40'
51"
Elevation:
175 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Slightly
acidic
ta neutral,
fine
loamy,
morainal
material
of non ta weakly
calcareous
shale,
slate
and siltstone.
Slope:
1%; level
aspect,
toe position,
level
microtopography.
Soi1
Moist.
and
Carleton
Drainage:
Depth
(cm)
Chemical
Texture
(abundance,
Mottles
size,
contrast)
(grade,
-
Structure
class,
10 YR 2.5/1.5
Loam
8fsj
16-
27
10 YR 5/4
Loam
Many,
medium,
distinct
Weak,
blocky
fine,
W
27-
49
2.5
Loam
Many,
medium,
distinct
Weak,
medium,
49-
70
1 Y 6/3.5
Loam- clay
loam
Many,
medium,
distinct
Moderate,
subangular
1 Y 5.5/3
Silt
Many,
medium,
prominent
Weak,
blocky
sj
70-100
loam
84-03
Chemical
and
drained,
slowly
pervious,
slow
Moderate.
Physical
kind)
medium,
granular
subangular
platy
medium,
blocky
medium,
Coarse
fragments
('%, shape,
size)
Consistence
Friable
10% Angular
cobbles
Friable
10% Angular
cobbles
Firm
20% Angular
cobbles
20% Angular
cobbles
30% Angular
cobbles
Very
subangular
firm
Firm
Analysis
Analysis:
Physical
-~
Analysis:
% H2D
Hari
zon
Depth
(cm)
Total
m----Fa
PH
H$Ï-CaCTi
Ca
Exchangeable
Mg
cations
-K--m-
Horizon
Particle
--__
Sand
Depth
(cm)
AP
Bfgj
W
Btjgj
c9
1
surface
Description
16
Y 5.5/3
drained)
Podzol.
a-
c9
No.:
Notation)
poorly
ta poorly
seepage.
AP
W
Site
Color
(Munsell
Imperfectly
runoff,
no
ta
Stoniness:
Slightly
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Abandoned
farmland.
CSS Classification:
Gleyed
Humo-Ferric
Morphological
Horizon
(imperfect
1U
6.1
5.5
5.13
16- 27
27- 49
49- 70
70-100
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.7
5.6
5.7
5.9
6.0
2.17
0.48
0.19
0.15
0-
l
i
0.38
0.21
0.05
0.03
0.02
20.50
11.30
5.40
7.38
7.62
0.69
0.39
0.39
0.59
0.69
Il.21
0.12
0.10
0.17
0.19
/
7
-
I
AP
Bfgj
Bgj
W9j
cg
16
32.7
16- 27
27- 49
49- 70
70-100
0-
35.4
47.4
30.9
26.3
(
size
47.2
45.1
34.7
43.1
53.7
20.1
19.5
17.9
26.0
19.9
i
Field
capacity
(1/3
bar)
(%)
(by
wt.)
at
-Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
l-54
16,5
12,7
1.88
-
13-6
1111
-
1,
f
t
I.
Carleton
(poorly
Association:
Soi1
Site
No.: 84-07
Location:
Lat:
46" 05' ll”,
Long:
67' 41' 56"
Elevation:
193 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Slightly
acidic
to neutral.
Fine
loamy
morainal
material
with
non to weakly
calcareous shale,
slate
and siltstone
coarse
fragments.
2%; easterly
aspect,
depression
position,
Slope:
level
microtopography.
Moist.
and
Drainage:
Depth
(cm)
AP
Texture
Notation)
(abundance,
No.:
Chemical
drained)
drained,
slowly
pervious,
Structure
class,
kind)
loam
Weak,
coarse,
granular
prominent
Weak,
fine,
contrast)
-
(grade.
0-
24
10 YR 3.5/2.5
Silt
Aeg
24-
36
10 YR 6.5/1.5
Loam
Common,
Bmgj
36-
55
10 YR 4/4
Loam-clay
loam
Many,
medium,
distinct
Weak,
coarse.
cg
55-100
10 YR 3/4
Loam
Many,
medium,
prominent
Weak,
coarse,
-
Chemical
Site
fine,
and
Physical
very
slow
runoff,
no seepage.
Coarse
fragments
1%. shape,
sire)
Consistence
Friable
10% Angular
gravels
Friable
20% Angular
gravels
platy
Firm
20% Angular
gravels
platy
Firm
20% Angular
cobbles
platy
Analvsis
84-07
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
% ii20
Horizon
AP
Aeg
Bmgj
cg
%-
Description
Mottles
size,
Color
(Munsell
I
Stoniness:
Moderately
stony.
Cobbliness:
Noncobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Improved
pasture/forage.
CSS Classification:
Orthic
Humic Gleysol.
Morphological
Horizon
Poorly
f .
Depth
(cm)
0- 24
24- 36
36- 55
55-100
H 20
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
PH
c aCl2
5.7
5.6
5.7
5.8
Total
725--7n
2.90
0.48
0.36
0.23
Ca
0.24
0.05
0.03
0.03
9.12
3.66
6.96
8.28
Exchangeable
Mg
2.27
0.98
2.27
2.41
cations
K
0.14
0.17
0.18
0.20
Al
Particle
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
Sand
0- 24
2436- 36
55
55-100
27.2
38.3
29.0
32.0
size
(X1
Silt
Clay
52.8
20.0
17.9
27.2
25.2
Bulk
density
@cm3
(by
wt.)
at
Field
capacity
(1/3
bar)
Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
-
-
_
1
_
AP
Aeg
Bmgj
cg
43.8
43.8
42.8
1.57
1.88
I
Association:
Site No.: 84-00
Location:
Lat:
46" 02' 01".
Long:
Elevation:
187 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Acidic,
fine loamy,
material
with non to weakly
slate
and siltstone
coarse
Slope:
2%; southerly
aspect,
mid to
position.
Soi1
67'
46'
Moist.
Carleton
and Drainage:
Depth
(cm)
No.:
Chemical
Color
Notation)
well
drained)
drained.
slowly
pervious,
slow
shale,
surface
runoff,
Texture
(abundance,
Description
Mottles
size,
contrast)
(grade,
Structure
class,
kind)
22
10 YR 3.5/4
Loam
-
Weak,
blocky
medium,
tif
22-
30
10 YR 3.516
Loam
-
Weak,
blocky
fine,
subangular
Very
um
3u-
42
10 YK 4.5/4
Loam
-
Weak,
fine,
platy
Firm
iicgj
4s
80
10 YH 4.514.5
Lodm
Common,
distinct
fine,
faint
to
Weak,
medium,
platy
Very
firm
C9j
tlo-1uo
10 YK 4.5/4.5
Loam
Common,
distinct
fine,
faint
to
Weak,
medium,
platy
Very
fit-m
Chemical
84-08
and
Physical
subangular
Coarse
fraaments
(X, shape,
size)
Consistence
o-
AP
Site
(Munsell
well
Stoniness:
Moderately
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Improved
pasture/forage.
CSS Classification:
Podzolic
Gray Luvisol.
Morphological
Horizon
Moderately
no seepage.
04"
morainal
calcareous
fragments.
lotier
slope
(moderately
Friable
friable
10% Anqular
qravels
10% Anqular
qravelç
70% Flat
and
anqiilar
cohblec
?DX Flat
and
anqular
cobhles
Analysis
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
-~
---Horizon
Depth
(cm)
7T2TPGxT~
AP
Bf
Bm
Utgj
C9j
o- 22
22- 30
30. 42
42. 80
80-100
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.1
5.2
Total
C%
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.5
3.34
1.75
0.61
0.23
0.25
Ca
0.31
0.17
0.05
0.03
0.01
4.?h
1.u2
1.14
1.32
1.80
Exchangeable
Mg
0.79
0.39
0.30
0.39
0.49
cations
r: --AT_---0.15
0.10
0.18
0.20
0.71
-r_l_,~~~~y~~
--II
-
AP
Bf
Bm
Bt9j
C9.i
-~--.
---
/
I
I
/
0- 22
22- 30
30- 42
42- A0
BD-100
36.0
41.8
39.4
34.:
43.2
46.8
45.0
45.2
41.7
59.6
17.7
13.1
15.4
24.2
17.2
---1.44
1.76
-
--
I .’
1
7 ’
Association:
Site
No.:
84-10
Location:
Lat:
46' 03' 45",
Long:
67' 38' 54"
Elevation:
153 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Acidic,
fine
loamy,
morainal
material
with
non calcareous
shale,
slate,
siltstone
and some quartzite-sandstone
coarse
fragments.
3%; easterly
aspect,
lower
slope
position,
Slope:
level
microtopography.
Soi1
Moist.
Carleton
and
Drainage:
Depth
(cm)
Site
Color
(Munsell
Notation)
Imperfectly
seepage.
Texture
Mottles
size,
(abundance,
drained)
drained,
Stoniness:
Slightly
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Sliyhtly
rocky.
Present
Land Use: Abandoned
farmland.
CSS Classification:
Gleyed
Sombric
Morphological
Horizon
(imperfectly
slowly
pervious,
slow
contrast)
-
(grade,
Structure
class,
Weak,
medium,
kind)
Consistence
22
10 YR 3/3
Loam-silt
loam
Bm
22-
30
10 YR 4.514
Loam-silt
loam
Comnon,
medium,
faint
Very
8Cgj
30-
46
10 YR 4.5/5
Loam
Comnon.
medium,
distinct
Weak.
medium,
platy
Very
Cgj
46-
80
10 YR 3/3
Loam-silt
loam
Weak,
medium,
platy
Very
No.:
Chemical
Chemical
84-10
coarse
and
distinct
Physical
no
Description
o-
Many,
runoff,
Brunis01
AP
-
surface
weak,
platy
medium,
platy
Coarse
fragments
IX, shape,
size)
Firm
10% Angular
gravels
Friable
10% Angular
gravels
firm
20% Angular
gravels
firm
20% Angular
cobbles
Analysis
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
% H20
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
AP
8m
BCgj
W
o223046-
H20
22
30
46
80
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.0
PH
Total
CaCl2
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.3
Exchangeable
Ca
Mg
C%
2.32
0.59
0.32
0.21
0.19
0.07
0.01
0.02
2.70
1.50
1.50
1.74
0.59
0.39
0.39
0.49
cations
K
Al
0.14
0.08
0.11
0.13
1.67
2.00
2.00
2.00
Particle
Horizon
AP
Em
BCgj
Cd
size
(%)
Depth
(cm1
Sand
Silt
Clay
o- 22
22- 30
30- 46
46- 80
30.0
31.0
38.0
34.9
48.4
49.4
43.9
43.0
21.6
19.5
18.1
22.6
8ulk
(by
wt.)
at
L$ ;:"g
g/cm3
Field
capacity
(1/3
bar)
1.64
20.0
K8
1.76
lc6
10.0
density
(15
bars)
Association:
Site
No.:
84-14
Location:
Lat:
46' 03'
Elevation:
168 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Slightly
morainal
material
shale,
slate
and
Slope:
5%; southeasterly
microtopography.
Soi1
48".
67'
Long
acid
to
with
non
siltstone
aspect,
41'
Moist.
and
Car-jeton
Drainage:
13"
neutral,
fine
loamy,
to weakly
calcareous
coarse
fragments.
lower
slope,
level
Color
Depth
(cm)
(Munsell
Notation)
o-
23
10 YR 3/3
Silt
Bmgj
23-
35
10
Loam
Few,
cg
35
7s
10 YR 3/3
Loam
Cornaon,
AP
YR 3.5/3.5
Mottles
size,
(abundance,
Texture
No.:
Chemical
contrast)
fine,
AP
Bwj
cg
(grade,
faint
medium,
and
distinct
Physical
slowly
moderate
pervious,
surface
runoff,
no
Structure
class,
kind)
Weak,
blocky
medium,
subangular
friable
Weak,
blocky
medium,
subangular
Very
Very
Very
weak,
fine,
Coarse
fragments
(X. shape,
size)
Consistence
platy
10% Angular
gravels
friable
20% Angular
gravels
firm
30% Angular
gobbles
Analysis
84-14
Analysis:
Physical
Horizon
drained,
Description
loam
Chemical
Site
Imperfectly
seepage.
drained)
Stoniness:
Slightly
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use:
Improved
pasture/forage.
Gleyed
Melanic
Brunisol.
CSS Classification:
Morphological
Horizon
(imperfectly
Depth
(cm)
02335-
23
35
75
Total
H$I
PHCaCT2
Cn
6.3
6.5
6.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
3.74
1.43
0.31
Ca
0.31
0.16
0.04
10.56
6.30
7.32
Exchangeable
Mg
1.78
0.98
1.48
Analysis:
cations
K
Al
-
0.35
0.32
0.23
AP
Bmgj
cg
I
i
02335-
23
35
75
32.9
39.0
33.1
49.0
43.8
44.5
18.1
17.2
22.4
-
-
l-45
1.90
-
1
I
1
1
T
Association:
Soi1
Site
No.: 84-18
46’ 01’ 04”,
Location:
Lat:
Elevation:
160 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Acidic,'mesic
Vegetation:
Sedges.
.,
Slope:
0%; Tevel,
Long:
67"
fen
strongly
mounded.
. .
.
Oepth
(cm)
and
Drainage:
Stoniness:
Cobbliness:
Rockiness:
Present
Land Us;
CSS Classification:
':
-
Morphological
Very
poorly
Wetland.
Terric
o-
2
Oh
2-
24
Notation)
seepage
present.
von
Post
fen
peat
(carex)
5
5 YR 3/1.5
100%
fen
peat
(carex)
6
24-115
7.5
YR 3.512
100%
fen
peat
(carex)
5
h3
115-150
7.5
YR 4/2
90% fen
peat
(carex);
cg
150+
No.:
-
Peat
Type
--
4
-
Chemical
84-18
10% wood
and
Physical
-
Analvsis
Analysis:
Depth
(cm)
h20'
PH
CaCI2
Total
cf&N%
Pyro
Index
Exchangeable,cations
Ca
ml
K
Analysis:
%
Horizon
o2
2- 24
24-115
115-150
150+
4.9*
4.7
44:;
-
24.4
25.5
28.6
25.8
-
1.86
1.77
1.51
1.39
21.5
74.5
28.4
39.8
37.2
48.9
46.8
43.2
.-
-
-
4.94
4.94
3.85
3.95
.-
1.15
0.23
O.OR
0.11
-
k
Oh
û"2
Om3
cil
Fiber
pc;:h
Unrubbed
QI
ponded.
Description
Physical
ml
Oh
h2
h3
pervious,
100%
Chemical
Horizon
moderately
drained,
Mesisql.
Color
(Munsell
_
Oml
Om2
Site
Moist.
!
53"
peat.
/
Horizon
44'
I
Fen
o2
2- 24
24-115
115-150
150+
* pH values
lower
5:
54
thannormal.
Rubbed
14
8
10
20
-
Calorific
cal/g.
3120
3342
3230
3101
-
Val.
B.D.
gm/cc
0.18
0.16
0.17
-
P
0
Association:
Soi1
Site No.: 84-05
Location:
Lat:
46" 00' 26".
Long:
67" 41' 12"
Elevation:
160 m AMSL.
Parent
Materidl:
Strongly
acidic
coarse
loamy
morainal
material
with coarse
fragments
of sandstonr-quartzite
and a minor component
of slate.
Slope:
7%; easterly
aspect,
middle
slope position,
level
microtopography.
Moist.
Holmesville
and Drainage:
Depth
(cm)
(Mu"se11
o- 20
AP
Color
Notation)
Silt
loam
loam-
loam
Bfl
20-
41
10 YK 5fa
Silt
Bf2
41-
55
10 YR 5/4
Loam
55-
a3
10 YR 4.5/4
Loam
a3-
iii
10 YK 414
Sandy
W
1
W2
(abundance,
Texture
10 YR 3/3
Mottles
size,
No.:
Chemical
well
.
loam
well
drained)
drained,
slowly
pervious,
slow
surface
runoff,
no
Podzol.
Description
contrast)
-
(grade,
Structure
class,
Moderate,
blocky
kind)
fine,
Coarse
fraqments
(9. shape,
size)
Consistence
subanqular
Very
friable
10% Anqular
qravels
friable
70% Anqular
qravels
20% Anqular
qravels
Weak,
blocky
fine,
subangular
Very
Weak,
blocky
fine,
subangular
Friable
Common,
medium,
distinct
Weak,
coarse,
platy
Very
firm
30% Anqular
qravels
Comnon,
medium,
distinct
Weak,
blocky
medium,
subangular
Very
firm
317% Anqular
cobhles
Chemical
Site
Moderately
seepage.
Stoniness:
Slightly
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Abandoned
farmland.
CSS Classification:
Gleyed
Humo-Ferric
Morphological
Horizon
(Moderatelv
and
Physical
Analysis
84-05
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
% H20 (by
Bulk
Horizon
AP
Bfl
Bf2
Cd 1
Cgj2
Depth
(cm)
o- 20
20- 41
41- 55
55- a3
83-111
H$J
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.3
Total
PH
CaCl2
4.8
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.4
Cx
3.32
1.65
0.88
0.12
0.18
Ca
0.32
0.10
0.09
0.02
0.01
5.34
1.80
1.20
0.96
1.44
Exchangeable
Mg
0.79
0.39
0.39
0.59
0.59
cations
Particle
K
Al
0.38
0.15
0.15
0.16
0.20
0.66
1.33
0.33
0.66
0.0
I
Horizon
AP
Of1
Bf2
cgj 1
Cd2
l
size
(X)
Depth
(cm)
Sand
Silt
Clay
o- 20
20- 41
41- 55
55- 83
83-111
34.4
35.7
37.8
45.6
55.4
51.7
54.2
47.2
38.1
29.9
13.9
10.1
15.0
16.3
14.8
l
Field
capacity
(1/3 bar)
g/cm3
I
7
wt.)
at
density
179
22-7
7
1.79
i
Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
715.0
14.4
-
I
7.0
I
s
i
f
r-
f
Association:
Site No.: 84-11
Location:
Lat:
46" 02' 55". Long:
67" 41' 06"
Elevation:
184 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Acidic.
loamy morainal
material
with
sandstone
and quartzite
coarse
fragments.
Slope:
3%; westerly
aspect,
toe position,
level
microtopography.
,.
(Munsell
0- 18
Aw
25
Color
Notation)
Morphological'
Texture
(abundance.
YR 2.513
LOam
Many,
fine,
10
YR 4.5/3
Loam
Many,
Many,
Many.
18-
fJQ
25 40
2.5 Y 4/4
LOam
cg
40- 80
2.5 Y 4/3
Loam
Chemical
Site
No.:
Chemical
slowly
pervious,
contrast)
(grade,
Structure
class.
Weak.
blocky
medium,
faint
Weak,
fine,
medium,
prominent
Weak.
medium,
platy
coarse,
prominent
Weak.
medium.
platy
Very
and
slow
Consistence
kjnd)
prominent
surface
runoff,
no
Fhysical
medium,
subangular
platy
Coarse
fraqments
TX, shape.
sire1
Friable
10%.Angular
cobhles
Fins
20% Anqular
qravels
Fin
3n% Anqular
qravels
20% Anqular
qravels
firm
Analysis
84-11
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
I
Horizon
very
Description
Mottles
size.
10
8g
drained)
Moist.
and Drainage:
Poorly
drained.
seepage.
Stoniness:
Moderately
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Improved
pasture/forage.
CSS Cla,ssjfication:
Orthic
Humic Gleysol.
'.
Depth
(cm1
(poorly
Soi1
<'
Horizon
Holmesville
Depth
(cm)
h2O
PH
Total
CaC12
C%
La
Exchangeable
Mg
cations
Al
K
Mg
0- 18 5.7
5.2
3.24
0.25
i-il
1-18
0.16
2,
cg
2518- 40
25 -6.0
40- 80 6.3
5.6
5-6
0.47
023
0.04
oTi2
.
632
1.18
1%
0.16
024
=
=
Particle
Horizon
Aw
2,
cg
Depth
(cm)
0182540-
% H20 (by
I
Sand
18 30.6
40.1
25
40
80 48.2
size
(XI
Bulk
density
Silt
Clay
g/cm3
46.3
31.5
33.2
22.4
23.1
176
ls.6
127
Ffeld
capacity
(1/3 bar)
-
wt.)
at
Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
-
I
Association:
Soi1
Site No.: 84-12
Location:
Lat:
46" 02' Ol",
Long:
67" 37' 48"
Elevation:
187 m AMSL.
Parent
Material:
Strongly
acidic,
coarse
loamy,
morainal
material
with sandstone
and/or
quartzite
coarse
fragments.
Slope:
3%; southerly
aspect,
lower
slope position,
slightly
mounded.
Moist.
Holmesville
and Drainage:
Oepth
(cm)
o- 30
AP
Color
Notation)
(Munsell
Texture
No.:
Chemical
Imperfectly
to poorly
runoff.
no seepage.
drained)
drained.
contrast)
loam
Loam-sandy
loam
Common,
prominent
medium.
Structure
class,
(grade,
slowlv
Weak,
fine,
Weak,
block
medium,
kind)
pervious,
30-
45
2.5
cg1
45
75
5 Y 5/4
Loam
Conanon.
coarse,
prominent
Very
weak,
fine,
QJ2
75-100
2.5
Loam
Comnon,
coarse,
prominent
Very
weak,
medium,
and
Physical
Consistence
granular
B!3
Y 4/4
poorly
slow
surface
Description
-
SiJt
Chemical
Site
Mottles
size,
(abundance,
10 YR 2.5/4
Y 4.574
to
Stoniness:
Moderately
stony.
Cobbliness:
Moderately
cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Abandoned
farmland.
CSS Classification:
Orthic
Humic Gleysol.
Morphological
Horizon
(imperfectly
subangular
platy
platy
Coarse
fraqments
(X, shape,
rize)
Friable
10% Anqular
cobbles
Firm
10% Angular
cobbles
robhles
Very
fin
20% Anqular
Very
firm
40% Anqular
stones
and cobhles
Analysis
84-12
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
I
Horizon
Oepth
(cm)
Total
R20
CaC12
AP
hl
cg1
cg2
0- 30
30- 45
45- 75
75-100
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.2
4.8
4.6
4.5
4.5
PH
/
CX
2.69
0.61
0.20
0.22
I
Exchangeable
Ca
Mg
0.22
0.04
0.02
0.02
3.84
1.02
1.80
2.34
1.28
0.49
0.69
0.89
1,
cations
R
Al
0.50
0.11
0.17
0.24
1.33
1.33
0.66
0.66
I
% Ii@
Particle
Horizon
AP
89
cg1
cg2
size
(x)
Bulk
density
Oepth
(cml
Sand
Silt
Clay
g/cm3
o- 30
30- 45
45- 75
75-100
25.4
51.6
42.7
41.2
50.6
37.6
40.8
39.3
24.0
10.8
16.5
19.5
123
1.88
I
(
Il
(by
Field
capacity
cl/3
bat)
wt.J
at
Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
-
-
(
l
il
f-
r
I ---
f
f
I
Pinder
Association:
Soi1
Site No.: 84-01
Location:
Lat:
46" 00' 22".
Long:
67" 36' 42"
Elevation:
132 m ANSL.
Parent
Material:
Very strongly
acidic.
loamy,
morainal
material
dcminated
by granitic
coarse
fragments
but with some quartzite.
Slope:
3%; eastern
aspect,
middle
slope position,
level
microtopography.
Moist.
and Drainage:
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
LFH
u3-
00
Ae
oo-
03
Color
Notation)
(Munsell
Texture
-
(abundance,
Mottles
size.
-
10 YR 6.5/2
Silt
Silt
well
well
drained.
woodland.
Humo-Ferric
moderately
oervious,
slow
surface
runoff,
Podzol.
Description
(grade,
contrast)
Structure
class,
loam
drained)
kind)
Consistence
-
-
Coarse
fragments
(X, shape.
size)
-
Very weak,
subangular
very
fine,
blocky
fine,
friable
10% Anqular
qravels
03-
11
7.5
loam
-
Very
Very
friable
IOX Anqular
qravels
Il-
27
10 YR 517
loam
-
Weak,
fine,
subang.
blocky
Very
friable
ID% Anqular
qravels
Bf2
27-
38
1 Y 5.5/4
loam
-
Weak,
fine,
subanq.
blocky
Very
friable
20% Anqular
cohhles
BC
38-
59
10 YR 5/4
loam
Weak,
medium,
subang.
blocky
Firm
30% Anqular
cobbles
1 ICj
59-
78
10 YR 5.5/6
Weak.
medium.
subanq.
blocky
Very
60% Anqular
cohbles
K
78+
Site
No.:
Chemical
Granitic
Sandy
Few,
medium,
loam
-
-
bedrock
faint
-
-
Chemical
84-01
and
qranular
Very
Bf
.
weak.
-
Bhf
1
YR 4.5/8
(moderately
Moderately
no seepage.
Stoniness:
Very stony.
Cobbliness:
Very cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Productive
CSS Classification:
Orthic
Morphological
f
Physical
fin
-
-
Analysis
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
% H20 (by
Bulk
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
Total
PH
h2D
CaC12
Ca
Cx
Exchangeable
4
cations
K
Al
Ae
Bhf
Bf2
Bf 1
o3
3- 11
27ll38
27
3.9
4.8
5.0
3.4
4.2
4.6
1.73
5.06
2.62
1.02
0.13
0.27
0.09
0.19
1.62
0.53
0.42
0.66
0.39
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.31
0.21
0.17
0.21
10.9
4.84
4.33
3.99
BC
IICxj
3859-
4.7
4.9
4.2
4.3
0.32
0.14
0.03
0.01
0.42
0.60
0.30
0.30
0.22
0.16
3.67
2.00
59
78
--
Particle
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
size
(%)
g/cm3
Sand
Silt
Clay
Ae
Bhf
tif1
oll-3-
3
27
11
29.1
46.0
33.9
58.0
38.4
54.5
12.9
15.5
11.6
Bf2
8C
1 ICxj
273859-
38
59
78
32.6
41.9
57.2
46.2
34.8
25.0
21.3
23.3
17.9
7'
wt.)
at
density
o--i0
1x3
-
Field
capaci ty
cl/3
bar)
=38.00
11.3
Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
124.8
9.1
w
P
Association:
Soi1
Site No.: 84-15
Location:
Lat:
46" OU' 51", Long:
67' 36' 28"
Elevation:
144 m AMSL.
Parent Material:
Very strongly
acidic,
coarse
loamy,
mordinal
material
dominated
by granitic
coarse
fragments
but with some quartzite
and/or
sandstone.
Slope:
7%; northern
aspect,
lower
slope
position,
slightly
mounded.
Moist.
and
Pinder
Drainage:
----Horizon
Imperfectly
seepage.
Stoniness:
Very stony.
Cobbliness:
Very cobbly.
Rockiness:
Nonrocky.
Present
Land Use: Productive
CSS Classification:
Gleyed
Morphological
(imperfectly
drained)
drained,
woodland.
Humo-Ferric
slowly
moderate
pervious,
surface
runoff,
no
Podzol.
Description
-
Depth
(cm)
Color
(Munsell
Notation)
Texture
Mottles
size,
(abundance,
contrast)
(grade,
Structure
class,
kind)
Coarse
fraqments
IX, shape,
sizel
Consistence
LF
8-
0
Ae
o-
7
7.5
YR 6.5/4
Silt
loam
-
V. weak,
v.
fine,
qranular
Very
friable
10% Anqular
nravels
8fl
7-
14
7.5
YR 4/5
Silt
loam
-
V. weak,
v.
fine,
granular
Very
friable
10% Anqular
qravels
tif2
14-
24
10 YR 4.5/7
Silt
loam
-
Weak,
blocky
Very
friahle
10% Anqular
qravels
blocky
Friable
70% Anqular
qravels
Fin
30% Anqular
cobhler
40% Anqular
cohhles
Few,
fine,
UC
24-
41
1.0
Y 4.517
Loam
Csjl
41-
65
2.5
Y 4.5/4
Loam
'Comnon.
C9j 2
65-100
LOam
Mw,
10 YK 3.5/3.5
faint
med.,
coarse,
Chemical
Site
No.:
Chemical
Weak.
distinct
Very
distinct
Weak,
and
Physical
med.,
subanq.
med..
weak,
subanq.
fine,
medium,
platy
platy
Very
firm
Analysis
84-15
Analysis:
Physical
Analysis:
% H?O (by
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
~Ae
BfItBf2
BC
C9j 1
C9j2
PH
H$
CaL12
Total
Lx--m
Exchangeable
Ca
Mg
~~_._~__
o7
7- 24
24- 41
41- 65
65-100
3.9
4.1
4.9
4.9
4.8
3.4
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.1
cations
K
Al
-~--2.77
4.28
1.60
0.78
0.10
0.17
0.28
0.11
0.07
0.01
0.66
0.48
0.30
0.36
0.36
0.39
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.23
0.18
0.08
0.08
0.14
11.9
6.32
3.66
3.m
3.00
Particle
Horizon
Ae
Bfl+Bf2
UC
Csjl
C9j2
size
(91
Oepth
(cm)
Sand
Silt
Ky
07
7- 24
24- 41
41- 65
65-100
26.5
31.3
37.1
42.8
44.8
57.8
53.3
47.4
43.3
39.6
15.6
15.4
15.6
13.9
15.5
Bulk
density
g/cm3
1.05
1x
wt.)
at
Field
capacity
(1/3 bar)
Wilting
Point
(15 bars)
-
-
I
(
f
I
Association:
I
l
Swamp
Soi1 Moist. and Orainage: Very poorly drained, slowly pervious. ponded, seepage present.
S i t e No.: 84-16
Location: Lat: 46' 04' 26", Long: 67' 41' 31"
Elevation: 169 m AMSL.
Parent M a t e r i a l : Neutra1 mesic f o r e s t peat.
Vegetation: Trembling aspen. ash and cedar over
alder, raspberry and feather moss.
S1ope: 0%; 1evel , moderatel y mounded.
-
Stoniness:
Cobbliness:
Rockiness:
Present Land Use: Productive woodland.
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : T e r r i c Mesisol.
Morpho1o g i c a l D e s c r i p t i o n
Peat
Type
Color
(Munsell Notation)
ûepth
icm)
Horizon
-
5
von
Post
80% f o r e s t peat; 10% shrubs, 10% Wood
2
Of
O-
Om1
5- 23
1.5 YR 2/0
Om2
23- 41
10 YR 2/1
80% f o r e s t peat; 20% Wood
6
41- 66
10 YR 2/2'
70% f o r e s t peat; 30% wood
5
66+
5 Y 5.5/1
h 3
cg
100% f o r e s t peat
7
-
-
Chemical and Physical Analysis
S i t e No.:
84-16
Chernical Anal y s i s:
Horizon
Of
hl
h 2
cg
û"3
Oepth
(cm)
5
5- 23
23- 41
41- 66
66+
PH
h20
Total
CaC12
Pyro
Index
Exchangeable c a t i o n s
Ca
Mg
K
Horizon Oepth
(an)
30.8
35.5
36.6
8.4
1.85
1.83
1.97
0.58
62.0
92.1
74.5
31.0
102.6
105.9
104.7
36.0
3.95
4.15
4.93
1.58
0.56
Of
0.28
hl
h2
ûn3
0.17
0.21
cg
%
Unrubbed
O-
6-0
5.8
5.7
5.8
.
Fiber
Rubbed
5
-
-
5- 23
23- 41
41- 66
66+
100
66
50
30
10
14
10
1
O-
C a l o r i f i c val.
c a l /g
.
B.D.
gm/cc
O. 14
O. 14
O. 15
0.25
Association:
S i t e No.: 84-17
L o c a t i o n : L a t : 46' 01' 56", Long: 67' 4 5 ' 54"
E l e v a t i o n : 189 m AMSL.
P a r e n t M a t e r i a l : A c i d i c mesic and humic f o r e s t peat.
V e g e t a t i o n : Cedar and spruce o v e r f e r n s .
0.5%;
Slope:
l e v e l , m o d e r a t e l y mounded.
Swamp
S o i 1 M o i s t . and Drainage: Very p o o r l y d r a i n e d , s l o w l y p e r v i o u s , ponded, seepage p r e s e n t .
Stoniness:
Cobbliness:
Rockiness:
P r e s e n t Land Use: P r o d u c t i v e woodland.
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : T e r r i c Humisol.
Morphological D e s c r i p t i o n
-
5
Of
O-
Oh 1
5- 13
S i t e No.:
7.5 YR 2/1
Of
von
Post
1Oo"b f o r e s t p e a t
2
100% f o r e s t p e a t
7
13- 43
5 YR 2.5/2
100% f o r e s t p e a t
5
43- 71
5 YR 3/1.5
100% f o r e s t p e a t
7
71- 81
7.5 YR 3.5/0
100% f o r e s t p e a t
7
81- 95
7.5 YR 3.5/2
100% fen p e a t ( c a r e x )
7
95+
7.5 YR 5.5/2
-
-
84-17
Chemical and P h y s i c a l A n a l y s i s
Chemical A n a l y s i s :
Horizon
Peat
Type
Col o r
(Munsell N o t a t i o n )
Depth
(cm)
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
O-
H20 PHCaC12
Total
ÏX-'-X%
P
yro
Index
Exchangeable
cations
Ca
K
Mg
X Fiber
H o r i z o n Depth
(cm)
Unrubbed
Rubbed
C a l o r i f i c Val.
c a l /g
.
B.D.
gm/cc
5
0.37
I
I
I
l
'1
Association:
S i t e No.: 84-06
Location: Lat: 46" 01' 13". Long: 67' 45' 37"
Elevation: 172 m AMSL.
Parent M a t e r i a l : Stongly a c i d i c coarse loamy, morainal
m a t e r i a l w i t h weakly t o non-calcareous shale.
s l a t e and/or q u a r t z i t e coarse fragments.
Slope: 4%; southerly aspect, upper slope p o s i t i o n ,
l e v e l microtopography.
I
I
T h i b a u l t ( w e l l drafned)
Soi1 Moist. and Drainage: Well drained; moderately pervious; slow surface r u n o f f , no seeoaqe.
Stoniness: Moderately stony.
Cobbl iness: Moderately cobbly.
Rockiness: Nonrocky.
Present Land Use: Abandoned farmland.
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : O r t h i c Humo-Ferric Podzol.
Morphological D e s c r i p t i o n
Oepth
Horizon
(un)
Color
(Munsell Notation)
Texture
Mottles
(abundance, s i r e , c o n t r a s t )
10 YR 3/4
S i l t loam-loam
Structure
(grade, class. k i n d )
Consistence
Coarse fraqments
(%, shape. s i z e )
Weak, f i ne subangul a r
b l ocky
Very f r i a b l e
IO% Angular qravels
~
-
AP
O- 20
tif
20- 25
10 YR 4.516
Loam
Very weak, f i n e subanqular
blocky
Very f r i a b l e
10% Anqular qravels
Bfj
25- 35
1 Y 4.514
Loam
Weak, medium. subangular
b l ocky
Very f r i a b l e
10%Anqul a r qravel s
BC
35- 65
2.5 Y 414
Loam-sandy loam
-
Weak. medium, subangular
blocky
Friable
20% Channers
C
65- 90
10 YR 3.513
Loam-Sandy lomt
-
Weak, medium, subanqul a r
b l ocky
Friable
30% Channers
Site
No.:
C h m i c a l and Physical Analysis
84-06
Chemical Analysis:
Physical Anal y s i s :
Horizon
AP
Bf
B fj
BC
C
Depth
(cm)
Total
PH
'ri20
O- 20 5.1
20- 25 5.4
25- 35 5.5
35- 65 5.5
65- 90 5.3
Ca
CaC12
4.4
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.4
4.40
1.49
0.75
0.42
0.28
0.38
0.16
0.09
0.06
0.02
Exchangeabl e c a t i o n s
K
AI
Mg
3.90
0.84
0.60
1.80
1.26
0.49
0.30
0.20
0.39
0.59
0.23
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.16
2.99
2.33
0.99
0.66
0.66
Horizon Depth
(cm)
AP
Bf
üfj
EC
C
ISand
O- 20 35.3
20- 25 42.6
25- 35 49.5
35- 65 51.5
65- 90 52-0
I
-
1
Silt
49.7
46.7
41.0
34.9
33.3
1
capaci t y
(113 bar)
Clay
15.0
11.0
9.5
13.6
14.8
-
-
wi1t i n g
Point
(15 bars)
-
1.28
22.1
11.4
1.54
17.2
10.6
-
-
Association:
S i t e No.: 84-09
Location: L a t : 46" 06' 22". Long: 67" 38' 59"
Elevation: 167 m AMSL.
Parent M a t e r i a l : Neutra1 , coarse loamy morainal
m a t e r i a l w i t h weakly t o moderately calcareous
shaie, s l a t e and q u a r t z i t e coarse fragments.
Slope: 4%; westerly aspect, middle slope p o s i t i o n ,
l e v e l microtopography.
T h i b a u l t (moderately well drained)
Soi1 Moist. and Drainage: Moderately well drained, moderately pervious, moderate siirface
r u n o f f , no seepage.
Stoniness: Moderately stony.
Cobbl iness: Noncobbly.
Rockiness: S1 i g h t l y rocky.
Present Land Use: Improved pasture/forage.
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : O r t h i c Melanic B r u n i s o l .
Morpho1o g i c a l D e s c r i p t i o n
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
Col o r
(Munseil Notation)
M o t t l es
(abundance, size. c o n t r a s t )
Texture
Structure
(grade, c l a s s , k i n d )
Consistence
Coarse fraqments
(%, shape, s i z e )
Weak, coarse, granul a r
Very f r i a b l e
10% Channers
Weak, f i n e , subangular
b l ocky
Friable
204; Channers
10 Yn 3.512.5
S i l t loam
16- 40
10 YR 6/5.5
Loam
BC
40- 80
10 YR 5/4
Loam
Few, medium, f a i n t
Weak, medium, subanqular
b l ocky
Friable
204; Channers
2Ckgj
80-120
10 YR 4/5
Sandy loam
Many, codrse. d i s t i n c t
S t r u c t u r e l ess
Friable
40% Channers
AP
O- 16
Brn
-
Chemical and Physical Analysis
S i t e No. :
84-09
Chemical Anal y s i s:
Physical Anal y s i s :
X H20 (by wt.)
Horizon
AP
8m
BC
2Ckgj
Depth
(cm)
PH
H20 CaClZ
O- 16 6.5
16- 40 6.8
40- 80 7.4
80-120 7.4
6.0
6.3
6.9
7.0
Total
3.27
0.83
0.68
0.61
0.33
0.11
0.06
0.06
Exchangeable c a t i o n s
Ca
Mg
K
AI
12.84
6.36
9.84
7.38
1.
3.36
1.68
0.26
0.15
0.18
0.14
0.59
0.49
1
Wilting
Horizon Depth
(cml
(1/3 bar)
-
-
-
at
AP
Bm
BC
ZCkgj
O- 16 25.0
16- 40 38.0
40- 80 39.8
80-120 57.4
57.0
44.5
41.5
31.5
18.0
17.5
18.8
11.2
-
1.41
-
1.63
-
-
-
(15 bars)
-
-
I
1
I
I
l
Association:
S i t e No.: 84-13
Location: L a t : 46" 00' 10". Long: 67' 41' 21"
Elevation: 175 m AMSL.
Parent M a t e r i a l : Acidic, coarse loamy morainal
m a t e r i a l w i t h non calcareous shale, s l a t e .
and s i l t s t o n e coarse fragments.
Slope: 7%; n o r t h e r l y aspect, c r e s t p o s i t i o n , l e v e l
microtopography.
l
I
1
1
c
Thibault, shallow ( w e l l drained)
Soi1 Moist. and Drainage: Well drained, moderately pervious, slow r u n o f f , no seepage.
Stoniness: S1 i g h t l y stony.
Cobbl iness: Noncobbly.
Rockiness: Nonrocky.
Present Land Use: Abandoned farmland.
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : O r t h i c Sombric Brunisol.
Morpho1o g i c a l D e s c r i p t i o n
Horizon
Site
No.:
Depth
(cm)
Col o r
(Munsell Notation)
Texture
M o t t l es
(abundance. size. c o n t r a s t )
Structure
(grade, class, k i n d )
Coarse fragments
(%, shape, s i z e )
Consistence
AP
O- 20
10 YR 4.5/4
Loam
Weak. f i n e , subanguiar
b l ocky
Very F r i a b l e
20% Channers
Bm
20- 39
10 YR 5/5.5
Sandy ioam1oam
Weak, medium, subangul a r
blocky
F r i ab1 e
40% Channers
IIBC
39- 67
10 YR 4.5/3.5
Sandy loam
Structureless
F r i ab1e
70% Channers
R
67 +
S i l t s t o n e bedrock
Chemical and Physical Analysis
84-13
-% H20 (by wt.) a t
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
il20
PH
CaC12
Total
ÏZ--FZ
ta
Exchangeable c a t i o n s
Al
K
Mg
P a r t i c l e s i z e (7,)
Horizon Depth
(cm)
.
Sand
Silt
Clay
Bulk d e n s i t y
g/cm3
Field
capacity
(1/3 bar)
Wilting
Point
( 1 5 bars)
P
W
Association:
S i t e No.: 84-04
L o c a t i o n : L a t : 46" 02' 31", Long: 67" 37' 48"
E l e v a t i o n : 200 m AMSL.
Parent M a t e r i a l : A c i d i c , f i n e loamy, m o r a i n a l t i l l
w i t h sandstone and q u a r t z i t e c o a r s e
fragments.
Slope: 9%; e a s t e r l y aspect, i n i d d l e s l o p e p o s i t i o n ,
l e v e l inicrotopography.
V i o l e t t e (moderately w e l l d r a i n e d )
Soi1 M o i s t . and Drainage: Moderately w e l l d r a i n e d , s l o w l y perviotis, slow s u r f a c e r i i n o f f , no
seepage.
Stoniness: S l i g h t l y stony.
Cobbliness: M o d e r a t e l y cobbly.
Rockiness: Nonrocky.
Present Land Use: Improved p a s t u r e / f o r a g e .
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : O r t h i c Humo-Ferric Podzol.
Morpho1 og ic a l D e s c r i p t i o n
Horizon
S i t e No.:
Depth
(cni)
Col o r
(Munseii N o t a t i o n )
Texture
M o t t l es
(abundance, s i z e , c o n t r a s t )
Structure
(grade. c l a s s , k i n d )
Consistence
Coarse fraqments
(%, shape, s i z e i
AP
O- 25
10 YR 4.5/5
Loam
Weak, f i n e , subangular
blocky
Very f r i a b l e
10% Angular q r a v e l s
nf
25- 30
10 YR 5-5/8
Loam
Weak, medium, subangular
b l ocky
Friable
10% Angul a r q r a v e l s
BC
30- 43
2.5 Y 4.5/5
Loam
Weak, f i n e , p l a t y
Friable
20% Anqular q r a v e l s
Cgjl
43- 65
10 YH 5/4
Loam
Comnon, medium, f a i n t t o
distinct
Weak, medium, p l a t y
Firm
70% Anqiil a r cohhl es
Cgj2
65- 85
10 YR 5/4
Loam
Coimon, medium, f a i n t t o
distinct
Weak, f i n e , p l a t y
Very f i r m
35% Anqular cohhles,
84-04
Chemical and P h y s i c a l A n a l y s i s
Chemical A n a l y s i s :
P h y s i c a l Anal y s i s :
-
% H20 ( b y w t . )
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
PH
CaC12
H20
AP
Uf
BC
Cgjl
CgJ2
O- 25
25- 30
30- 43
43-65
65- 85
6.0
6-0
5.6
5.3
5.1
TûtPl
7X-'-T%
Exchangeable c a t i o n s
Ca
Mg
K
AI
H o r i z o n Oepth
klilting
Particle size (%)
(1/3 b a r )
I
I
5-4
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.4
2.80
1.23
0.58
0.31
0.26
0.24
0.11
0.05
0.03
0.03
4.98
1.74
1.26
1.20
2.22
1.68
0.79
0.69
0.69
1.09
0.52
0.13
0.12
0.16
0.26
at
Bulk d e n s i t y
AP
Bf
BC
CgJl
cgJ2
O25304365-
l
25
30
43
65
85
45.4
26.6
30.4
36.3
34.9
28.1
48.1
45.2
43.7
42.0
26.5
25.3
24.4
19.9
23.1
(15 b a r s )
-
-
-
1.08
29.4
23.3
1.63
15.5
14.2
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
Association:
S i t e No.: 364
Location: Lat: 46" 03' 50". Long: 67' 03' 36"
E l e v a t i o n : 152 m AMSL.
Parent M a t e r i a l : S t r o n g l y a c i d i c f i n e loamy, morainal
m a t e r i a l w i t h sandstone and q u a r t z i t e coarse
fragments.
Slope: 0.5-2%, l e v e l p o s i t i o n ,
l e v e l microtopography
I
I
V i o l e t t e (very poorly drained)
Soi1 Moist. and Drainage: Very p o o r l y drained, s l o w l y pervious, slow s u r f a c e r u n o f f , no
seepage.
Stoniness: Very stony.
Cobbl iness: Very cobbly.
Rockiness: Nonrocky.
Present Land Use: P r o d u c t i v e woodland.
CSS C l a s s i f i c a t i o n : O r t h i c Humic Gleysol.
Morphological D e s c r i p t i o n
Horizon
Depth
(cm)
Om
10-
O
Aeg
O- 17
Bg
c9
Col o r
(Munsell N o t a t i o n )
-
Texture
Mottles
(abundance, s i z e , c o n t r a s t )
Structure
(grade, c l a s s , k i n d )
Consistence
Coarse fragments
(%, shape, s i z e )
S i l t loam
Moderate, medium, subang.
blocky
Friable
15% Angular cobbles
and g r a v e l s
17- 41
S i l t loam
Weak, f i ne, subangul a r
blocky
Friable
15% Angular cobbles
and g r a v e l s
41- 93
Clay loam
Weak, medium, p l a t y
F ir m
25% Angul a r grave1 s
and cobbles