Field and laboratory procedures used in a soil chronosequence study

doi:10.3133/b1648

USGS · b1648

Field and laboratory procedures used in a soil chronosequence study

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In 1978, the late Denis Marchand initiated a research project entitled "Soil Correlation and Dating at the U.S. Geological Survey" to determine the usefulness of soils in solving geologic problems. Marchand proposed to establish soil chronosequences that could be dated independently of soil development by using radiometric and other numeric dating methods. In addition, by comparing dated chronosequences in different environments, rates of soil development could be studied and compared among varying climates and mineralogical conditions. The project was fundamental in documenting the value of soils in studies of mapping, correlating, and dating late Cenozoic deposits and in studying soil genesis. All published reports by members of the project are included in the bibliography. The project demanded that methods be adapted or developed to ensure comparability over a wide variation in soil types. Emphasis was placed on obtaining professional expertise and on establishing consistent techniques, especially for the field, laboratory, and data-compilation methods. Since 1978, twelve chronosequences have been sampled and analyzed by members of this project, and methods have been established and used consistently for analysis of the samples. The goals of this report are to: Document the methods used for the study on soil chronosequences, Present the results of tests that were run for precision, accuracy, and effectiveness, and Discuss our modifications to standard procedures. Many of the methods presented herein are standard and have been reported elsewhere. However, we assume less prior analytical knowledge in our descriptions; thus, the manual should be easy to follow for the inexperienced analyst. Each chapter presents one or more references of the basic principle, an equipment and reagents list, and the detailed procedure. In some chapters this is followed by additional remarks or example calculations. The flow diagram in figure 1 outlines the step-by-step procedures used to obtain and analyze soil samples for this study. The soils analyzed had a wide range of characteristics (such as clay content, mineralogy, salinity, and acidity). Initially, a major task was to test and select methods that could be applied and interpreted similarly for the various types of soils. Tests were conducted to establish the effectiveness and comparability of analytical techniques, and the data for such tests are included in figures, tables, and discussions. In addition, many replicate analyses of samples have established a "standard error" or "coefficient of variance" which indicates the average reproducibility of each laboratory procedure. These averaged errors are reported as percentage of a given value. For example, in particle-size determination, 3 percent error for 10 percent clay content equals 10 ± 0.3 percent clay. The error sources were examined to determine, for example, if the error in particle-size determination was dependent on clay content. No such biases were found, and data are reported as percent error in the text and in tables of reproducibility.

Explore related subjects

Bulletin Report

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

1986. Field and laboratory procedures used in a soil chronosequence study. https://doi.org/10.3133/b1648

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2017

Groundwater flow model for the Little Plover River basin in Wisconsin’s Central Sands

The Little Plover River is a groundwater-fed stream in the sand plains region of central Wisconsin. In this region, sandy sediment deposited during or soon after the last glaciation forms an important unconfined sand and gravel aquifer. This aquifer supplies water for numerous high-capacity irrigation, municipal, and industrial wells that support a thriving agricultural industry. In recent years the addition of many new wells, combined with observed diminished flows in the Little Plover and other nearby rivers, has raised concerns about the impacts of the wells on groundwater levels and on water levels and flows in nearby lakes, streams, and wetlands. Diverse stakeholder groups, including well operators, Growers, environmentalists, local land owners, and regulatory and government officials have sought a better understanding of the local groundwater-surface water system and have a shared desire to balance the water needs of the he liagricultural, industrial, and urban users with the maintenance and protection of groundwater-dependent natural resources. To help address these issues, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requested that the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and U.S. Geological Survey cooperatively develop a groundwater flow model that could be used to demonstrate the relationships among groundwater, surface water, and well withdrawals and also be a tool for testing and evaluating alternative water management strategies for the central sands region. Because of an abundance of previous studies, data availability, local interest, and existing regulatory constraints the model focuses on the Little Plover River watershed, but the modeling methodology developed during this study can apply to much of the larger central sands of Wisconsin. The Little Plover River groundwater flow model simulates three-dimensional groundwater movement in and around the Little Plover River basin under steady-state and transient conditions. This model explicitly includes all high-capacity wells in the model domain and simulates seasonal variations in recharge and well pumping. The model represents the Little Plover River, and other significant streams and drainage ditches in the model domain, as fully connected to the groundwater system, computes stream base flow resulting from groundwater discharge, and routes the flow along the stream channel. A separate soil-water-balance (SWB) model was used to develop groundwater recharge arrays as input for the groundwater flow model. The SWB model uses topography, soils, land use, and climatic data to estimate recharge as deep drainage from the soil zone. The SWB model explicitly includes recharge originating as irrigation water, and computes irrigation using techniques similar to those used by local irrigation operators. The groundwater flow model uses the U.S. Geological Survey’s MODFLOW modeling code which is freely available, widely accepted, and commonly used by the groundwater community. The groundwater flow model and the SWB model use identical high-resolution numerical grids having model cells 100 feet on a side, with physical properties assigned to each grid cell. This grid allows accurate geographic placement of wells, streams, and other model features. The 3-dimensional grid has three layers; layers 1 and 2 represent the sand and gravel aquifer and layer 3 represents the underlying sandstone. The distribution of material properties in the model (hydraulic conductivity, aquifer thickness, etc.) comes from previous published geologic studies of the region, updated by calibration to recent streamflow and groundwater level data. The SWB model operates on a daily time step. The groundwater flow model was calibrated to monthly stress periods with time steps ranging from 1 to 16 days. More detailed time discretization is possible. The groundwater model was calibrated to water-level and streamflow data collected during 2013 and 2014 by adjusting model parameters (primarily hydraulic conductivity, storage, and recharge) until the model produced a conditionally optimal fit between field observations and model output, subject to consistency with previously published geologic studies. Calibration was performed under both steady and transient conditions, and used a sophisticated parameter-estimation procedure (PEST) for the calibration process and to identify important model parameters. For the Little Plover River, the two most important parameters are the global recharge multiplier and the hydraulic conductivity of the stream bed. The calibrated model produces water-level and mass-balance results that are consistent with field observations and previous studies of the area. The completed model is a powerful tool for testing and demonstrating alternative water-management scenarios. Example model applications described in this report include simulating how the cumulative impacts of pumping and land-use change have affected average baseflow in the Little Plover River. Depletion-potential mapping represents a method for predicting which wells and well locations have the greatest impact on nearby surface-water resources. The completed model is publicly available, along with a companion user’s guide to assist with its operation, at http://wgnhs.org/littleplover- river-groundwater-model.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2016

The 2016 groundwater flow model for Dane County, Wisconsin

A new groundwater flow model for Dane County, Wisconsin, replaces an earlier model developed in the 1990s by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This modeling study was conducted cooperatively by the WGNHS and the USGS with funding from the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC). Although the overall conceptual model of the groundwater system remains largely unchanged, the incorporation of newly acquired high-quality datasets, recent research findings, and improved modeling and calibration techniques have led to the development of a more detailed and sophisticated model representation of the groundwater system. The new model is three-dimensional and transient, and conceptualizes the county’s hydrogeology as a 12-layer system including all major unlithified and bedrock hydrostratigraphic units and two high-conductivity horizontal fracture zones. Beginning from the surface down, the model represents the unlithified deposits as two distinct model layers (1 and 2). A single layer (3) simulates the Ordovician sandstone and dolomite of the Sinnipee, Ancell, and Prairie du Chien Groups. Sandstone of the Jordan Formation (layer 4) and silty dolostone of the St. Lawrence Formation (layer 5) each comprise separate model layers. The underlying glauconitic sandstone of the Tunnel City Group makes up three distinct layers: an upper aquifer (layer 6), a fracture feature (layer 7), and a lower aquifer (layer 8). The fracture layer represents a network of horizontal bedding-plane fractures that serve as a preferential pathway for groundwater flow. The model simulates the sandstone of the Wonewoc Formation as an upper aquifer (layer 9) with a bedding-plane fracture feature (layer 10) at its base. The Eau Claire aquitard (layer 11) includes shale beds within the upper portion of the Eau Claire Formation. This layer, along with overlying bedrock units, is mostly absent in the preglacially eroded valleys along the Yahara River valley and in northeastern Dane County. Layer 12 represents the Mount Simon sandstone as the lowermost model layer. It directly overlies the Precambrian crystalline basement rock, whose top surface forms the lower boundary of the model. The model uses the USGS MODFLOW-NWT finite-difference code, a standalone version of MODFLOW-2005 that incorporates the Newton (NWT) solver. MODFLOW-NWT improves the handling of unconfined conditions by smoothing the transition from wet to dry cells. The model explicitly simulates groundwater–surface-water interaction with streamflow routing and lake-level fluctuation. Model input included published and unpublished hydrogeologic data from recent estimates of aquifer hydraulic conductivities. A spatial groundwater recharge distribution was obtained from a recent GIS-based, soil-water-balance model for Dane County. Groundwater withdrawals from pumping were simulated for 572 wells across the entire model domain, which includes Dane County and portions of seven neighboring counties—Columbia, Dodge, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Lafayette, and Rock. These wells withdrew an average of 60 million gallons per day (mgd) over the 5-year period from 2006 through 2010. Within Dane County, 385 wells were simulated with an average withdrawal rate of 52 mgd. Model calibration used the parameter estimation code PEST, and calibration targets included heads, stream and spring flows, lake levels, and borehole flows. Steady-state calibration focused on the period 2006 through 2010; the transient calibration focused on the 7-week drought period from late May through July 2012. This model represents a significant step forward from previous work because of its finer grid resolution, improved hydrostratigraphic discretization, transient capabilities, and more sophisticated representation of surface-water features and multi-aquifer wells. Potential applications of the model include evaluation of potential sites for and impacts of new high-capacity wells, development of wellhead protection plans, evaluating the effects of changing land use and climate on groundwater, and quantifying the relationships between groundwater and surface water.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2015

Geologic framework of the Alaska Peninsula, southwest Alaska, and the Alaska Peninsula terrane

The Alaska Peninsula is composed of the late Paleozoic to Quaternary sedimentary, igneous, and minor metamorphic rocks that record the history of a number of magmatic arcs. These magmatic arcs include an unnamed Late Triassic(?) and Early Jurassic island arc, the early Cenozoic Meshik arc, and the late Cenozoic Aleutian arc. Also found on the Alaska Peninsula is one of the most complete nonmetamorphosed, fossiliferous, marine Jurassic sedimentary sections known. As much as 8,500 m of section of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks record the growth and erosion of the Early Jurassic island arc. A thinner, but still thick (as much as 5,400 m), sequence of Tertiary sedimentary rocks that are predominantly continental overlies the Mesozoic section. A brief regression in early Tertiary time on the Alaska Peninsula and granodiorite plutonism in the Shumagin, Semidi, and Sanak Islands was followed by deposition of fluvial and minor marine clastic strata. This was followed by deposition of transgressive marine clastic strata and initiation of the Meshik arc, shown by an areally extensive outpouring of volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks and debris between late Eocene and earliest Miocene time. Late Miocene time was marked by another brief transgression and northwest- to southeast-directed compression, followed by renewed volcanism and plutonism which initiated the modern Aleutian magmatic arc. Extensive glacial and glaciomarine deposits of late Pleistocene age create an extensive lowland physiographic province on the northwest side of the Alaska Peninsula and join isolated mountain masses to the Alaska Peninsula on the southwest. Multiple active volcanoes and volcanic peaks dominate the skyline of the Alaska Peninsula and represent the continuation of magmatic activity that has formed the Aleutian arc since late Miocene time. The Alaska Peninsula has had a long and involved history since Paleozoic time. We propose that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks that constitute much of the Alaska Peninsula be called the Alaska Peninsula terrane. Using the concept of subterranes, we divide the terrane into two distinct but tectonically related subterranes: the Chignik and Iliamna subterranes, which share a limited common geologic history. The Iliamna subterrane has served at most times as a source area for the Chignik subterrane; however, some rock units are in common across the subterranes. The Iliamna and Chignik subterranes are in part separated by the Bruin Bay fault system. The Iliamna subterrane is composed of moderately deformed early Mesozoic marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks and schist, gneiss, and marble of Paleozoic(?) and Mesozoic age, and plutonic rocks of the Alaska-Aleutian Range batholith. Characteristic of the Chignik subterrane are little-deformed, shallow-marine to continental clastic sedimentary rocks ranging in age from Permian to latest Cretaceous. However, deep-marine, volcaniclastic, and calcareous rocks form important components of the older rocks in the subterrane. The two subterranes of the Alaska Peninsula terrane are characterized by radically different structural and metamorphic styles. The nonplutonic rocks of the Iliamna subterrane are characterized by metamorphism up to amphibolite-facies grade and intense folding. In the Chignik subterrane, the structural style is dominated by large, open, en echelon anticlinal structures, normal faulting, and thrust and high-angle reverse faults that have minor displacement in a northwest to southeast direction. In the Outer Shumagin and Sanak Islands, rocks assigned to the Chugach terrane are characterized structurally by tight, generally northeast-trending folds. Dips in these rocks tend to be steep, rarely less than 35°, and overturned beds are locally common. The boundaries separating the Alaska Peninsula terrane from other terranes are commonly indistinct or poorly defined. A few boundaries have been defined at major faults, although the extensions of these faults are speculative through some areas. The west side of the Alaska Peninsula terrane is overlapped by Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks and Quaternary deposits.

Alaska↗