El Concepto de Suelo, Su Clasificación y Representaciones Canónicas

Suelos Ecuatoriales 01/2011; 41(1):19-22.


Soil concept has changed along the time according to the evolution of demands of information that societies requires. Some of the new methodological and scientific proposals are based on reformulations or recombinations of several ancient edaphologic paradigms, known as “theoretically more novel”. However, some of the most heuristic theories has increased their complexity, multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary along the time, apart from some exceptions. In light of the analysis of the assorted soil concepts (seventeen in total), just as the taxonomical structures utilized to organize the edaphodiversity, the conceptual and taxonomic components where integrated to show which were the main actual challenges of the edaphology. Nowadays soil sciences has to transform their utilitarian perspectives (applied science) to other perspectives more appropriate to the standards of the basic research, due to the varied demand of information that comes from several disciplines. These demands open the possibility to transform the edaphology on a basic science, on the earth and life sciences circle.
El concepto de suelo ha ido variando a lo largo del tiempo conforme lo hacían las demandas de información que las sociedades requerían. Si tal hecho es cierto desde que la ciencia fue reconocida tal como la entendemos hoy, también lo es que las diversas concepciones del sistema edáfico no han mutado de unas a otras de un modo claramente secuencial. Muchas de las nuevas propuestas se basan en reformulaciones o recombinaciones de varias de las antiguas ideas bajo prismas “en teoría más novedosos”. Sin embargo, en algunas de las más heurísticas, su complejidad, multidisciplinariedad y transdisciplinariedad si han ido incrementándose con el tiempo, con algunas salvedades. A la luz del análisis de los variados conceptos de suelos (diecisiete en total), así como del de las estructuras taxonómicas que se utilizan con vistas a organizar su edafodiversidad, se muestran cuáles son los principales retos a los que debe enfrentarse hoy la edafología . Actualmente, la ciencia del suelo debe transformar sus perspectivas utilitaristas (ciencia aplicada) hacia otras más acordes con los estándares de la investigación básica, dada las variadas demandas de información que nos reclaman desde las más diversas disciplinas. La edafología se transformará así en una ciencia básica, en el ámbito de las ciencias de la tierra y de la vida, por derecho propio.

Download full-text


Available from: Juan José Ibánez, Oct 05, 2015
1 Follower
161 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Because the soil is a continuum or patterned continuum natural body, many pedologists consider that the biological taxonomies are natural and pedological ones are artificial (naturalia/artificialia dilemma). Thus, the mathematical structure of both classifications should have conspicuous differences. Some biologists claim that biological classifications are fractal. In this paper a mathematical comparison has been carried out between the Tylenchina suborder (plant parasitic soil borne nematodes) and the USDA Soil Taxonomy. Statistical distribution models show that biological and pedological classifications conform to power laws and Weibull distributions, being very similar from a statistical point of view, and follow the same mathematical pattern. However, they are not strictly fractal constructs. Both taxonomies appear to be multifractal structures affected by the constraints of bias. It is proposed that the structure of these classifications does not seem to reflect the nature of biological and pedological evolution but is the result of cognitive rules used by human minds to understand and classify the world. Finally, both mathematical constructs are interpreted from a physical point of view (Maximum Entropy Principle) showing that they tend to be the most efficient retrieval information systems possible taking into account the human bias or constraints.
    Geoderma 10/2006; 134:360-372. DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.03.010 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been little work in science dealing with the organizational, political and scientific layering of database structures as well as classifications and surveys of natural resources. There is disagreement among scientists whether taxonomies are invented (human-made constructs) or are discovered (“natural” structures) independent of the discipline involved. We believe it would be helpful to study the nature of taxonomies from different points of view in order to examine questions such as; are there common features in all taxonomic systems?, are the systems neutral?, and how are classifications and data collection (surveys) linked? It is generally accepted that much institutional work on soil classification systems was nationally biased, especially in terms of practical land management.Recent studies show that the USDA soil taxonomy has the same mathematical structure as some biological ones that conform to physical laws that dictate and optimize information flow in user friendly retrieval systems. In this paper we demonstrate that the multifractal nature of the USDA soil taxonomy is strongly linked with conventional soil survey practices. In fact most surveys are packed with power law distributions, such as: (i) hierarchic taxonomic level used according to the scale map; (ii) minimum polygon size fits the functions to the map scale; and (iii) boundary density–scale map relationship, among others [Beckett, P.H.T., Bie, S.W., 1978. Use of soil and land-system maps to provide soil information in Australia. CSIRO Aust. Div. Soils, Technical Pap. No. 33, pp. 1–76]. Consequently a plethora of power law examples appear in soil survey products and soil taxonomies. Because both activities are strongly linked it seems the minds of soil surveyors and soil taxonomists create similar fractal structures. Fractal objects and power laws are scale invariant mathematical constructs, and the products prepared by experts are also fractal in many aspects. This process could be the reason that maps devoid of legends and other information have a high resemblance and information content, and with independence of scales, they provide a clear fractal signature.In summary, the systems used by soil surveyors and soil taxonomists as a whole have fractal-like structures. We now believe that developing and using fractal structures are subconscious activities of the human brain reflecting both nature and our way of processing and representing information. Because the standards of many natural resource maps are similar to pedological ones, we suspect that scale-invariant information processing is intuitive to human beings and that a more rigorous formalization of survey-taxonomy architectures may help practitioners better understand their activities and constructs, and provide a way to improve them.
    Ecological Complexity 09/2009; 6(3-6):286-293. DOI:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.05.007 · 1.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The full text is avalilable from the European soil portal at the URL:
    Soil Classification 2001, Edited by Micheli, E. Nachtergaele, F. Jones, R. J. A. and Montanarella, 01/2002: chapter The search for a new paradigm in pedology: a driving force for new approaches to soil classification: pages 93-110; European Commission, JRC., ISBN: EUR 20398