1. Janis Boettinger, Utah State University Joe Chiaretti, NRCS-NSSC (retired) Craig Ditzler, NRCS-NSSC (retired) John Galbraith, Virginia Tech Kim Kerschen, KSU (MS student) Cam Loerch, NRCS-NSSC (retired) Paul McDaniel, University of Idaho Shawn McVey, NRCS-NSSC Curtis Monger, New Mexico St. Univ. Toby O’Geen, Univ. California-Davis Phillip Owens, Purdue University Mickey Ransom, KSU (Co-chair) Kenneth Scheffe, NRCS-NSSC Joey Shaw, Auburn University Mark Stolt, University of Rhode Island David Weindorf, Texas Tech University

2.  Soil Taxonomy (ST) conceived in 1950s, with input from many systems, committees Seven drafts circulated through the 1960s 1975: 1 st Ed. Soil Taxonomy published 1999: 2 nd Ed. Soil Taxonomy published (869 pp.) Keys to Soil Taxonomy (a 372 pp. subset) 12 updates since 1975 (latest is 2014) Spanish translation and e-book versions available Six level hierarchy, 5 in eliminatory key format Order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family

3. 1.Every soil is allocated to a class through the family level. 2.Strongly enables soil survey production and interpretation. 3.Decisions can be made in the field, supported with surrogate information, and validated with lab data if needed. 4.The names of classes are descriptive, based on scientific terms, and include the top five levels. 5.Used in over 137 countries. 6.Great groups are basis for new Universal Soil Classification. 7.The system can be fixed if it is wrong, new soils can be added, and improvements suggested through a systematic process.

4.  Soil Taxonomy uses complex criteria Based on quantitative limits Chemical, physical variables Climate (moisture, temperature regimes) Depths, thickness Relative and absolute comparisons Complex wording – connectors and or both of one of does not contain etc. Precise, but not simple to follow Many exceptions included for rare soils

5. Aridic Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Aridic Paleustalf  An example of the first 5 levels, ranked lowest to highest! 5 4 3 2 1  To an experienced American pedologist, this makes perfect sense – but college students, consultants, landowners, and the general public ….

6.  *Many different authors, so the writing style is not consistent throughout, esp. between mineral and organic soils.  *No key to epipedons or diagnostic horizons and characteristics, each must be checked.  *Not enough pictures or simple descriptions of diagnostics in the Keys.  Terms horizon and layer have multiple meanings but the terms are used interchangeably.

7.  NOT INTENDED TO REPLACED KEYS TO SOIL TAXONOMY! Target is 85% accuracy.  Complimentary guide focused on concepts Wider use of illustrations, horizon and profile photos, maps, and flow diagrams

8.  Part 1: How to use this Version of the Keys Introduction to the Illustrated Guide… General Steps to Follow When Classifying a Soil Soil Moisture and Temperature Regimes  Part 2: Diagnostic Horizons and Features  Part 3: Keys - Orders, Suborders, Great Groups

14.  Target Audiences: College students studying soils for the first time Consultants Natural resource managers Agronomists Foresters Engineers Rangeland specialists

15.  Different focus Keys to Soil Taxonomy: Quantitative limits on all categories through the great group (3 rd ) level Illustrated Guide: Concept statements through the 4 th level Simpler terms, avoiding jargon More visual teaching style, not just technical guide

16.  Other differences More illustrations Definitions of master horizons, subordinates, diagnostic subsurface horizons, and epipedons Extensive hyperlinks to definitions or additional data sources