Solods under conditions of excessive surface and ground moisture in Western Siberia: Properties, hydrology, and genesis

ISSN 0147�6874, Moscow University Soil Science Bulletin, 2011, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 1–10. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2011.Original Russian Text © F.R. Zaidelman, Ye.Yu. Pakhomova, M.T. Ustinov, 2011, published in Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Pochvovedenie, 2011, No. 1, pp. 3–12.

1

INTRODUCTION

Solods are soils with a differentiated profile, lowabsorbed sodium content, and light�colored acid(subacid) eluvial horizons, spread mainly in the for�est–steppe and steppe zones of Russia. In westernSiberia, they can be found mostly in the Barabinskayadepression and Priobskoye plateau. Here solods areusually formed on wide elongated depressions of lakehollows and in the areal of plateaulike highlands withpronounced relief of separated forest stands.

Solods have long attracted the attention ofresearchers for their special genesis and agriculturalsignificance. In the theoretical perspective, they are acomplicated group of soils whose genetic and taxo�nomic particularities remain incompletely known.In practical terms, their negative features (overmoist�ening in the spring–early summer period, depositionclose to the surface of acid eluvial horizons, and otherproperties) cause the agroecological motley characterof agricultural fields, impair the processing of soils,and decrease the harvest.

The common distinctive property of solods is thepresence of sodium ions in the soil absorbing complex(SAC) of the upper light�colored acid eluvial horizons.Solods are a special type of hydromorphic soils. Theycan be considered as an example of the degradation ofsoils due to overmoistening. Solods have an eluvial–illuvial and eluvial differentiation of the profile andlight eluvial subacid or acid horizons with a character�istic change in horizons of A1�A2fs(g)�Bg�Cg or A1�A2g�Bg�Cg.

The concept of K.K. Hedroitz [6] is an acknowl�edged theory of the formation of solodized soils,according to which they appear as a result of degrada�tion of solonetzes under the influence of a descendingcurrent of deposits. Sodium solutions in soil are thesource of sodium. Hedroits came to the conclusionthat the main influence of the absorbed sodium ofsolonetzes consists in its disaggregating action. Theabsorbing complex of solonetz soils is destroyed,sodium is carried out with the soil solution, and thesoil degrades. The process of degradation of the soil asapplied to solonetzes was called solodification byHedroitz, and the soils formed as a result of solodifica�tion were called solods. Whitish amorphous silica isaccumulated in the upper horizons in the process ofsolodification.

The existence of such soils was known long ago,and they were often considered to be part of steppepodzols. D.G. Vilenskii [4], K.P. Gorshenin, andV.I. Baranov [7], V.A. Kovdoi [16], V.G. Zol’nikov [11],N.I. Bazilevich [1, 2], A.A. Rode, et al. [17], I.S. Kau�richev and Ye.M. Nozdrunova [12–14], N.N. Boly�shev and S.A. Turdeneva [4], and others have madesignificant contributions to the knowledge of solods.

Solods are widespread in other countries as well.I.L. Sabol’ch [19] showed that the process of solodifica�tion of solonetzes can occur as a result of anthropogenicchange in the hydrological regime. He established thatthe temporary moistening after the irrigation of ricefields on the territory of the Vengerskaya Depressionleads to the degradation of solonetz soils into solods.

GENESIS AND GEOGRAPHY OF SOILS

Solods Under Conditions of Excessive Surface and Ground Moisture in Western Siberia: Properties, Hydrology, and Genesis

F. R. Zaidelmana, Ye. Yu. Pakhomovaa, and M. T. Ustinovb

a Faculty of Soil Science, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russiab West Siberian State Design Institute of Water Management, Novosibirsk, Russia

Received July 12, 2010

Abstract—Depending on conditions of formation, solods should be differentiated into two groups: solods ofground overmoistening and solods of surface overmoistening. Criteria are offered to distinguish soils accord�ing to the ratio between the clay in the B2 horizon and that in the A2 horizon, as well as according to thechanges in the soil pH. Formation of gley under conditions of stagnant to percolative water regime is a nec�essary and sufficient cause for light�colored acid eluvial horizons to form in their profile. In the main prop�erties of the solid phase (acidity, total chemical composition, and distribution of silt), gley solods are identicalto soddy–podzolic and chernozem�like podzolic gley soils.

Keywords: gley formation, solod, solonetz, excessive moistening, eluvial horizons

DOI: 10.3103/S0147687411010078

2

MOSCOW UNIVERSITY SOIL SCIENCE BULLETIN Vol. 66 No. 1 2011

ZAIDELMAN et al.

In the genetic respect, solods are a rather compli�cated group of soils whose formation is associated notonly with spontaneous evolution of salinized soils.Some researchers suppose that formation of gley [15],gley and podzol [22], and podzol [5] plays an impor�tant role in their appearance.

V.R. Williams [5] and N.N. Bolyshev and S.A. Tur�deneva [3] consider that diatomaceous and blue–green algae, which destroy aluminosilicates, play anactive role in the formation of solods. It has been sug�gested that solods appear under the influence of sub�terranean waters [18].

Finally, N.I. Bazilevich [1] believes that the forma�tion of solods is the result of two opposing processes:periodic alkalinization owing to alkalescent ascendingsolutions and subsequent ablution of soils with solu�tions of humous and organic acids. Thus, modernnotions of the genesis of solods are contradictory.

Our aim was to study the solods of the region, ana�lyze them, and compare the properties of solods withthose of other soils with light�colored acid horizons.

Objects of Study

Our studies were conducted in the Ubinskii andKrasnozerski areas of Novosibirsk oblast in 2008–2009 by an expedition of the Physics and Meliorationof Soils Department of the Soil Faculty of MoscowState University in association with employees ofZapsibgiprovodkhoz.

Depending on the conditions of formation, solodscan be divided into two groups. The first is formed bysolods of soil overmoistening and are situated in thevalley of Lake Ubinskoye. In geomorphological terms,the territory of the area belongs to the eastern Barabin�skaya accumulative plain. Elevation of the surface is110–140 m. Modern lake–marsh deposits coveredwith subaerial loess�like loams from 1 to 3 m take partin the geological structure. This suite of horizons lieson lake–alluvial light deposits. Subterranean waterslie at 1–3 m, on waterlogged areas of 0.5–1.0 m. Min�eralization of waters is 1–3 g/l with a mixed chemicalcomposition. The type of chemism of soils salinizationis soda chloride and sulphate– and chloride–hydro�carbonate. Seventy percent of the territory requiresdraining.

The second group, solods of surface overmoisten�ing, are situated on the territory of the Priobskoye pla�teau 10 km to the east of the Gerbaevo village in a zoneof separated forest stand forest–steppe. They areformed here in depressions of the watershed space.The territory is situated in the ancient Karasukskayadrainage valley. Elevation of the surface is 139–169 m.The soil�forming rocks the loess�like loams. Subterra�nean waters are at a depth of 10 m or more. They donot participate in the formation of solods.

RESULTS

In hydrological terms, solods are usually consid�ered as relatively homogeneous formations. However,our study of them based on examples of soils from theregion reveals noticeable differences in their proper�ties depending on their relation to various geomorpho�logical structures, the specifics of the hydrologicalregime, and the nature of soil�forming rocks.

Morphology of Solods and Solodized Soils

Cut 1 was made in the valley of Lake Ubinskoye,near the Ksenyevka village on the shore of LakeDolgoye in the depression of the first above�floodplainterrace. The soil there is gleyey loamy solod. Vegeta�tion includes birch, aspen, and willow in the uppertier; dog–rose in the middle tier; and ribbon grass,Carex media, Carex riparia, Omskaya sedge, and pea�vine in the lower tier. The soil is overmoistened withsubterranean waters. Eluvial horizons are platy orlumpy–silty; illuvial horizons are finely cloddy orfinely cloddy silty.

Cut 2 was laid 50–70 m to the southeast of cut 1.The soil was solodized gleyey heavily loamy solonetz.The vegetation is represented by wormwood, fowl–

Av 0–5 cm:the turf is rather dense; abundantremains of tree and grass vegetation;weak peatization; fresh, dark–gray;

A1 5–12 cm:

fresh slightly clay gray with inclusionsof light�gray fragments; many smallroots; rather dense; the transition isnoticeable;

A1A2 12–16 cm:

moist, light gray, lightly clay, withabundant inclusion of whitish frag�ments, platy, rather dense, markedtransition;

A2g' 16–24 cm:

moist, uniformly whitish, lightly claywith abundant bright white spots,locally—with bluish tint, platy, ratherdense, clear transition;

A2Bg''24–28 cm:damp, dark brown, average clayey,with large whitish fragments, dense,the transition is distinct;

B1g' 28–54 cm:

moist, dark brown with dove�coloredspots of gleyification, heavily loamy,finely cloddy, dense, the transition isgradual;

B2g'' 54–78 cm:

moist, dark brown with large dove�colored spots of gleyification (aver�agely gleyified), clayey, finely cloddy,dense, the transition is gradual;

Ck,g' 78–103 cm:

moist, brownish, spots of weak gleyifi�cation, averagely clayey, dense, thetransition is gradual, boils violentlyfrom HCl;

Ck 103–130 cm: moist, light brown, rare spots of gleyi�fication, lightly clayey, boils from HCl.


SOLODS UNDER CONDITIONS OF EXCESSIVE SURFACE 3

grass, green mosses, barley, milfoil, couch–grass, andpeavine.

Cut 6 was laid in the fragmental depression of thePriobskoye plateau, solod deeply gleyified. It is situ�ated in the upper part of the depression’s slope (birch–aspen separated forest stand). The vegetation is repre�sented by birch, aspen, dog–rose, peavine, fowl–grass, and single cases of sedges.

Cut 7 (separated forest stand depression of the Pri�obskoye plateau) is solod gleyey. Bottom of a birchseparated forest stand, rare forest of birch and aspen.The vegetation is grass: sedge Omskaya, Carex riparia,and ribbon grass.

O 0–0.5 cm: mossy bedding, remains of plants can beseen distinctly;

A2 0.5–3 cm:

dry, dark gray with abundance of smallwhitish fragments, lumpy–silty, heavilyloamy, abundance of roots in cracks,rather loose, the transition is distinct (incolor), the border is wavy;

B1 3–15 cm:dry, dark gray, crackish, columnar,heavily loamy, dense, the transition isdistinct;

B2g' 15–46 cm:fresh, brownish gray, glayey, weak gleyi�fication, lumpy–grainy, dense, the tran�sition is unclear;

B3g' 46–70 cm:

moist, olive gray, distinct weak gleyifica�tion, grainy–dusty structure, clayey, thetransition is distinct in color, boils fromHCl;

Ck,g'' 70–100 cm:moist, light brown, clayey, with saltcrystals, very dense, gleyey, boils fromHCl.

Av 0–3 cm:rather porous bedding, mainly of tree andgrass remains: branches, roots, leaves,overrotten grasses and seeds;

A1 3–9 cm: moist, lumpy–dusty, average loam, abun�dance of roots, the transition is distinct;

A2' 9–21 cm: fresh, light gray, average loam, the transi�tion is distinct;

A2'' 21–32 cm:fresh, light gray with a multitude of rustyochre spots, weakly pronounced plati�ness, light loam, the transition is distinct;

B1g 32–50 cm: fresh, light brown, lightly clayey;

B2g 50–83 cm: fresh, light brown, weakly gleyified,lightly clayey, finely nut structure.

O 0–5 cm:fresh, dense mass of dead grass vegeta�tion, abundance of live roots, rela�tively low content of melkozem;

A1A2 5–10 cm:fresh, dark gray, many roots, lightgleyified loam, porous powdery struc�ture, the transition is distinct;

Granulometric composition. Gleyified solods of thefirst group were formed in the basin of Lake Ubinskoye(cuts 1 and 2). They contain 66–72% of physical clay(Table 1). Fractions of large and small dust and siltpredominate in such solods. The ratio of silt in the B2ghorizon to that in the A2 horizon does not exceed 2 : 1.

The second group of soils are the gleyey solods ofthe Priobskoye plateau (cuts 6 and 7) belong to aspen–birch separated forest stands. They have a lighter gran�ulometric composition with a physical clay content of57–63% (Table 1). Fractions of fine sand, gross dustand silt predominate. They differ in abrupt differenti�ation of silt in the profile. The ratio of silt in the B2ghorizon to that in the A2 horizon is 6 : 1. On the whole,the solods of this group are characterized by a moredistinct differentiation of profile.

Signs of slight illimerization were found only in onecase. In the upper part of the profile of all gleyifiedsolods under study, a zone of eluvial horizons is dis�tinctly seen.

All solods are similar in the silt content in the rock(42–44%) and in the physical clay content (57–67%).However, they differ in that, in solods of soil over�moistening, the process of eluviation is weakly pro�nounced on the whole, whereas the solods of surfaceovermoistening are characterized by contrast eluvia�tion or destruction of silt in situ.

The results of an analysis of the granulometriccomposition suggest that solods of surface overmoist�ening could have been formed on weakly pronouncedbinomial. To check this hypothesis, data for a desiltedsampling was recalculated. The result was that thegranulometric composition of desilted horizon differsin the profiles of soils quite insignificantly. Apparently,heterogeneity of soils is associated with the influenceof pedogenic factors.

Physicochemical and chemical properties. Thesolods of the first group associated in developmentwith solonetzes differ considerably from the solods ofseparated forest stands of the Priobskaya upland.Solods formed with the participation of subterranean

A2I 10–22 cm: fresh, light gray, light loam, platystructure, the transition is gradual;

A2II 22–30 cm:fresh, light gray homogeneously col�ored, light loam, platy structure, thetransition is distinct in structure;

B1gII 30–55 cm:

fresh, brightly colored in ochre,clayey, alternation of large gley andochre (iron hydroxide) spots, singledark spots of manganese oxide, nut–lumpy structure, the transition is dis�tinct;

B2mr,gIII55–75 cm:

fresh, marblelike, clayey, single darkspots of manganese oxide, manyochre spots against a background ofintensely gleyified horizon.

4


ZAIDELMAN et al.

waters are characterized by rather shallow depositionof carbonates (from 78 cm), alkaline reaction (pH 9.0)of soil�forming rocks and subacidic reaction of all sol�odized horizons of the soil profile (Table 2). The sol�odized gorizons A1A2–A2 have the most acidic reac�tion (pHwat 6.18–6.39; pHsol 4.85–4.94). Solods with ahigh level of subterranean waters in the Ubinskayadepression are characterized by a consistent increasein pH lower than the A2 horizon (pHwat 6.39–9.24).

Solods of separated forest stand depressions of sur�face overmoistening of the Priobskoye plateau differfrom the solods of the first group in that the values ofthe A2 horizon and lower decrease gradually orincrease insignificantly with the approach to the soil�forming rock (in cuts 6 and 7, from 6.75 to 6.29 andfrom 6.38 to 6.59, respectively). The hydrolytic acidityof solods in only the most acidic surface horizons isfrom 2.3 to 5.4 mmol ⋅ equiv/100 g of soil. Lower, in

Table 1. Granulometric composition of gleyified solodized soils and solods of the Barabinskaya depression and Priobskoyeplateau (pyrephosphate method, noncalcareous sample)

Horizon, depth,cm

Absorbent liquid, %

Content of fractions, % (size of particles, mm)

1.0–0.25 0.25–0.05 0.05–0.01 0.01–0.005 0.005–0.001 <0.001 <0.01*

Cut 1. Gleyey solod (overmoistening with subterranean waters).Ubnskii area, village Ksenyevka, Barabinskaya depression

A1 5–12 3.28 0.4 1.9 35.9 28.6 12.1 21.2 61.9

A1A2 12–16 1.75 0.1 0.2 40.7 17.9 23.5 17.7 59.0

A2g' 16–24 1.36 0.1 1.0 38.4 18.2 21.9 20.5 60.6

A2Bg'' 24–28 3.59 0.1 1.7 28.1 12.9 16.3 41.3 70.1

B1g'' 28–54 5.63 0.1 0.4 19.4 8.1 12.0 60.1 80.2

Ck,g' 78–103 4.68 0.2 0.4 27.9 9.8 15.3 46.5 71.6

Ck 103–130 4.38 0.5 3.0 29.6 9.8 14.9 42.2 66.9

Cut 2. Solonetz meadow–chernozem solonchak weakly solodized (overmoistening with subterranean waters).Ubnskii area, village Ksenyevka, Barabinskaya depression

A2 1–3 2.54 2.0 8.1 46.1 14.6 16.7 12.5 43.8

B1 3–15 5.20 0.2 6.9 52.5 13.9 14.6 11.8 40.3

B2g' 15–46 5.81 0.1 1.6 35.3 13.3 30.5 19.2 63.0

B3g' 46–70 5.62 0.2 2.6 29.3 10.6 15 42.4 68.0

Cut 6. Solod deeply gleyified (overmoistening with surface waters).Krasnozerskii area, Gerbaeva village, Priobskoye plateau

A1 3–9 2.79 1.8 24.2 41.9 10.5 9.5 12.0 32.0

A2' 9–21 0.46 1.1 41.8 30.7 9.0 10.3 7.2 26.4

A2'' 21–32 0.46 1.5 43.3 28.5 8.4 11.1 7.1 26.6

B1 32–50 5.16 0.9 18.4 21.6 5.7 9.1 44.3 59.1

B2g' 50–83 4.90 1.5 16.5 22.5 5.6 9.4 44.6 59.5

Cut 7. Gleyey solod (overmoistening with surface waters).Krasnozerskii area, Gerbaeva village, Priobskoye plateau

A1A2' 5–10 1.62 1.5 30.8 32.5 11.7 13.1 10.5 35.3

A2' 10–22 0.76 1.2 44.3 28.3 10.9 7.4 7.9 26.2

A2'' 22–30 0.37 1.7 44.5 28.4 9.9 8.0 7.5 25.3

B1g'' 30–55 5.44 0.9 11.6 24.4 7.1 8.9 47.0 63.0

B2mr,g'' 55–75 4.48 20.6 6.1 16.0 6.3 9.5 41.5 57.3

(*) content of physical clay.



1030507090

110130150170

0 VII VIII IX X Months

Dep

th,

cm

1 2

Dynamics of the depths of deposition of subterranean watersin solods in the summer–fall period in the interfluve of GreatUbinskoye Lake and Kargat River: (1) subterranean waters;(2) air porosity.

more neutral layers, it does not exceed 1–2 mmol equiv/100 g of soil.

All studied solods are characterized by a highdegree of saturation with bases in illuvial horizons(94–98%). In eluvial horizons, the calcium of calciumin the soil absorbing complex (SAC) is minimal insolods of separated forest stand depressions (1.7–2.2 mmol equiv/100 g of soil). It is highest in solods ofsoil overmoistening: in the A2 horizon it is 8.2, and inilluvial horizons it is 31 mmol equiv/100 g of soil.At the same time, in the solods of the first group, thecontent of absorbed potassium is relatively low (3–4 times lower than in the solods of the second group;Table 2).

The upper horizon of solods, which is depositedimmediately under the layer of bedding, is character�ized by a significant accumulation of humus (up to8%, Table 2). Its abrupt decrease lower in the profile ofall soils is observed at the same time.

It was established that the upper layer of the A2horizon of cuts 6 and 7 is characterized by an absenceof absorbed sodium (Table 2), which proved to be acharacteristic sign of solods of surface overmoistening.

Elements of hydrological regime. Data on the hydro�logical regime is of great importance to understand thegenesis of soils and their agroecological specifics. Forthe solods of the Barabinskaya depression, data remainquite limited. Nevertheless, an analysis conductedamong literature sources allows us to make certainconclusions. Let us consider the data obtained byDolgov and Pankin–Fedorov in 1946 in the area of ourstudies. The authors give data on the character of sea�sonal oscillations in the level of subterranean waters insolods in the course of the warm season (figure). Theyshowed that in mid�summer, the level of subterraneanwaters in their profile was at a depth of 140 cm. Fromthe end of August, in the period of abundant precipi�tation, it began rising actively. By mid�September,depressions occupied with solods were flooded. Thelayer of water on the surface was 4–5 cm in depth.Occasionally the level decreased by 10–15 cm. Frommid�October, the water level in the profile slowlydescended. Nonetheless, these fragmentary data donot allow us to conclude that the solods of the Ubin�skaya valley are formed under conditions of prolongedgley formation against a background of stagnant–flushing water regime and acid reaction of the envi�ronment. These hydrological specifics of the solodsare necessary and sufficient conditions for the forma�tion of light acid eluvial horizons [8, 9].

In connection with this, it should be noted that gleyformation is the main mechanism of the formation oflight acid eluvial horizons when solods are formedunder conditions of the stagnant–flushy regime [10,17, 19–21].

Nonsilicate forms of iron compounds and methods ofdiagnostics. In solods, nonsilicate forms of iron com�pounds are contained in eluvial horizons, which indi�cates the intensity of the their removal when solodiza�tion takes place. Solods of surface overmoistening onthe territory of the Priobskoye plateau have a minimalcontent of nonsilicate iron forms (0.11% in horizonA2; cut 6, Table 3) under the conditions of deep (morethan 10 m) deposition of subterranean waters. Solodsin conditions of ground moistening in the area of LakeUbinskoye have a significantly higher content of non�silicate iron forms in the A2 horizon: 0.45 and 0.38%,respectively. Deeper in the profile, the amount ofamorphous and crystallized iron compounds increasesto 1.7%. There are indications in the literature thatmanganese–ferrous concretions (ortsteins) are presentin the eluvial mass of solods. However, they were notfound in the course of our studies. However, it wasestablished that the first illuvial horizon B1 was alwayscharacterized by the presence of accumulations ofamorphous iron hydroxide and by a bright ochre color.The maximum content of nonsilicate forms of ironcompounds extracted by the Mer and Jackson extrac�tion was found in this horizon of all cuts.

One of the tasks of the study was to find a way ofestablishing the degree of overmoistening of solods.We studied the possibility of quantitative estimation ofthe solods under consideration in the ratio of amor�phous and crystallized forms of iron compounds usingthe main and modified formulas of Schwertmann:Feo/Fed and Feo/(Fed–Feo), where Feo is the contentof iron compounds according to Tamm; Fed is thesame according to Mer and Jackson; and Fed–Feo isthe content of crystallized iron compounds.

It was established that the most promising data onthe causes of overmoistening of solods and the degreeof their hydromorphism are obtained using the modi�

6


ZAIDELMAN et al.

Tabl

e2.

Ph

ysic

och

emic

al p

rope

rtie

s of

sol

odiz

ed s

oils

an

d so

lods

Hor

izon

, de

pth

,cm

Wat

er�s

olub

le s

alts

(q

uali

tati

ve r

eact

ion

s)pH

Hyd

roly

tic

acid

ity,

mm

ol ×

equi

v/10

0 g

of s

oil

Exc

han

ge b

ases

,m

mol

⋅ eq

uiv/

100

g of

soi

lTo

tal

exch

ange

base

s

Deg

ree

ofsa

tura

�ti

on, %

CE

C, m

mol

×

equi

v/10

0 g

of s

oil

Na,

%

from

C

EC

Hum

us,

%C

l–H

2OK

Cl

Ca2+

Mg2+

K+

Na+

Cut

1. G

leye

y so

lod.

Ubn

skii

are

a, v

illa

ge K

sen

yevk

a, B

arab

insk

aya

depr

essi

on

A1

5–12

4.77

4.77

5.37

11.1

85.

480.

620.

4317

.776

23.0

1.86

7.73

A1A

212

–16

6.18

4.85

1.30

2.12

A2g

'16

–24

6.39

4.94

0.69

8.22

4.56

0.21

0.11

13.1

9513

.80.

800.

63

A2B

g''

24–

286.

845.

301.

10

B1g

''28

–54

6.65

5.20

1.02

31.3

816

.54

0.77

0.55

49.2

9850

.31.

090.

99

B2g

''54

–78

6.92

5.59

0.61

Ck,

g'78

–10

39.

07n

/dn

/d

Ck

103–

130

9.24

the

sam

eth

e sa

me

21.9

17.

990.

360.

1830

.410

0

Cut

2. S

olon

etz

mea

dow

–ch

erno

zem

sol

onch

ak w

eakl

y so

lodi

zed.

Ubn

skii

area

, vill

age

Kse

nyev

ka, B

arab

insk

aya

depr

essi

on

A2

1–3

7.67

6.32

0.24

2.62

6.73

0.80

15.6

625

.899

26.1

60.1

26.

28

B1

3–15

10.0

4n

/dn

/d2.

410

.15

0.91

34.9

948

.510

0

B2g

'15

–46

++

+10

.26

the

sam

eth

e sa

me

2.51

4.79

0.75

33.2

341

.310

0

B3g

'46

–70

++

+10

.25

''''

Cut

6. S

olod

dee

ply

gley

ifie

d. K

rasn

ozer

skii

are

a, G

erba

eva

vill

age,

Pri

obsk

oye

plat

eau

A1

3–9

6.44

5.55

2.30

8.1

3.31

1.96

0.13

13.5

8515

.80.

825.

21

A2'

9–21

6.52

5.2

0.41

1.6

1.38

0.85

0.00

3.8

904.

20.

000.

37

A2'

'21

–32

6.75

5.35

0.29

2.18

2.06

0.78

0.12

5.1

955.

42.

210.

24

B1

32–

506.

424.

831.

140.

59

B2g

'50

–83

6.38

4.88

1.59

''50

–83

6.29

4.8

1.59

19.2

59.

861.

940.

0131

.195

32.7

0.03

Cut

7. G

leye

y so

lod.

Kra

snoz

ersk

ii a

rea,

Ger

baev

a vi

llag

e, P

riob

skoy

e pl

atea

u

A1A

2'5–

105.

854.

72.

304.

583.

211.

570.

099.

580

11.8

0.77

4.85

A2'

10–

226.

104.

731.

141.

721.

490.

670.

003.

977

5.0

0.00

0.93

A2'

'22

–30

6.38

5.05

0.33

6.00

10.0

00.

601.

1017

.70.

30

B1g

''30

–55

6.65

5.03

1.10

19.2

511

.92

1.59

0.25

33.0

9734

.10.

730.

46

B2m

r,g'

'55

–75

6.59

5.02

1.10

11.8

6.75

1.43

0.72

20.7

9521

.83.

30

Not

e:⟨+

⟩ pr

esen

ce o

f eas

ily

solu

ble

salt

s; (

n/d

) n

ot d

eter

min

ed.

SO

42–

HC

O3–



fied criterion of Schwertmann (Table 4). Horizons A1and A1A2 were diagnostic. It was found that the solodsof ground overmoistening are characterized by highervalues >5.0. In the solods of surface overmoisteningthis value is not more than 2.1–2.3. Preliminary obser�vations show that, inside the group of solods of surfaceovermoistening, soils can be differentiated accordingto the degree of gleyification using the modified Schw�ertmann criterion based on the ratio of Feo/(Fed–Feo)in the A1 horizon.

Similarity and differences of soils with light acid elu�vial horizons. The data obtained allow us to considerthe similarities and differences of a number of soilswhich possess light acid eluvial horizons. With thispurpose in mind, let us compare the three studiedgroups of texturally differentiated soils typical of theplains of Russia—gleyey solods of western Siberia(2008–2009), chernozem�like podzol soils of Ryazanforest–steppe (2007), and sod–podzol gleyey soils ofthe southern taiga of the center of the chernozem zone[8, 9]. First of all, these soils are united by a commonmorphological structure of profiles, which consist ofhorizons A1, A2, BgII and CgII. Sod–podzol gleyey,chernozem�like podzol gleyey soils and gleyey solodsare always characterized by the presence of light acideluvial horizons of similar power (≈10–20 cm) withacid or subacid reaction in the upper part of the pro�file. All these soils are characterized by the removal ofiron, manganese, aluminum, calcium, and magne�sium from eluvial horizons, the relative accumulationof silica, and intensive desiltation (Table 5).

The commonality of these three groups of soils intheir morphological, granulometric, chemical, andphysicochemical specifics is due to the fact that theyare formed against the background of gley formationin conditions of a stagnant–flushy water regime. Thiscircumstance determined the appearance of light acideluvial horizons in their profiles and constitutes anundoubted similarity.

However, gleyey solods and chernozem�like pod�zolic gleyey soils possess characteristics which differ�entiate them from soddy–podzolic gleyey soils andfrom each other. These consist first of all in that, unlikein soddy–podzolic gleyey and chernozem podzolicgleyey soils, in gleyey solods there is always absorbedsodium in SAC inherited in the evolution process frompreceding brackish and solonetz stages or the sodiumaccumulated from surface waters, which passed a cer�tain way along the water�collecting area. The presenceof sodium in the SAC of solods is probable as a resultof impulverization.

Secondly, chernozem podzolic gleyey soils differfrom solods and soddy–podzolic gleyey soils by apowerful humus horizon (48 to 28 cm) and high

humus content in horizons A1 and those that liedeeper.

Thus, one and the same mechanism of forminglight acid eluvial horizons, determined by the forma�tion of gley against a background of a stagnant–perco�lative water regime, is common for all these soils. Theirdifferences are associated with the presence of sodiumin the SAC (in solods) and elevated humus content in

Table 3. Content of nonsilicate forms of iron compounds insolodized soils and solods of the Barabinskaya depressionand Priobskoye plateau

Horizon, depth,cm

Fe2O3

Mer–Jackson method,

vol %

Fe2O3 Al2O3 SiO2

Tamm method, %

Cut 1

A1 5–12 0.46 0.39 0.20 0.06

A1A2 12–16

A2g' 16–24 0.45 0.38 0.07 0.13

A2Bg'' 24–28

B1g'' 28–54 1.71 0.59 0.30 0.22

B2g'' 54–78

Ck,g' 78–103

Ck 120–130

Cut 2

A2 1–3 0.41 0.13 0.08 0.05

B1 3–15

B2g' 15–46

B3g' 46–70

Cut 6

A1 3–9 0.37 0.19 0.10 0.08

A2' 9–21 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.10

A2'' 21–32 0.42 0.27 0.03 0.13

B1 32–50

B2g' 50–83

'' 50–83 1.00 0.38 0.23 0.20

Cut 7

A1A2 5–10 0.18 0.13 0.19 0.28

A2' 10–22 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.15

A2'' 22–30

B1g'' 30–55 1.63 0.80 0.34 0.17

B2mr,g'' 55–75 1.11 0.60 0.22 0.11

8


ZAIDELMAN et al.

horizons A1 and others (in chernozem podzolic gleyeysoils).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Depending on the conditions of formation,gleyified solods of western Siberia can be differenti�ated into two groups. The first (according to thescheme of Gedroits) is solonchak—solonetz—solod.It belongs to the zones of the spread of subterranean

waters and salinated rocks on relatively low�lyingspaces. The second group is formed in depressions(separated forest stands) of the highlands of the Priob�skoye plateau. It is not associated with subterraneanwaters and salinated rocks.

(2) Eluvial solodified whitish horizons A2 belong tothe leached upper part of the profile of all solods. Theyare characterized by a subacid reaction (pHwaters 5.9–6.4, pHsol 4.7–5.5). Deeper illuvial horizons of theprofile of solods of the first group have neutral and

Table 4. Main and modified values of the Schwertmann coefficient of gleyified solods of ground and surface overmoistening

Overmoistening Soil Horizon Main method of Schw�ertmann (Fe0/Fed)

Modified method of Schw�ertmann (Fe0/(Fed – Fe0))

Ground Gleyey solod, cut 1 A1 0.85 5.57

A2g'' 0.84 5.43

B1g'' 0.35 0.53

Surface Deeply gleyified solod, cut 6

A1 0.51 1.06

A2' 0.73 2.67

A2'' 0.64 1.80

Gleyey solod, cut 7 A1A2 0.72 2.60

A2' 0.50 1.00

B1 0.59 0.96

B2 0.54 1.18

Table 5. Comparative characteristic of gross chemical composition (in % for a noncalcareous sample) and other propertiesof soils overmoistened with surface waters: soddy–podzolic gleyey, chernozem�like podzolic gleyey and gleyey solods

Horizon, depth,cm

Fraction <0.001 mm,

in % from the soil mass

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 P2O5 MnO CaO MgO

pH

H2O KCl

Soddy–podzolic gleyey soil on loesslike light acid clay; pashnya, Moscow oblast, south taiga (data by F.R. Zaidelman)

Ap 0–10 20.4 77.81 13.03 3.93 0.09 0.25 1.18 0.93 6.1 4.6

A2fs,g' 19–24 17.5 76.39 13.14 4.11 0.09 0.16 1.16 1.05 5.9 4.2

B1g' 70–80 30.6 74.23 14.72 4.99 0.09 0.10 1.18 1.17 6.1 4.2

Cg'' 180–200 31.5 73.25 15.23 4.97 0.03 0.11 1.50 1.29 7.1 4.7

Chernozem�like podzolic gleyey soil on loesslike leached clay; Zalezh’, Ryazan oblast, northern forest–steppe(data by F.R. Zaidelman, T.M. Ginsburg)

A1g' 3–12 27.0 76.53 10.74 2.86 0.09 0.16 1.38 0.07 5.5 4.1

A1A2fs 32–39 22.0 78.26 10.76 2.75 0.07 0.08 1.35 0.09 5.5 4.1

A2fs,g' 45–58 13.0 80.28 10.58 2.68 0.07 0.08 1.42 0.86 5.7 4.2

BCg''' 104–135 23.0 75.30 12.68 4.42 0.05 0.08 1.44 1.00 6.2 4.3

Gleyey solod on light cover clays, virgin land, Priobskoye plateau, forest–steppe(data by F.R. Zaidelman, Ye. Yu. Pakhomova, and M.T. Ustinova)

A1A2g' 6–9 10.5 73.98 9.41 1.19 0.19 0.09 n/d n/d 5.8 4.7

A1' 12–18 7.9 78.88 9.39 0.87 0.06 0.04 the same the same 6.1 4.7

A2'' 23–28 7.5 81.62 9.50 1.33 0.03 0.13 '' '' 6.4 5.0

B1g'' 45–50 47.0 63.11 16.30 5.76 0.06 0.29 '' '' 6.7 5.0

B2mr,g''' 76–75 42.0 65.96 16.88 5.12 0.09 0.13 '' '' 6.6 5.0



alkaline reactions (pHwaters 7.0–9.0). In illuvialhorizons, the second group has a subacidic reaction(pHwaters 6.4–6.6).

(3) In conditions of overmoistening with subterra�nean waters, gleyified solods with relatively weaklydeveloped horizon A2 and a ratio of the amount of siltin horizon B2 to that in A2 of no more than 2 : 1 appearon heavy rocks.

(4) In gleyified solods of depressions of the Priob�skoye plateau, powerful light acid eluvial horizons A2(20–23 cm or more) are formed. In this case, the ratioof the amount of silt in horizon B2 to that in horizonA2 is 5–6 : 1, which reflects intensive eluviation of theupper part of the solod profile.

(5) In the solods formed under the influence ofsubterranean waters, a consistent increase in the pHvalues of horizons of the soil profile from horizon A2to deeper layers was found, whereas in solods of sepa�rated forest stand depressions, pH values decreasednoticeably in the same direction or did not signifi�cantly change in the profile.

(6) In their morphological, granulometric, chemi�cal, physicochemical properties of the solid phase andthe mechanism of formation of light acid eluvial hori�zons, the solods of the Barabinskaya depression areclose or identical to soddy–podzolic gleyey heavilyloamy soils and chernozem podzolic gleyey soils. Theydiffer from soddy–podzolic gleyey soil in that gleyeysolods contain absorbed sodium in the SAC. Cher�nozem�like podzolic gleyey soils differ from soddy–podzolic and gleyey solods by a significantly morepowerful horizon A1 (from 48 to 28 cm), elevatedhumus content (5–7% or more) and absence ofsodium in the SAC.

(7) Two main soil�forming processes responsiblefor the presence of sodium in the absorbing complex ofeluvial horizons and their light coloring take part inthe formation of solods. The first process reflects theevolution of salinized soils according to the Hedroitsscheme: solonchak–solonetz–solod in the case ofground overmoistening or accumulation of absorbedsodium owing to its arrival with the flow of surfacewaters in the spring from the surrounding water collec�tor in depressions of the relief. The arrival of sodium inthe SAC can be associated with the impulverization ofthe salts of this metal [9, 17]. The second soil�forma�tion process, which determines the formation of lightacid eluvial horizons, is always determined by the for�mation of gley against the background of a stagnant–percolative water regime.

REFERENCES

1. Bazilevich, N.I., Lesostepnye solodi (Forest–SteppeSolods), Moscow: Nauka, 1967.

2. Bazilevich, N.I., On Solod Genesis, Pochvoved., 1947,no. 4.

3. Bolyshev, N.N. and Tyurdeneva, S.A., The Essence ofSolodized Processes and Their Role in Soils Formationin Western Caspian Region, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser.Biol., Pochvoved., 1953, no. 9.

4. Vilenskii, D.G., Zasolennye pochvy, ikh proiskhozhde�nie, sostav, sposoby uluchsheniya (Salinization of Soil,Their Origin, Composition, Ways for Improving), Mos�cow: Novaya derevnya, 1924.

5. Vil’yams, V.R., Pochvovedenie (Soil Science), Moscow:Sel’khozgiz, 1926.

6. Gedroits, K.K., Soils Solodization, in Trudy Nosovskoisel’skokhozyastvennoi opytnoi stantsii (Works of theNosov’s Agriculture Experimental Station), 1926,issue 44.

7. Gorshenin, K.P. and Baranov, V.I., The Way to Cognizethe Saline Complexes of the Chernozem Belt of West�ern Siberia, in Trudy sibirskogo institute sel’skogokhozyaistva i lesa (Scientific Works of the SiberianInstitute of Agriculture and Forest), 1930, vol. 13,issue 2.

8. Zaidel’man, F.R., Genezis i ekologicheskie osnovy melio�ratsii pochv i landshaftov (Genesis and Ecological Basisof Soil and Landscape Melioration), Moscow: KDU,2009.

9. Zaidel’man, F.R., The Reasons for the Formation ofLight–Colored Acid Eluvial Horizons in the Soil Pro�file, Pochvoved., 2007, no. 10 [Eur. Soil Sci. (Engl.Transl.), 2007, vol. 40, no. 10, p. 1031].

10. Zaidel’man, F.R., Teoriya obrazovaniya svetlykh kislykhelyuvial’nykh gorizontov i ee prikladnye aspekty (TheTheory of Light Acid Eluvial Horizons Formation andIts Applied Aspects), Moscow: KRASAND, 2010.

11. Zol’nikov, V.G., The Soils of Eastern Part of CentralYakutia and Their Utilization, in Materialy o prirod�nykh usloviyakh i sel’skom khozyaistve Tsentral’noiYakutii (Works on Central Yakutia Natural Conditionsand Agriculture), Moscow–Leningrad: AN USSR,1954, issue 1.

12. Kaurichev, I.S. and Nozdrunova, E.M., Oxidation–Reduction Processes in Gley–Solods, Dokl. TSKhA,1965, issue 109, part 2.

13. Kaurichev, I.S. and Nozdrunova, E.M., On Migrationand Qualitative Composition of Water–Soluble OrganicSubstance in the Soils of Forest–Meadow Zone, Izv.Timiryazevsk. Sel’khoz. Akad., 1962, issue 5.

14. Kaurichev, I.S. and Nozdrunova, E.M., ComparativeCharacteristic of Oxidation–Reduction Processes Tak�ing Place in Dark Chestnut Soils and Gley–Solods, Izv.Timiryazevsk. Sel’khoz. Akad., 1966, no. 3.

15. Kisel’, V.D. and Polupan, N.I., Ukraine Dishes Soilsand Their Place in Steppe Zone Soils Systematic, inTezisy dokladov 2–go Vsesoyuz. delegat. s’’ezda pochvo�vedov (Proc. 2nd All–Union Soil Scientist Congress),Kharkov, 1962.

16. Kovda, V.A., Irrigation and Water–Storage Basin Effectto the River Valley Soils of Lower Volga, in Trudy komis�sii po irrigatsii (Scientific Works of Irrigation Commis�sion), 1937, no. 10.

10


ZAIDELMAN et al.

17. Rode, A.A., Yarilova, E.A., and Rashevskaya, I.M.,Genetic Features of Estuary Solod Profile, in Novoe vteorii opodzolivaniya i osolodeniya pochv (New in theTheory of Soils Podzolization and Solodization), Mos�cow: Nauka, 1984.

18. Rozanov, A.N., Solodized Solonets and Soil Solodizingin Chu River Valley, Probl. Sovet. Pochvoved., 1939,no. 9.

19. Sabol’ch, I., Irrigated Soils Solodizing (Degradation)in Hungarian Lowland, Pochvoved., 1955, no. 11.

20. Samoilova, E.M., Lugovye pochvy lesostepi (Forest–Steppe Meadow Soils), Moscow: MGU, 1981.

21. Tursina, T.V., Some Information on Soil FormationDynamic in Altai Solodized Soils, Pochvoved., 1961,no. 4.

22. Yarkov, S.P., Kaurichev, I.S., and Poddubnyi, N.N.,Investigation Experience of Solonets and Solods, Izv.Timiryazevsk. Sel’khoz. Akad., 1956, no. 2.

23. Schawarbi, M.J., The Evolution of Solodi Soils on theMediterranean Zone of the Nile Delta, Z. Pflanzen�ernähr., Düng, Bodenkunde, 1959, vol. 84, nos. 1–3.

24. Sigmond, A.A., Report on the Genetics of Alkali Soils,1929.

25. White, E.M., The Morphological–Chemical Problemin Solodized Soils, Soil Sci., 1964, no. 3.

26. Whitting, L.D., Characteristics and Genesis of Sol�odized–Solonets of Colifornia, Soil Sci., 1959, no. 6.

Documents

Solods under conditions of excessive surface and ground moisture in Western Siberia: Properties, hydrology, and genesis