QUESTIONS
Q1: Who can participate in the contest?
A2: Any soil judging teams with student and a coach at a USA school (college or university).
Q2: Does my team need to participate in all components of the contest?
A2: No, you can participate in whatever contest components you choose.
Q3: How much is the registration?
A3: No registration fee is required. A sponsorship of from the ASA-CSSA-SSSA will cover the costs of mailing samples and awards. Thank you.
Q4: Question about Contest section #3. Is this section just photos of epipedons and diagnostic subsurface horizons and features? This is a fragipan, this is a calcic horizon, etc.... Are you going to go nuts with cuestas, and hogbacks and playas? Are you guys going to go global and discuss sombric and plaggen? For a closed book exam, you certainly can go nuts and separate the wheat from the chaff by throwing the students a placic horizon...
A4: We do not plan to go nuts. We will be focusing on common features. It will not be exclusively identification. It might also include some interpretation. What is that? What does it tell us? We will be providing some examples.
Q5: Can graduate students participate in the contest?
A5: Graduate students can participate, but only undergrads are eligible for any individual awards and scores will not count towards the team score. Graduate students may not participate in group judging on teams with undergraduates. Graduate students may form a graduate student group from one team. The rules for graduate students apply to those students that qualified for the 2020 National Contest as undergraduates.
Q6: How will grading be handled?
A6: Component 1 materials will be double-graded with a three-team rotation. Coaches will be instructed on how this grading will be occur. Component 2 and 3 materials will be graded by the Contest Committee. See page 11 of version 5 of handbook for the addition.
Q7: How will tiebreakers be handled for components 1, 2, and 3?
A7: See pages 7-11 of version 5 of handbook for the addition.
Q8: What is version of Soil Taxonomy should we use?
A8: This section includes identification of the soil taxonomic class. The reference used in this section are the Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th Edition (Soil Survey Staff, 2014) and, or the Illustrated Guide to Soil Taxonomy, Version 2.0 (Soil Survey Staff, 2015). Students may use either or both of these reference materials to classify the soil. Contest pedons will be selected to ensure the same classification is attained using both of these reference materials.
Q9: Will students also need to indicate percents for different sand sizes, or just percent sand, silt, and clay and indicate the soil textural class?
A9: Students will need to indcate sand moidifiers for S, LS, and SL.
Q10: Pedon 01. The rock fragment modifier for the fifth horizon is 'VCH', which conforms to the abbreviation for channery specified in the handbook. The Field Guide for Describing and Sampling Soils uses 'CN' for channery. Will alternate but unambiguous abbreviations be accepted, such as 'VCN', or will only the abbreviations specified in the handbook be considered correct?
A10: Unambiguous abbreviations are acceptable.
Q11: Pedon 01. What is the correct clay content of the sixth horizon? The key indicates 50%, but the sand content is 15% and the silt content is 65%, which would suggest a clay content of 20%. Which values are correct?
A11: This should be 20%. I will update the key. The texture class for this horizon should also be a SIL.
Q12: Pedon 01. For Loading Rate, if a student gives the Ref. as '5H' instead of 'H5', is that correct or incorrect?
A12: Both would be acceptable.
Q13: Pedon 01. Should the Surface Runoff be Medium? The slope is 15% with moderate hydraulic conductivity in the three horizons in the upper 50 cm, which would be Rapid, but good veg. cover should lower the runoff to Medium.
A13: Medium is correct. I will update the key.
Q14: Pedon 01. Should the "Subsurface horizons and/or diagnostic features" include paralithic contact?
A14: Paralithic contact should be listed. I will update the key.
Q15: Pedon 01. For Table 31, can the clay layer for reason 2 be anywhere within the soil profile, or must it be in the upper ___ cm?
A15: I have added some text in Pedon 1 indicating that this clay has shrink-swell potential. We are also going to revise the handbook to state that clay needs to start in the upper 100 cm.
Q16: Pedon 03. The site notes indicate that clay films are visible in the 2-4 horizons. The fifth horizon, however, is still designated with a 't'. Is evidence of clay translocation not required?
A16: The soil notes have been updated to indicate clay films in horizons 2-5. Evidence of clay translocation is required and this will be stated in the soil notes.
Q17: Pedon 03. The "Subsurface horizons and/or diagnostic features" include argillic, calcic, and free carbonates. Should identifiable secondary carbonates also be listed?
A17: Identifiable secondary carbonates should be listed. The key was updated.
Q18: Pedon 03: I may be wrong, but using both Keys to Soil Taxonomy and the Illustrated Guide to Soil Taxonomy, we do not get Calciustolls for the great group. Calciustolls cannot have an argillic above the calcic. In IGST, this soil would classify as a Paleustoll. Using the more specific criteria in KST, this soil classifies as an Argiustoll.
A18: You are correct. We missed that statement in 3c in IGST. I think it meets Argiustoll in both KST and IGST. In IGST: b) An argillic (clay accumulation) horizon in which clay does not decrease significantly within a depth of 150 cm and that has hue of 7.5YR or redder color (and there is no root-limiting layer within a depth of 150 cm), OR. The Bt1 has a 10YR hue which would not disqualify the Paleustoll.
Q19: Pedon 03. For the hopyards interpretation, should this be Moderate (1) because of the thermic STR, not Moderate (5)?
A19: Moderate 1 is correct. This was recent change in the handbook and we forgot to update this key. The key was updated.
Q20: The term aquic conditions refers to any redox features. So technically, any soil that has redox features should also be aquic as a diagnostic subsurface horizon feature.
A20: Aquic conditions should be listed in subsurface diagnostic horizons and/or features for any soil that has redox depletions or concentrations. Practice pedons 2, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 21 were updated to recognize this on 04/06/21.
Q21: Pedon 01. Corn - reason 7 (no RLL for 6). Created wetlands - reason 2 (greater than 50 cm to seasonal water table).
A21: Key has been corrected 04/06/21.
Q22: Pedon 03. Hopyards - reason 1 (thermic STR)
A22: Key has been corrected 04/06/21.
Q23: Pedon 04. Texture class for horizon 1 - FSL (pit info states fine sand dominates)
A23: Key has been corrected 04/06/21.
Q24: Pedon 07. Loading rat ref. - A3 (>35% RFs) I'm assuming this takes precedence over the textural class
Soil wetness class - < 25 cm - gleyed at 19 cm (should also be marked as depletions in that horizon). Hopyards - reason 2 (ponding). Created wetlands - reason 5 (water table IS within 50 cm, so not reason 2). Bsm horizon has 0.6% organic C.
A24: Key has been corrected 04/06/21.
Q25: Pedon 08. Ksat limiting layer - low (permafrost). Water retention difference (18.8 cm). Created wetlands - Severe for 2.
A25: Key has been corrected 04/06/21.
Q26: Pedon 09. Loading rate ref. - A6 (>35% RFs). Septic tanks - reason 2 (NR loading rate). Created wetlands - reason 1 (S within 75 cm)
A26: Key has been corrected 04/06/21.
Q27: I have a question for you about practice pedon 16. You edited that yesterday to add “aquic conditions”. Since there are depletions starting at 28 cm, we were wondering, should the moisture regime be aquic, and then key out as Aquult, Fragiaquult? Or can you explain?
A27: It doesn’t meet 1. a,b, or c. We need depletions in the upper 12.5 cm of the argillic with the concentrations. See p283 in KST. We could add a note in description about 2, but positive reaction to aadip is not something students should assume unless told.