Finland
EST_HOR (Estimated horizon database):
PROF_NUM: The profile numbers are altered (see EST_PROF).
HOR_NUM: ok
HOR_NAME: ok. A few of the horizon names have been altered slightly so that the designation of
horizons and suffixes generally follow the FAO nomenclature (marked yellow in spreadsheet). The
horizons have no suffixes!
Some of the horizons contain too much organic matter to be classified as Ap.
DEPTHSTART: ok
DEPTHEND: ok
AR_NA: Most values “-4” (meaning less than 4 (humid areas) a few “-999” (meaning no value)
BD (bulk density):
Origin of data: Expert judgment
The chart below shows the relation between bulk density and organic matter. Theoretically the bulk
density should decrease with increasing amount of organic matter.
1
Finland
bulk density (g/cm3)
1,60
1,40
1,20
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
% organic matter
All of the horizons have data for bulk density. Some of the horizons rich in organic matter have
rather high bulk densities. Profile FI2 – horizon 1 (Ap) with a bulk density 1,1 g/cm3 and a content
of 70% organic matter. Profile FI3 – horizon 1 (Ap) with a bulk density 1,0 g/cm3 and a content of
98% organic matter. These are marked “yellow” in the spreadsheet.
Conclusion: Most of the data for bulk density seem reliable, except for the two organic rich
horizons. Profie FI2 is a Cambisol (Bv) and profile FI3 a Gleysol (Gd). Perhaps the contents of
organic matter are a factor 10 wrong. So that the two Ap-horizons would have organic matter
contents of 7,0% and 9,8%. This should be verified by the stakeholder.
BS (base saturation):
Origin of data: Expert judgment
Base saturation =
TEB
CEC
TEB = Total amount of Exchangeable Bases
CEC = The CEC should be measured at pH 8,1.
The validity of the data is checked by summing the base cations and dividing with CEC.
Result: Many of the horizons had calculated base saturations that differed more than 5% from the
given value.
These are listed below:
2
Profile
Horizon
pH
BS
FI4
FI4
FI4
FI4
FI4
FI5
FI5
FI5
FI5
FI6
FI6
FI6
1 (O)
2 (Ae)
3 (Bhs)
4 (Bs)
5 (C)
1 (H1)
2 (H2)
3 (H3)
4 (H4)
1 (Hp)
2 (H1)
3 (H2)
4,0
4,3
4,9
5,0
5,6
4,3
3,8
3,8
-998
5,1
5,0
4,9
14
11
9
10
21
10
8
7
6
10
44
46
Calculated BS
(TEB/CEC)
139
100
83
100
180
100
80
70
60
339
440
462
CaCO3
0
0
-999
-999
0
0
0
0
-998
0
0
0
Result: There seem to be a factor 10 error for these horizons. The base saturations exceed in many
cases 100% because the amount of exchangeable cations exceeds the CEC-value. However the base
saturations fit rather well with the expected base saturations at the given pH-values. The values for
CEC seem very low. Most likely a factor 10 too low.
When corrections are carried out on CEC and organic matter content the data for base saturation
will be correct.
Markings in the spreadsheet:
Colour
Meaning
Correct after correction of CEC by a factor 10.
The following formula gives a good estimate of base saturation in the soil.
BS 
pH (1 : 2,5 H 2 O)  4
0,041
The chart below shows the relationship between pH and base saturation for the existing data in the
database for Finland. The red line indicates the above formula. Here the base saturation at pH 4,0
should ideally be 0% and 100% at pH 8,1. The dashed lines indicate a bufferzone of 1 pH unit on
each side of the red line. If the data are within this bufferzone the data are considered reliable. The
green line indicates a base saturation at 100% at pH 7,0. If the scatter diagram seem to fit better
with this line it is likely that the CEC is measured by the distillation method at pH 7,0 and not by
the required method as the sum of exchangeable bases and the exchangeable acidity at pH 8,1.
Yellow dots mark organic horizons (above 20% organic matter).
3
Finland
10,0
9,0
pH (H2O)
8,0
7,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Base saturation
Result: Some of the horizons show rather high base saturations at a given pH compared to theory
(base saturations at 80-90% at pH 5,8-6,0). As stated above there is a possibility that the values for
CEC are a factor 10 too low. Also the data set seem more to follow the green line in the chart
above. This line indicates 100% base saturation at pH 7,0 which means that the CEC-values might
have been given at the distillation method that is carried out at pH 7,0.
Note: Base saturation values that are outside the bufferzone created by the two dashed lines are
highlighted in the spreadsheet. The values are marked “red” if the base saturation is too high
compared to the value obtained by the above formula (below lower dashed line). The value is
marked “turquoise” if it too low (above the upper dashed line).
Conclusion: The base saturation values given are apparently correct for all profiles. However when
the base saturations are recalculated the profiles FI4, FI5 and FI6 have base saturations that are a
factor 10 too high. This is because the reported CEC values are far too low. All three profiles are
rich in organic matter. The CEC values are most likely a factor wrong.
C_N (C/N-ratio): ok (The C/N-ratio for the organic horizons are high 55-70)
Origin of data: Expert judgment or Average of a number of profiles
CACO3_ACT: ok
Origin of data: Expert judgment
CACO3_TOT: ok.
4
Origin of data: Expert judgment
CASO4: ok
Origin of data: Expert judgment
CEC:
Origin of data: Expert judgment
The CEC values (cmol(+)/kg) should be measured as the sum of exchangeable bases and the
exchangeable acidity at pH 8,1.
Control of the data:
The CEC values are controlled by two equations. A low estimate and a high estimate. The CEC
value of the horizons should be within range of these two estimates:
Low estimate:
CEClow = 0,1 * % clay + % humus
High estimate:
CEChigh= 1,3 * % clay + 3,5 humus
The theory of the low estimate is that the clay is dominated by clay with low cation adsorption
potential (kaolinit: 5-15 cmol(+)/kg) and only little reactive humus/organic matter (100
cmol(+)/kg).
The high estimate is based on the assumption that the clay is dominated by highly reactive clay
minerals as vermiculit (100-120 cmol(+)/kg and that the humus/organic matter is very reactive (350
cmol(+)/kg.
Result: Many horizons have CEC values lower than the calculated low level (these are marked
turquoise).
Profile
FI1 (Bd)
FI1
FI1
FI2 (Bv)
FI2
FI2
FI3 (Gd)
FI3
FI3
FI4 (Po)
FI4
FI4
Horizon
Ap (1)
B
C
Ap (1)
B
C
Ap (1)
B (2)
C (3)
O (1)
Ae (2)
Bhs (3)
OM
40,0*
7,0*
3,0*
70,0*
10,0*
6,0*
98,0*
34,0*
44,0*
60,0
2,0
1,0
Clay
15
31
50
42
58
77
38
42
50
-998
2
2
CEC
19,2
13,4
16,0
32,5
28,6
31,4
30,7
26,3
23,8
7,5
0,4
0,6
5
CEC(low)
41,5
10,1
8,0
74,2
15,8
13,7
101,8
38,2
49,0
60
2,2
1,2
CEC(high)
159,5
64,8
75,5
299,6
110,4
121,1
392,4
173,6
219,0
210
9,6
6,1
FI4
FI4
FI5 (Od)
FI5
FI5
FI5
FI6 (Oe)
FI6
FI6
Bs (4)
C (5)
H1 (1)
H2 (2)
H3 (3)
H4 (4)
Hp (1)
H1 (2)
H2 (3)
2,0
2,0
68,0
69,0
70,0
72,0
52,0
52,0
52,0
2
5
-998
-998
-998
-998
-998
-998
-998
0,8
0,5
12,0
12,5
12,5
13,0
12,0
11,0
12,0
2,2
2,5
68,0
69,0
70,0
72,0
52,0
52,0
52,0
9,6
13,5
238
242
245
252
182
182
182
* Organic matter a factor 10 too high.
Result: Many of the CEC-values are highly underestimated based on the data of organic matter and
clay. The horizons that are highlighted in turquoise are below the low estimate. The four horizons
that are within the zone created by the two estimates are marked white. They however all have
rather low CEC-values.
For the first three profiles (FI1, FI2 & FI3) the contents of organic matter seem very high. There is
most likely a factor 10 error here! If not then profile FI3 (Gd – dystric Gleysol) should be
reclassified as a Histosol.
For the last three profiles (FI4, FI5 & FI6) the CEC-values are very low, especially since profile FI5
and FI6 are very rich in organic matter. For comparison Histosols in Norway have CEC-values
between 20,2 and 93 cmol(+)/kg and in Latvia 110,5-176,5 cmol(+)/kg.
Conclusion: The CEC values for profile FI4, FI5 and FI6 seem unreliable low. Most likely a factor
10. The given values for profile FI1, FI2 and FI3 seem more reliable. The calculated estimates are
probably too high due to a factor 10 error in the content of organic matter.
Correction:
If the content of organic matter for the horizons of profile FI1, FI2 and FI3 are divided by 10 the
CEC falls within the zone created by the two equations.
If the CEC values for profile FI4, FI5 and FI6 are multiplied by 10 then the CEC values would lie
within the zone crated by the two equations.
Profile
FI1
FI1
FI1
FI2
FI2
FI2
FI3
FI3
FI3
FI4
FI4
FI4
Horizon
Ap (1)
B
C
Ap (1)
B
C
Ap (1)
B (2)
C (3)
O (1)
Ae (2)
Bhs (3)
OM
4,0*
0,7*
0,3*
7,0*
1,0*
0,6*
9,8*
3,4*
4,4*
60,0
2,0
1,0
Clay
15
31
50
42
58
77
38
42
50
-998
2
2
CEC
19,2
13,4
16,0
32,5
28,6
31,4
30,7
26,3
23,8
75
4,0
6,0
6
CEC(low)
5,5
3,8
5,3
11,2
6,8
8,3
13,6
7,6
9,4
60
2,2
1,2
CEC(high)
33,5
42,8
66,1
79,1
78,9
102,2
83,7
66,5
80,4
210
9,6
6,1
FI4
FI4
FI5
FI5
FI5
FI5
FI6
FI6
FI6
Bs (4)
C (5)
H1 (1)
H2 (2)
H3 (3)
H4 (4)
Hp (1)
H1 (2)
H2 (3)
2,0
2,0
68,0
69,0
70,0
72,0
52,0
52,0
52,0
2
5
-998
-998
-998
-998
-998
-998
-998
8,0
5,0
120
125
125
130
120
110
120
2,2
2,5
68,0
69,0
70,0
72,0
52,0
52,0
52,0
9,6
13,5
238
242
245
252
182
182
182
The corrected values for CEC and organic matter are marked “green” in the spreadsheet.
Conclusion: If the corrections shown about are carried out, then the data seem more reliable.
However this should be agreed upon by the stakeholder.
EC: ok
Origin of data: Average of a number of profiles or expert judgment
EXCH_CA, EXCH_K, EXCH_MG & EXCH_NA:
Origin of data: Expert judgment
All of the horizons contain data on base cations.
Quality of the data: The values in the dataset are difficult to evaluate, but a general assumption has
been carried out that: exchangeable calcium exceeds the sum of exchangeable Mg, K and Na at pH
(H20)-values > 5:
[Ca2+] > [Mg2+] + [K+] + [Na+]
if pH (H20) > 5,0
Result: The above assumption is fulfilled for all horizons.
EXCH_NAP: Most values are “-10” (meaning: less than 15% (humid areas). Two horizons are
given the value “-999” (meaning: missing value). The value can easily be measured as Na/CEC.
GRAVEL: ok
OM (organic matter):
Origin of data: Mostly average of a number of profiles, but also from a single representative
profile and expert judgment.
7
The content of organic matter for the horizons in profile F1, F2 and F3 are very high. The Aphorizons have organic matter content of 40,0, 70,0 & 98,0%. These should then be altered to Hhorizons. There is most likely a factor 10 error (see section on CEC)! The values are corrected and
marked “green” in the spreadsheet.
pH: ok
Origin of data: Mostly average of a number of profiles, but also from from a single
representative profile and expert judgment
POR: The data was checked via the following formula:
Origin of data: Expert judgment
 BD 
POR  1  
  100
 PD 
where BD=Bulk density and PD=Particle density
The particle density can be calculated/approximated from the following formula:
PD( g / cm 3 ) 
1,30  2,65  2,80
(2,65  2,80  (% OM / 100 ))  (1,30  2,80  (% silicates / 100 ))  (1,30  2,65  % CaCO3 / 100 ))
The particle density of silicates is considered to be 2,65 g/cm3
The particle density of Organic matter (OM) is considered to be 1,3 g/cm3
The particle density of CaCO3 is considered to be 2,80 g/cm3
Soils with a low content of organic matter (0-5%) would therefore presumably have particle
densities between 2,5 -2,8 g/cm3.
Result: The following horizons had values for calculated porosity (via the above formula) that
differed more than 5% from the values given in the spreadsheet.
Profile
FI1
FI2
FI3
FI3
FI3
FI4
FI4
FI4
FI4
Horizon
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
POR (%)
53
58
56
55
54
45
42
40
38
POR calculated (%)
41 (57)
28 (55)
24 (58)
44 (57)
40 (57)
82
54
54
50
8
Organic matter (%)
40 -> 4,0
70 -> 7,0
98 -> 9,8
34 -> 3,4
44 -> 4,4
60
2
1
2
FI4
FI5
FI5
5
2
4
38
85
80
46
94
87
2
69
72
Result: Most of the horizons where the calculated porosity differed more than 5% from the given
value are rich in organic matter (marked yellow). Therefore the given data might be correct.
However the high contents of organic matter for F1, F2 and F3 are probably not correct (see section
on CEC and organic matterabove). The values in brackets in the “POR calculated”-field are the
values if the contents of organic matter are divided by 10. The data would then be satisfying.
Therefore the data for these horizons remain.
The following chart shows the relation between particle density (measured from the existing data of
porosity and bulk density) and % organic matter. Note: The values for particle density should be
around 2,5-2,8 g/cm3 if the content of organic matter is around 0% and decreasing to around 1,3
g/cm3 with increasing content of organic matter.
PD measured from excisting data
3,00
2,50
g/cm3
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
% Organic matter
Result: Some of the data have very high particle densities compared to the content of organic
matter. The horizons marked “red” in the chart are the horizons with a supposed too high content of
organic matter (should most likely be divided by 10!)
Markings in the spreadsheet:
Porosity too high compared to theory (> 5% above)
Porosity too low compared to theory (> 5% below)
WC_1 (the water retention at –1 kPa) is higher than POR
The horizons are rich in organic matter but are >5% below the
calculated porosity.
9
Conclusion: The data for porosity are apparently not very reliable, but if the contents of organic
matter in profile FI1, FI2 and FI3 are divided by 10, then the data seem to be reliable.
STRUCT (structure): Only for the mineral soils.
TEXT_2, TEXT_20, TEXT_50, TEXT_200 & TEXT_2000:
Origin of data: Mostly from a single representative profile, but also from an average of a
number of profiles and expert judgment
The combined values of the five texture fields should add up to 100%.
For the horizons that do not total 100% the values are corrected as a weighted average.
Example for profile FI3 horizon 2 (B).
TEXT_2
42
TEXT_20
42
TEXT_50
7
TEXT_200
15
TEXT_2000
3
sum
109
TEXT_20
(42/109)*100
38
TEXT_50
(7/109)*100
6
TEXT_200
(15/109)*100
14
TEXT_2000
(3/109)*100
3
sum
Correction:
TEXT_2
(42/109)*100
39
100
3 Horizons had to be corrected while another 2 horizons had “-999” values replaced by “0” so that
the total texture was 100%.
After the correction of the texture classes, so that the combined texture classes add up to 100%
profile FI3 no longer qualifies for the dominant surface textural class “4” (fine) (% clay above
35%). The corrections are therefore altered (see below):
Profile
Hor
TEXT_2
TEXT_20
TEXT_50
TEXT_200
TEXT_2000
Texture
class
FI3
Ap
38
32
36
44
38
36
17
14
13
16
14
13
2
2
2
4
3
4
Corrected to
10
The markings in the spreadsheet mean the following:
Colour
Type of Changes/corrections
In EST_HOR: The sum of the values did not add up to 100%
Corrected as a weighted average.
Corrections had to be carried out in EST_HOR.dbf. in order to
qualify for the originally given dominant surface textural class.
yellow
orange
WC_1, WC_10, WC_100, WC_1500, WC_FC:
Origin of data: Expert judgment
Data for water retention:
Only data R-horizons are missing. Rock horizon has the value “-998” (not applicable (rock or
organic horizon)).
The quality of the data was controlled through the following criteria:
1) The value of porosity (POR) should be higher than WC_1:
2) The value of WC_FC should not be higher than WC_1
3) The volume percentage of water should decrease with increasing tension.
All horizons fulfill 1)
All horizons fulfill 2) except the horizons of profile FI6 as seen below:
Profile
FI6
FI6
FI6
Horizon
Hp (1)
H1 (2)
H2 (3)
POR
80
85
85
WC_1
80
75
75
WC_10
60
70
70
WC_100
40
50
50
WC_1500
15
25
30
WC_FC
80 -> 60
85 -> 70
85 -> 70
Correction: This values for WC_FC should be adjusted to be equal to “WC_10” as for the rest of
the horizons. This is carried out and marked “green” in the spreadsheet.
All horizons fulfill 3)
Conclusion: The data for water retention are generally considered reliable except the data for
profile FI6. This is however corrected.
11