You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Transactions of the Symposium on Photo Interpretation

Gibbons, F. R. (1961). Some misconceptions about what soil surveys can do. Journal of Soil
Science Vol. 12. No. I.
Binnie, Deacon and Gourlay (1956). Report to the Govt, of Iraq Development Board on the
Nahrwan, Adheim and Ishaqui areas, vol ii.
Belcher, D. J. (1959). Microforms and Features. Photogrammetric Engineering 25.
Soil Survey Staff (1960). Soil Survey of Great Britain Field Handbook.
Dr. R. Smith (Ireland) commented that the range variation usually allowed in such profile
characteristics as colour, texture, structure, pH, salinity etc. should be broadened over that
usually allowed for soil series, so that such surface features as e.g. gilgai patterns and drainage
characteristics will embrace one cartographic soil series. Although this is a very controversial
matter he would give his support to Mr. Curtis’ suggestion.
Mr. G. Koechley (U.S.A.) believed that we do not sufficiently distinguish between the
application of photo interpretation to small scale surveys and that to highly detailed ones at
1 : 20,000 scale or larger. Photo interpretation is an excellent and useful tool, but one re
quiring a great deal more field checking for the more complex soil surveys.
Dr. R. Maignien (France) remarked that it is very dangerous to define the soil units only
according to those superficial aspects which can be seen from the aerial photographs. It is
necessary to multiply the studies on the correlation between the soils observed in the field and
the phenomena which can be observed from the photographs. Intensive studies have revealed
that this correlation was weak on the series level, but this was only the case for one particular
region. Mr. Curtis agreed that soil profile characteristics must remain the basis for much of
our thinking about soils. However, his view is that soil mapping units can and should be
defined in terms of landscape features. Soil surveyors and interpreters should cooperate in
producing suitable classifications.
Dr. A. P. A. Vink (W.G. chairman) concluded that in the future a more careful distinction
between the units of taxonomic classification, such as used in the Soil Classification (7th
approximation), and those of cartographic classification as used in our mapping units, will
be necessary. He stressed the need for a better appraisal of both kinds of classification.