Updates from May, 2016 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • James Urban FASLA 12:57 pm on May 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Retaining soil structure to improve soil 

    Unscreened soil harvesting image: James Urban

    Unscreened soil harvesting
    Photo credit: James Urban

    Soil structure (how soil particles are held together to form larger structures within the soil) is recognized as an important property of a healthy soil. Grading, tilling, soil compaction and screening soils during the soil processing and mixing process damages structure.  Structure makes significant contributions to improving root, air and water movement thru the soil. Soil screening is extremely damaging to structure but is included in most soil specifications.

    Why do we screen soils and what happens if we do not? Prior to the mid 1970’s soils were rarely screened and landscape plants performed quite well.  Installed soil was moved with clumps or peds throughout the stockpile. In the last 15-20 years farmers who have stopped tilling their soil have found significant improvements in soil performance. Several new research projects suggest that elimination of the screening and tilling processes in favor of mixing techniques or soil fracturing that preserve clumps of residual soil structure may improve landscape soils.

    (More …)

     
    • Aris W. Stalis 10:49 pm on July 6, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      This topic is near and dear to me – regardless of how much we put in specs, this is often ignored. At times, it is because earth moving is in the Civil scope, or the requirements are simply ignored. Construction managers and contractors are concerned with building construction, and ignore the site. My plan is to request photographic documentation of the process – photo, and send via email. Quick, easy, no need for reports so it will not drive up cost. Additionally, the need to be free of weed seed in compost is also a bit of a challenge – I look forward to hearing from others on that topic.

      Like

    • Paul Josey 3:58 pm on January 5, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Great article! How can we measure soil clumps or peds and include such requirements in specification language?

      Like

    • Jim Urban 10:15 pm on January 5, 2017 Permalink | Reply

      Paul: Right now more work is needed to add metrics to ped or clump sizes and limitations particularly in specifications. We need to look at a number of soils across the soil texture range to determine what is possible. The biggest problem is that different soils types have different ability to hold peds together during harvesting, shipping and grading. Tthe greater the clay the stronger the peds, while loamy sands and sands have almost no peds. This is further compounded by moisture. In clay soils more moisture generally results in weaker peds but they can reform in the process as the clay is sticky. Less water results in stringer peds. In sandy loans what peds that exist will be stronger with more water. Silt loans are somewhat in between. finally greater soil organic matter will strengthen peds, but the peds tend tend smaller. In my area of the mid Atlantic coastal and piedmont the soils are pretty good at maintaining peds as long as you do not screen the soil. I suspect that in the central plains areas you would have the same results. The rest of the country can key off this basic understanding.
      As far as specifications, I am still using a fairly vague ped language that is primarily there to recognize if the soil has been screened. My spec reads: “Topsoil and Planting Soil shall NOT have been screened through any screen smaller than 2” square and shall retain soil peds or clods larger than 2 inches in diameter throughout the stockpile.” I would like to use a larger minimum screen size say 3″ or even 4″ but it seems that 2″ is what most soil suppliers have and the ped idea is not mature enough to expect the industry to buy different equipment. Some times other factors make some minimum screening a valid part of the process. I try to control the overall screening requirements by controlling the source stock pile approvals and looking for soil with more clay. 15- 35% clay is a good target number for a soil that will hold up under grading and handling.
      Hope this helps.
      Jim Urban

      Liked by 1 person

  • Eric Kramer, ASLA 2:56 pm on May 19, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Eric Kramer   

    Let’s Dig: crowd-sourcing data on urban soil performance 

    A soil core of sand-based structural soil Photo credit:

    A soil core of sand-based structural soil

    Data, data, data.

    We know that all good science is based on adequate data. And if you’re reading this page, you probably also already know there is a lack of adequate data when it comes to the real-world performance of urban tree planting soils. This post is your chance to change that and add your own information to a shared database of soil performance data.

    A bit of background: In 2014 we (Eric Kramer, ASLA, and Stephanie Hsia of ReedHilderbrand; Robert Uhlig, ASLA, of Halvorson Design; Bryant Scharenbroch, PhD of University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point; and Kelby Fite, PhD of Bartlett Research Labs) undertook a micro-study of seven sites in Boston — constructed urban landscape projects anywhere from 5 to 45 years old. Each project took a pro-active approach to designed soil systems, using suspended pavements, Cornell University structural soils, or sand-based soils. We took soil cores, recorded soils horizons, took lab samples and compared findings to what we knew about what had been installed. We also assessed the performance of the trees over time.

    (More …)

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel