Land Capability Assessment

This article discusses the importance of land capability assessment in improving agricultural productivity in Australia. It covers the factors that control soil distribution, the impact of soil degradation on the environment, and the techniques used for land cover mapping and texture analysis. The article also provides an overview of the UWA Ridgefield farm and the land capability maps created for the five profile groupings.

Land Capability Assessment
Name
Institution

Land Capability Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With the ever increasing urge of promoting agricultural sector across the globe, there is an apparent
need to boast those factors that will see the stability in food production. One of the major impacts
that surround food productivity is the availability of a quality soil in a particular place. Apparently,
this means that the aspect of land capability remains an important practice in the haste to improve
the productivity of agriculture particularly in the vast Australian community.
Apparently, the study did not involve new soil study in the Ridgefield farm. Nonetheless, the study
involved the review process as well as updating the already existing work that was done in the area.
In essence, the usage of the already existing work was because it was highly relevant particularly
for the planning of the Ridgefield farm.
The study area involved five profile samples that were each performed in form of five groups that is
group 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The samples representing the landscape were found to have different
characteristics ranging from acidity levels to the level of erosion. Land assessment procedure was
done to be enabling to analyses capability of the soil to withstand different agricultural use.

Introduction
General Introduction (Background of the Study Area)
Geographical Location of the Study Area,
Study Area
UWA Ridgefield farm, Via Page Road
The Future Farm
Located at the ‘Ridgefield Farm’GPS UTM Coordinates 498621E, 6406819N UWA Ridgefield
Farm, Via Page Road Approximately 10 Km North Of Pingelly, WA
In essence, the overall environmental change has no doubt presented a rather new focus on the
cultivation organizations in Western Australia. The Australian soils are considered to among the
oldest soils which are mostly weathered, shallow as well as infertile in regards to the world
standards and therefore it as presented various challenges to the people who seek to manage the soil
(Kidd et al., 2018). In this regard, surface soil layers in most Australian area are deemed to be
poorly fertile compared to those which are found in deeper layers. Additionally, most of the surface
soil is poorly structured and have low organic matter content. Apparently, there have been reports
concerning the existence of high clay soils content throughout Australia, therefore, becoming a
hindrance to the roots grow as well as the overall drainage processes. Noteworthy, it is no doubt
that bleached layers of soils that have low levels of nutrients have a huge impact on the productivity
pattern in Australia. Many of the area’s soils are hugely affected by the levels of salinity,
modifications as well as other acidification constraints, therefore, resulting to a rather physical and
chemicals limitations to a wider variety of crops intended to be grown in the Australian region.
Additionally, pasture growth and productivity have been negatively impacted in due to this varied
content in the Australian soil. For instance, soil acidity has been thought to have a huge impact on at
least two-thirds of Western Australia’s wheat farming in an area that for many years has been
producing more than a half of Australia’s wheat production where 80 percent of this wheat is

intended for export purposes. In this sense, the Australian farming institution has been costed more
than $400 million as a result of the apparent loss in the production of wheat. Most of the Australian
soils are difficult to manage due to the varied limitations it possesses despite the fact that Australia
has large fertile cracking clays. Nonetheless, overall Australia’s variability of climate has been a
huge contributing factor in the challenges facing soil management for many years now. In this
regard, managing the soil and land in this country needs the availability of sophisticated sort of risk
management structures as well as a high resources of expertise and adaptability.
Apparently, the Australian soil is one of the major assets that belong to the national government,
therefore, underpinning the overall country’s agriculture productivity and the ability to be one of the
main food exporters worth $30 billion every year. Just as assets requires maintenance, so are soil
across the globe. In the quest of boasting food productivity across the world, there is a need for
change in strategies across Australia calling for an intensive soil management program.
Additionally, there is a need for the agriculture sector to manage climatic change and reduce the
greenhouse effect. Apparently, this can be done through reduction of wasteful gas emission in the
entire Australia community and the rest of the world. to achieve this attribute, there would be the
need for formulation of multiple goals in the overall urge of improving soil across Australian region
particularly in Western Australia.
Various credible research has suggested that the Australian soil is likely to be affected by the certain
issues such as the degradation, acidification, erosion as well as the overall loss of the soil carbon
throughout the years. This is projected to have an adverse effect on the Australian agriculture sector
in coming days unless there is a rather carefully management of soil involved. Recent research on
the assessment of the soil condition in regions where cropping and grazing system are undertaken
shows that 50 percent of the soil region were in a rather poor state while at least 95 percent across
the region indicated an immense deterioration in the level of soil PH regarding acidification
(Murphy, 2017). On the other hand, the level of wind and water erosion had taken place in at least
more than 53 percent assessed which meant that there was a poor soil cover across Western
Australia. Additionally, the research indicated that more than 33 percent of the region has a poor
soil carbon content while there was an ongoing deterioration in the level of soil carbon of about 85
percent.
There has been an ongoing threat thanks to the level of dryland salinity although recent drought
tends to halt the spread temporarily. Noteworthy, there has been the process of mining agricultural
soils in Western Australia by many agricultural stores without an apparent replacement of the same.
There have been potential damages to the environmental assets such as the great barrier rifts due to
a clear runoff and the overall loss of top soils from a poor management of soil across Australia. In
essence, this has been deemed to reduce the quality of water that often flows into lagoons.
It is therefore likely that the overall Australian community will have to adapt to a rather improved
capture as well as the uses of soil water and improves the overall nutritional content of soil in an
aim of reducing the over-reliance on the high requirements of the energy for the purpose of
production of organic fertilizers. The agricultural industry will as well be expected to manage those
soils that are kept in the stores so that more carbon can be maintained thus reducing the greenhouse
effect gas emission like those that are associated with the fertilizer.
Primarily for many years now, there has been a direct expectation of the sustainability of food
production and exportation by the Australian government. In this regards, there has been an
intention of the provision of high-quality ecosystem services by the agricultural landscape. Some of
this intention is to have a clean air as well as water, soil and the overall protection of the
biodiversity as well as the protection the protection of the ecosystem. There is a need for a full
insight by the agricultural authority in meeting the challenges facing the aspect of soil in Australia
despite the fact that the region continues to produce world-class soil RD&E.

The site location is a hilly slope which has native vegetation such as the Eucalyptus loxophleba on a
hilltop that was adjacent to the grazing area, with the presence of dolerite dikes intruded upward.
The overall elevation of the land was approximate, 348m above the sea level. The percentage steep
slope was at about 31%. The research studies us representing a place which has certainly granite
gneiss together with some sort of dolerite dike. In essence, the area is considered as part of the
ancient hydrological region in the Avon river catchment area. This is known to be the drainage
system of the entire region.
It is no doubt that the entire area has a Mediterranean climate as it experiences a rather dry
summer as well as cool winters. The area had a variety of temperature throughout the year.
However, on the very day that that sample was collected, the area had a maximum temperature of
about 19 °C. Additionally, the area experienced light rains during that morning sessions. The annual
rainfall throughout the area is known to be about 445mm, where January mean is understood to be
11.3mm as well as 81.2mm in the month of July. The highest rainfall that is often recorded as being
the highest is during the year was at about 116.9mm as well as 222.6mm.
Land Capability
Land capability maps
In essence, the land capability is the overall ability of a land to be in a position of sustaining a
particular use and overcome a rather undesirable on-site or the off-site land degradation. In this
case, the capability groups are assigned to the rating system of various soil profile collected in the
field. The ranging groups of this study were assigned and identified as group7, group8, group9,
group10, and group11 respectively.
New capabilities maps for the five profile groupings land usage in the Ridgefield farm have been
created in this report and it includes all the necessary corrections.
Factors That Control the Distribution of Soils in the Landscape and Soil Distribution

It is no doubt that the overall soil acidification and any particular release in the forest soil are hugely
controlled by various factors such as the deposition of acid, the type of forest, the parent rock
materials, and altitude.
Literature Review
Land Capability Assessment
In essence, the land capability is the overall inherent as well as the physical capacity of a
particular land to withstand various land usage and apparent management procedures in the long-
term period without necessarily degrading soil, land, and water resources. In this light, it is no doubt
that the elevation of salinity and the nutrient load in waters, it has affected the overall receiving
environment (Henderson et al., 2005). However, careful management of the same can in a big way
reduces this impact and provides a rather sustainable level.
In essence, mapping as well as identifying land cover, its use and the overall change is no
doubt an important aspect in the agricultural sector across the globe. One of the techniques applied
in recent times for mapping a land is the use of a remote sensing (Brown et al., 2011). Mapping by
this method often needs an individual to come up with a rather good image for the purpose of the
classification method (Metternicht, 2018). Nonetheless, there are various factors that are likely to
affect the overall efficiency as well as the accuracy of the classification algorithms. Apparently,
some of these factors include the type of image resolution and the atmospheric condition of the site
in which the assessment is being done. Various land cover methods sometimes require proper
citations depending on the different environmental conditions making a good generalization of the
produced image on the site. However, this can sometimes pose a challenge to the image

classification process. As a result of this, there has been the urge of innovating new and
sophisticated classification procedures in the contemporary world. However, this method needs a lot
of intensive training as well as human supervisory.
Noteworthy, the aspect of extending mapping as well as the modeling of land use at a
particular period of time in analyzing change will no doubt add more challenges and complexity to
the land assessment procedures. Apart from the above-listed challenge, there is a need for an
efficient method in ensuring that there is a clear comparability as well as the issue of compatibility
of various images that are taken from a certain field where samples are collected. Nonetheless, the
change in the effect of the image sensing in the world of literature has raised eyebrows in recent
time. Various people have been assessing the quality of performance taken using this method give
the aspect of land assessment tool can sometimes be challenging.
Texture analysis is a rather kind of technique of land cover that has been gaining a rather
increased attention in recent times especially from the mote sensing community. The old texture
method of soil analysis has had various applications such as the spatial concurrency of the matrix
and the local variance system of land assessment. The texture sensing system has recently, applied
various application which had not been used when it was first implemented. This has proven
important has it has provided a more accurate classification of the land cover. Some of these
accuracies have been fractals, lacunarity, spatial auto corrections as well as the variograms.
Primarily, land assessment plan has often been used in judging as well as interconnection of
the biophysical imperatives that tend to use the ground and the ecological limitations. Through the
process of grouping, the overall quality of land, land assessment has been an important factor
especially to the organizers, as well as chiefs in arriving at a certain appraisal. In this sense, a higher
review on land is more flexible and provides a bunch of extra options for the utilization of land
across the globe. The assessment system of land can in many ways be used to predict the apparent
levels of production as well as the effect of the use of a particular land. Additionally, this process
can be used to indicate the different levels of management that are required in achieving specified
levels of land production and the rather stands of conservation in the agricultural system (Qureshi &
Harrison, 2017). Any system of land assessment is meant to provide an insight and an analysis of
the components and the physical characteristics of various lands which fail to change appreciably
within a given period of time and therefore can be overlaid with the overall social and the economic
factors which change with a set time frame. In this light, land capability assessment provides
elementary information that is required for the land use across the world. One of the most equitable
types of land capability rating procedure is the use of a table. In this manner, the various land
characteristics considered to have the greatest effect on the overall performance scale are entered in
a table.

Land capability assessment requires various ranges of qualified professionals from different
disciplines. Apparently, LCA should have tertiary guidance and qualifications in a rather sort of
disciplines such as the hydrogeology, science of soil, agricultural science, and geology to make sure
that people are well conversant with the overall accessibility of land and how to maintain it for a
proper and improved productivity across the globe. In this light, the land assessor has to have some
specific strategies for determining all the attributes of a soil and make sure the goal is met during
sampling of various soil factors (Vaudour & Shaw, 2017). In addition, the person who assess a land
has to have a certain level of technical expertise as well as experience with a wide range of inter-
disciplinary fields particularly in the wastewaters management as well as skills in the attribute of
the interpretation of soil, sites as well as the climatic condition while still undertaking the balances
between water and soil nutrients, selection and the design of an appropriate soil treatment plan.
Primarily, considering the main goal at the end of land assessment strategy to define the inactive
zones regarding water in the soil samples, present a sort of unique e topological mapping as well as
a liniment on the pattern of water in the soil profile. This liniment is presented at about 1:60000
scale preparations exploiting a rather remotely gathered data yet giving an insight of the
classification of the survey from the Western Australia geographic sheets. This, therefore, indicates
that there is a chance of delineation of the base water in the soil with a potential outline throughout
a certain measurements plan of a land assessment procedure.

Role of the GIS
In the recent technological advancement, geographic information system has no doubt been
rooted in being intellectual practices that have been populated by data as well as power by the
aspect of mathematical analysis. A recent survey indicates that the main application of GIS is
directed for various partial analyses, modeling regarded as predictable, visualization as well as
cartography process. The GIS industry is considered one of the rapidly developing industries across
the globe. GIS is preferred in land assessment study as it tends to map rather accurate locations and
surveys coordinates of a particular object in space, therefore, providing various leads and answers to
questions by the use of computer systems. In this light, GIS is then applied in the collection,
storage, management, analyzing, and production of useful information. In other words, GIS is
mostly used in the process of inputting various data together for the purpose of producing reliable
information. Apparently, CAS tends to rely more on the kind of input of various historical records
as well as utilizing the functionality of the modern GIS in the overall production of predictions and
responses strategies for the world’s natural phenomena.

Land use map of ‘Afternoon Group’ study area at UWA Ridgefield Farm
Despite the huge potential of the usage of GIS, there has been a problem regarding the overall
means of assimilating universal roles and the clear influence that the technology has failed to keep
up the pace with the contemporary development as and the ever-changing techniques. In this light,
it is evident that the usage of the GIS has not hit its maximum potentiality since many users are not
aware of the existence of a modern and integrated GIS in various conditions where spatial locations
are required in the process of land mapping (Mrazova et al., 2017). The most desirable function of
the GIS is its ability to input data using a set of selected attributes or rather selections of location
meant for spatial analysis procedure in finding the interconnections between a given set of results.

Method
In essence, the soil is often analyzed in order to determine its overall ability to supply the possible
necessary plant to a particular crop. Soil analysis is mostly related to the potential nutrient uptake as
well as the supplementary of plants nutrients through variety of soil samples.
Geomorphological cross section:

Soil Sampling Procedure
The following are some soil sampling processes that were written by the afternoon group in
accordance with UWA Ridgefield farm paddock farming area. All the steps will be applied in all
the situations throughout the process of soil sampling. The following are procedures for soil
sampling.
 One has to ask whether the law that is intended to be used applies rather accredited tests one
wants to conduct. The lab should, therefore, have the National Association of Testing
Authority Australia (NATA) as well as Australia soil and plant analysis.
 The result gotten in this analysis and results achieved should be more consistent as well as
comparable because the same results are used each time.
 Different sampling patterns are applied in this state to come up with reliable results,
particularly for soil sampling. Apparently, this included the sampling rather zigzag patterns
throughout the paddock, walking all over the paddock across the field or rather sampling a
small area that is in form of the typical paddock.

 One should avoid small and atypical areas in the paddock including various changes in the
soil type, fences lines, and waterlogs.
 One has to keep on the process of sampling at least every year mostly when one is at least
sure the soil moisture will be similar because the difference in soil moisture can have an
impact on the results.
 The samples are done every time the paddock is being sampled. This is because it is most
difficult to compare results from samples that have come from different depths.
 The soil samples have to be taken using tube sampler or rather a spade. In case there was the
usage of an auger there should be enough care to avoid mixing the samples.
 At last 50 individual cores should be collected for one to acquire a rather standard paddock.
 The overall scores have to be spread out evenly along all transect. One should always make
sure they avoid taking samples from where the samples are dug or pit patches.
 The overall scores have to be collected into a clean bucket and then it should be mixed in a
good way in clean plastic bags.
 The samples should be well labeled and clear.
 The samples should be kept cool.
 If one is using a GPS one may wish to record the location that the individual cores are taken
from as well as the correct location when a soil is sampled.

Risk Assessment of Soil Characteristic
The soil risk assessment characters of soil have been developing for the quite some while in
accordance with the land capability assessment framework. Every characteristic of soil are assessed
in according to the level of constraint and, therefore, a qualitative analysis is provided of the level
of risks in accordance with the following dataset.

Soil Analysis Procedure
 Make sure you use at least 1-inch diameter soil probe to collect soil sample it should be
about 6-8 inches in depth
 This is done by following a zigzag and collect 10-20 soil cores as per a10-20 acres
 Collect the core from areas that have similar soil types as well as the history
 Dump cores from each other 10-20 acre area into a bucket and mix it
 Place at least one pinch of the mixed soil samples bag plastic
 Store the soil samples in a rather cool and dark place until shipping has taken place
 Send the composite samples to a lab where the SCN analysis is done.
Results
The PH of the surface soil was varied across different soil profiles that were collected. For instance,
group 7 and group8 recoded very strong acidic levels while the same surface soil collected by group
9had no acidic levels. Additionally, the group recorded slightly lower acidic levels on the surface
samples. Noteworthy, surface soil sample collected by group11 recorded moderate acidic levels.

The subsoils samples that were collected by group7 was found to be very strong acidic while the
one collected by group 8 was strongly acidic. Group 9 subsoil sample was not acidic at all while
group 10 and group 11 recorded slightly acidic subsoil.
The level or the capability of excavation of the land was determined by the soil samples collected.
For instance, group 7, 8, and 9 found out the capability of soil excavation by their samples collected
was all moderate. Group 10 found out that the capability of excavation of the soil samples collected
in the study area was low while that of group 11 was recorded as being high.
While the soil samples collected by group 7 and 8 indicated no chance of being affected by flood
hazard, samples of the soil collected by group 9 and 10 had a low chance of being affected by
floods. However, samples of soils collected by group 11 indicated a moderate chance of being
affected by floods.
The level of land instability level varied across all the soil samples collected by the five groups. In
general, the land capability of the soils collected showed that it can be improved to increase its
productivity.
Discussion
In essence, capability review indicates that there is a rather broad area of land that is capable of
supporting and producing a variety of crops. In this case, it is clear that water is the key enabler for
the overall development of agricultural activities here and showcase different challenges for every
location. It shows that improving the use of water is likely to improve the productivity of tee
existing resources.
New capability maps for the 5 study areas were included in the review. The present alluvial terraces
in the paddock adjacent to the sloppy land contained extensive areas with rather better soil profiles
that were underlain by the presence of soil with the most moisture and was likely to support the
agricultural activities in the farm.
Primarily, the foothills indicated a higher capability of farming. Nonetheless, due to the limitation
of the water sources around this area, other crops that can sustain these conditions can be cultivated
in this area.
Due to the apparent change in the overall land management techniques as week as the drying
climatic conditions in the profiles that are found deeper and up hills, the areas of the paddock that
were recently classified unsuited for the agricultural process could then show improving lad
capability.

Appendix: A Land Use Rating Tables
Table A1 Land Quality Value Codes That Are Used In Rating Table (Table A2)
PRI Classification Examples of Soil types
<2 very weakly adsorbing or
desorbing
grey sands
Bassendean sand Badgingarra
sand
2-5 weakly adsorbing grey-brown sand
deep duplex sand
e. g. Lancelin sand
Jerramungup sand
deep Coolup sand
Esperance sand
5-20 moderately adsorbing grey loamy sand
yellow-brown sand
e. g. Coolup loamy sand
Spearwood sand
Dandaragan red earth
Dongara black wattle soil
Wongan Hill, Merredin
sandy loam
20-70 strongly adsorbing lateritic gravels and sandy loam
Kununurra clay
Darling Range gravel
>70 very strongly adsorbing lateritic loam
iron-rich peat
Karri loam
podzol hardpan
Table A2: rating tables for the graphs table A1 explains the code symbols for this rating table
Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 Groups 11
Description

Ease of excavation M M M L H
Flood Hazard N N L L M
Land instability hazard M N Vl N N
Microbial purification VL L L VL L
pH- surface VSAC Vsac N SLAC MAC
pH- subsoil VSAC Sac N SLAC SLAC
phosphorous export
hazard VH L L N H
physical crop rooting
depth D M M MS MS
salinity hazard PS NR PR N NR-PR
salt spray exposure N N N N N
site drainage potential M R R MR R
soil absorption ability L M H M H
soil water storage L L VL L L
soil workability F G P G G
subsurface acidification
susceptibility H L L H M
subsurface compaction
susceptibility L H M H H
surface salinity E N M N N
surface soil structure
decline susceptibility L L L M L
Trafficability VP G G G G
water erosion hazard M L VL H L
water repellence
susceptibility H N N N M
waterlogging/indundation
risk N N N VL N
wind erosion hazard L L H L L
Afternoon Group Folder
Maps:

Soil Mapping Unit (SMU) map:

Land use and cadastral map:

Geomorphological cross section:
Profile 7:
Australian Soil Classification:
Kurosol
Location:
GPS UTM coordinates 498621E, 6406819N
UWA Ridgefield Farm, via Page Road
Approximately 10 km north of Pingelly, WA
Landform/Topography:
Description: Hilly slope with native vegetation
(Eucalyptus loxophleba) on the hilltop, adjacent to
grazing area, with presence of dolerite dykes
intruded upward.
Elevation: ~348 m above sea level
Slope: Steep slope of ~31%
Parent Material:
Granite-Gneiss with Dolerite dykes,
Drainage:
This area is a part of the ancient hydrologic region, Avon River catchment area.
Weather and Climate:
Pingelly has a Mediterranean climate as it experiences dry summers and cool winters. On the day
the profile was dug, Pingelly experienced 19 °C maximum temperature, with light rain throughout
the morning. Pingelly’s annual mean rainfall is 445mm, with a January mean of 11.3mm and
81.2mm in July. The highest rainfall recorded in those months was 116.9mm and 222.6mm
respectively.
Natural vegetation and land use: Eucalyptus loxophleba

SMU 5: Starting from grazing to native vegetation in the top of hill
Area identified as SMU 5 is a grazing paddock. It is a gentle slope with increasing gradient towards
the hilly top where SMU 5 dug their soil profile. The soil profile were dug in the slope under the
natural vegetation canopy (Eucalyptus sp).The profile did not have much distinction in its horizons
other than A and multiple B horizons. The dominant soil types encountered were sandy loam and
silty clay, with the highest water repellency index from A horizon due to accumulation of organic
matter originally of eucalyptus species that contain wax. Auger profile 1 and 2 were dug very close
to dolerite dykes and auger 3 was dug close to the hill foot where still relatively flat or gentle slope.
Auger 4 were dug in the top of hill. The hill predominantly was natural vegetation considered
unweathered completely soil. Therefore, horizons A and B were considered as highly saline soil and
the UWA farm management decided to fence this area to avoid saline soil surface exposure and
from spreading to the surrounding area.
Table 1: Description of the G7 soil profile
Sample no. Horizon Depth (cm) Description
1 A1 0-7 Moderately
adsorbing
2 B2 7-91+ Moderately
adsorbing
3 B2 7-91+ strongly adsorbing
4 B2 7-91+ strongly adsorbing
Table 2: Chemical analyses
pH Exchangeable
(mg/kg)
Sample
no.
H2O CaCl2 EC
(μS/cm
)
Organi
c C (%)
Total N
(%)
CN
Ratio
PRI P K
1 4.70 4.57 1888.0
0
9.92 0.30 33.51 9.38096
9
13.02558 100.416
2 4.05 3.77 1916.0
0
0.87 0.04 23.51 9.38096
9
17.25237 51.09386
3 3.95 3.67 1515.0
0
0.66 0.04 17.84 23.0091
3
27.01599 62.59341
4 4.10 3.73 2473.0 0.32 0.02 14.55 33.3722 21.6415 60.6461

0 1
Table 3: CEC analysis (<2mm fraction) exchangeable cations cmol/100g
Sample
no.
CEC ex-Ca ex-Mg ex-K ex-Na ex-Al
1 10.0 1.4 7.6 0.3 15.9 0.1
2 5.1 0.1 2.7 0.2 11.4 0.5
3 5.1 0.0 2.8 0.2 10.1 0.6
4 4.8 0.0 2.7 0.2 12.0 0.3
Table 4: Physical analyses
Sample
no.
Particle size (%) Bulk
density
(g/cm3)
Munsell colour Water
repellenc
e (MED)
Clay Silt Sand Wet Dry
1 16.5 10.8 72.7 1.01 10YR 3/3 7.5YR 4/3 7
2 45.9 29.3 24.8 1.43 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 2
3 50.5 23.8 25.7 1.43 10R 5/6 5YR 6/4 3
4 13.8 63.5 22.7 1.43 10R 6/6 7.5YR 6/4 3

Profile 8:
Australian Soil Classification:
Ferric, Dystrophic, Yellow Chromosol.
Location:
GPS UTM coordinates: 498605E 6406597N
UWA Ridgefield Farm, via Page Road
Approximately 10 km north of Pingelly, WA
Landform/Topography:
Description: Mid-slope of grazing area. Adjacent to
area of native vegetation.
Elevation: ~338m above sea level
Slope: Gentle slope of ~6%
Parent Material:
Granite with only quartz and feldspars present in
gravel sample.
Drainage:
High percentage of sand in top horizons, with the base B2.4 horizon having >50% clay content.
Hydraulic conductivity will be relatively high in horizons with larger sand percentages, but much
lower in horizons due to sharp increase in clay percentage.
Weather and Climate:
Pingelly has a Mediterranean climate as it experiences dry summers and cool winters. On the day
the profile was dug, Pingelly experienced 19 °C maximum temperature, with light rain throughout
the morning. Pingelly’s annual mean rainfall is 445mm, with a January mean of 11.3mm and
81.2mm in July. The highest rainfall recorded in those months was 116.9mm and 222.6mm
respectively.
Natural vegetation and land use:
As most of this vegetation had been cleared, the land use was allocated to grazing land. Much of the
land in this area contains weeds e.g. paddy melon.
SMU 9:
The area designated as SMU 9 at the UWA farm is a grazing paddock located on a gentle 6% slope.
In the soil profile of SMU 9, it was found that the dominant soil is loamy sand in the A, B2.1, B2.2
and B2.3 horizons, with clay soil classified in the bottom B2.4 horizon. Gravel content was fairly
consistent across each horizon with the content increasing gradually from 11.7% in the A horizon,
to 16.6% in the B2.4 horizon. Water repellency was found to be negligible in each of the horizons.

Organic C saw a sharp decrease between the A (1.71%) and B2.1 (0.44%) horizons, followed by
gradual decrease with depth, until reaching the B2.4 horizon where a slight increase was recorded.
Organic N followed a very similar path, a sharp decrease from A (0.11%) to B2.1 (0.04%) horizons,
before a gradual decline followed by a slight increase. There was a sharp decline in electrical
conductivity (EC) between the A horizon (229.5 μS/cm) and B2.1 horizon (30.3 μS/cm), before
remaining relatively constant over the B2.2 and B2.3 horizons, until a sharp increase in the B2.4
horizon (98.4 μS/cm). The A horizon recorded a moderately acidic pH (4.8), with the pH following
a relatively parabolic trend, increasing to a pH of 6.3 and 6.25 in the B2.2. and B2.3 horizons
respectively, before decreasing to a more acidic pH of 5.86 in the B2.4 horizon. Extractable
phosphorus (P) concentration drops from 101.587 mg/kg in the A horizon, to 54.093 mg/kg in the
B2.1 horizon, followed by a gradual decline in concentration to 35.487 mg/kg in the B2.4 horizon.
Extractable potassium (K), in comparison, is fairly constant across each of the soil horizons, with
concentration ranging between 53.279 mg/kg and 58.07 mg/kg with no particular trend. CEC
declined between the A (3.4 mequiv/100g) and B2.1(2.4 mequiv/100g) horizons before decreasing
to a minimum value (2.3 mequiv/100g) at the B2.2 horizon, before finally sharply increasing from
the B2.3 horizon (2.4 mequiv/100g) to the B2.4 horizon (10.5 mequiv/100g). The concentration of
calcium (Ca) follows a familiar trend, with a high concentration in the initial A horizon (2.6
cmol/100g), before dropping to a concentration of 1.5 cmol/100g in the B2.1 and B2.2 horizons,
before decreasing further to 1 cmol/100g in the B2.3 horizon and finally rising again in the B2.4
horizon (1.8 cmol/100g). Magnesium (Mg) was fairly constant across each of its initial 4 horizons
(A - B2.3), ranging between 0.4 - 0.6 cmol/100g, before sharply rising to 7.4 cmol/100g in the B2.4
horizon. Potassium (K) and Aluminium (Al) are both relatively constant, ranging between 0 - 0.1
cmol/100g and 0 - 0.2 cmol/100g respectively across each of the five soil horizons. Sodium (Na)
has a relatively small drop between the A (0.4 cmol/100g) and B2.1 and B2.2 (0.1 cmol/100g)
horizons, before a rise to 0.2 cmol/100g (B2.3 horizon), before a sharp increase in the B2.4 horizon
(1 cmol/100g).
Table 1: Description of the G8 soil profile
Sample no. Horizon Depth (cm) Description
1 A 0 - 10 Well sorted, angular,
medium
sphericity11.7% gravel.
2 B1 10 - 22 Moderately sorted,
angular, low spherical,
15.5% gravel.
3 B2 22 - 35 Moderately sorted,
angular, low spherical,
16.2% gravel.
4 B3 35 - 48 Moderately sorted,
angular, low spherical,
14.84% gravel.
5 B4 >48 Well sorted, medium
spericity,subangular,
16.6% gravel.

Table 2: Chemical analyses
pH Extractable
(mg/kg)
Sample
no.
H2O CaCl2 EC
(μS/cm
)
Organi
c C (%)
Total N
(%)
CN
Ratio
PRI P K
1 4.8 4.27 229.5 1.71 0.114 15 N/A 101.58
7
55.892
2 5.55 4.26 30.3 0.44 0.038 11.58 N/A 54.093 56.763
3 6.3 4.82 24 0.26 0.032 8.13 N/A 43.321 54.15
4 6.25 4.96 30.1 0.17 0.022 7.73 N/A 38.915 53.279
5 5.86 4.92 98.4 0.25 0.041 6.10 N/A 35.487 58.07
Table 3: CEC analysis (<2mm fraction) exchangeable cations cmol/100g
Sample
no.
CEC ex-Ca ex-Mg ex-K ex-Na ex-Al
1 3.4 2.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2
2 2.4 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
3 2.3 1.5 0.4 0 0.1 0
4 2.5 1 0.6 0 0.2 0
5 10.5 1.8 7.4 0.1 1 0.1
Table 4: Physical analyses
Sample
no.
Particle size (%) Bulk
density
(g/cm3)
Munsell colour Water
repellence
(MED)
Clay Silt Sand Wet Dry
1 3.270 6.040 90.70 1.58 7.5YR
2/2
7.5YR
4/4
0

2 5.520 7.780 86.70 1.48 7.5YR
4/3
7.5YR
5/6
0
3 5.020 5.780 89.20 1.45 7.5YR
4/4
7.5YR
6/6
0
4 4.520 8.790 86.69 1.48 10YR 4/6 10YR 8/4 0
5 54.970 9.290 35.74 N/A 7.5YR
5/5
7.5YR
6/6
0
Profile 9:
Australian Soil Classification:
Eutrophic, hypernatric, brown sodosol
Location:
UTM coordinates 497625E, 6407009N.
UWA Ridgefield Farm, via Page Road
Approximately 10km north of Pingelly, WA
Landform/Topography:
Description: Native vegetated creek line, lower slopes of
valley, adjacent to cropping and grazing areas.
Elevation: ~310m above sea level
Slope: Steady Slope of ~8%
Parent Material:
Granite, mineral grains are predominately quartz and
feldspar.
Drainage:
The profile had high percentages of sand leading to moderate to good drainage. In the lower
transitional B1 horizon, the drainage would not be as effective.
Weather and Climate:
Pingelly has a Mediterranean climate as it experiences dry summers and cool winters. On the day
the profile was dug, Pingelly experienced 19 °C maximum temperature, with light rain throughout
the morning. Pingelly’s annual mean rainfall is 445mm, with a January mean of 11.3mm and
81.2mm in July. The highest rainfall recorded in those months was 116.9mm and 222.6mm
respectively.
Natural vegetation and land use:
Remnant and regrowth of Marri, Eucalyptus and Wandoo dominate in areas that don’t favour
laterite development.

SMU 1:
SMU1, used as remnant/regrowth of native vegetation, is located on gradual to steady sloping areas
above a seasonal creek. The pit profile consisted of a loamy coarse sand in the A1 horizon, above a
coarse sand in the A, A2 and A2e horizons. Below this was a B1 horizon of loamy fine-medium
sand. Gravel content reduced gradually through the A-horizons from 10.8% to 5%, before rising
again in the B1 horizon to 11.5%. All horizons were classed as not water repellent. Emerson
aggregate stability was high, Class 8 in the A1 horizon, and Class 7 in all others. Percentage of N
and organic C decreased with depth, and the ratio of C to N, although variable, stayed within a
range of ~10-20, without an obvious pattern. The highest ratios were in the A and A2e horizons. EC
decreased overall with depth, before rising slightly at the base of the profile. The highest reading of
490μS/cm was found in the A horizon. pH readings were quite high, ranging from 7.61 to 8.34,
increasing with depth. Extractable-P decreased markedly below about 50cm, whereas extractable-K
decreased more steadily before increasing again in the B1 horizon. Exchangeable-Al was almost
non-existent, and the other cations showed a similar pattern of steadily decreasing with depth,
before showing a significant increase in the B1 horizon. Phosphorus retention was rated as: weakly
absorbing in the A1 horizon, moderately absorbing in A, A2 and A23, and weakly absorbing again
in the B1. Exchangeable sodium percentage was showed a slight decrease with depth , from 32% to
23%. The auger profile was similar, but had a higher gravel content, slightly lower EC and pH.
Table 1: Description of the G9 soil profile
Sample no. Horizon Depth (cm) Description
1 A1 0-24 Well-sorted, subangular, spherical, 10.8%
gravel
2 A 24-47 Poorly-sorted, subangular, spherical, 9.8%
gravel.
3 A2 47-54 Moderately-sorted, subangular, spherical, 8.5%
gravel.
4 A2e 54-69 Poorly-sorted, subangular, subrounded, 5%
gravel.
5 B1 >69 Very poorly-sorted, angular, low sphericity,
11.6 % gravel
Table 2: Chemical analyses
pH Extractable
(mg/kg)
Sample
no.
H2O CaCl2 EC
(μS/cm
)
Organi
c C (%)
Total N
(%)
CN
Ratio
PRI P K
1 7.61 6.67 350.00 1.25 0.11 11.91 4.94 71.22 126.41
2 7.48 6.64 490.00 1.41 0.07 19.58 6.63 46.36 84.96

3 7.84 6.62 263.10 0.35 0.04 10.00 6.63 0.181 65.12
4 8.2 6.76 167.70 0.46 0.02 20.00 6.63 0.57 44.77
5 8.34 7.08 258.00 0.38 0.04 10.27 4.94 0.051 91.49
Table 3: CEC analysis (<2mm fraction) exchangeable cations cmol/100g
Sample
no.
CEC ex-Ca ex-Mg ex-K ex-Na ex-Al
1 10.6 2.4 6.2 0.3 3.4 0.0
2 11.8 2.8 7.6 0.2 3.6 0.0
3 5.9 1.5 3.5 0.1 1.8 0.7
4 4.9 1.2 2.7 0.1 1.8 0.0
5 15.9 2.7 11.7 0.2 3.7 0.0
Table 4: Physical analyses
Sample
no.
Particle size (%) Bulk
density
(g/cm3)
Munsell colour Water
repellenc
e (MED)
Clay Silt Sand Wet Dry
1 7.1 8.6 84.3 1.55 10YR 3/2 10YR 4/3 0
2 2.6 2.1 95.3 1.52 10YR 2/1 10YR 3/2 0
3 2.5 0.8 96.7 1.52 10YR 3/4 10YR 4/3 0
4 2.1 0.4 97.5 1.68 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/3 0
5 2.2 8.4 89.4 1.71 2.5YR 5/2 2.5YR 6/2 0

Profile 10:
Australian Soil Classification:
Mottled sub-natric, brown sodosol
Location:
UTM coordinates: 497600E, 6406851N
UWA Ridgefield Farm, via Page Road
Approximately 10km north of Pingelly, WA
Landform/Topography:
Description: This profile was located in the middle of a
grazing field. A creek, lined with native vegetation was
situated ~100m from the profile.
Elevation: ~330 - 340m above sea level
Slope: Gentle slope of ~4%
Parent Material:
The parent material is granite with only quartz and feldspars present in gravel sample.
Drainage:
Each horizon for this profile contained a significant percentage of sand indicating the drainage was
proficient. Clay content significantly increased in the B2.2 horizon, resulting in an expected
decrease in drainage capability.
Weather and Climate:
Pingelly has a Mediterranean climate as it experiences dry summers and cool winters. On the day
the profile was dug, Pingelly experienced 19 °C maximum temperature, with light rain throughout
the morning. Pingelly’s annual mean rainfall is 445mm, with a January mean of 11.3mm and
81.2mm in July. The highest rainfall recorded in those months was 116.9mm and 222.6mm
respectively.
Natural vegetation and land use:
As most of this vegetation had been cleared, the land use was allocated to grazing land. Much of the
land in this area contains weeds e.g. paddy melon. Marri trees and Eucalyptus dominate in areas
that don’t favour laterite development.
SMU 3:
SMU3 is located ~100m from a creek, in the middle of a grazing field of ~6% slope. The pit profile
consisted of a sandy loam A horizon, sandy B1 horizon, clayey sand B2.1 horizon and sandy clay
B2.2 horizons. Gravel content increased with depth, with range of 6.7% (in A horizon) to 20.6% in
B2.2 horizon. All horizons were classed as not water repellent. Emerson aggregate stability varied,
Class 7 for A and B2.2 horizons respectively, and Class 2 in B1 and B2.1. Percentage of N and
organic C generally decreased with depth (with the exception of a slight nitrogen increase between
B2.1 and B2.2 horizons). The ratio of C to N decreased consistently from A1 to B2.2 horizons with
values of 14.58 and 4.07 respectively. EC decreased overall with depth, before a dramatic increase

at the base of the profile. The highest reading of 18.3μS/cm was found in the B2.2 horizon. pH
values increased with depth, from 4.45 to 5.05 (in CaCl2) in A1 and B2.2 horizons. Extractable-P
decreased markedly below about 50cm, whereas extractable-K decreased more steadily before
increasing again in the B2.2 horizon. Exchangeable-Al and exchangeable K was almost non-
existent, and the other cations showed a similar pattern of steadily decreasing with depth, before
showing a significant increase in the B2.2 horizon. Phosphorus retention was rated as: strongly
absorbing in all horizons.
Table 1: Description of the G10 soil profile
Sample no. Horizon Depth (cm) Description
1 A 0-21 Well sorted, subangular, granules, medium
spherical, 6.7% gravel
2 B1 21-33 Well sorted, subangular, granules, medium
spherical, 9.1% gravel
3 B2.1 33-46 Moderately sorted angular, 50% granules 50%
pebbles, low spherical, 18.8% gravel
4 B2.2 >46 Well sorted, subangular, granules, low sphereicity,
20.6% gravel
Table 2: Chemical analyses
pH Exchangeable
(mg/kg)
Sample
no.
H2O CaCl2 EC
(μS/cm
)
Organi
c C (%)
Total N
(%)
CN
Ratio
PRI P K
1 5.54 4.45 16.30 1.91 0.13 14.58 6.28 18.55 9.32
2 6.00 4.52 7.10 0.55 0.04 12.50 4.76 7.66 6.65
3 6.33 4.82 6.00 0.15 0.02 10.00 2.89 1.25 3.39
4 6.58 5.05 18.30 0.11 0.03 4.07 8.55 0 9.89

Table 3: CEC analysis (<2mm fraction) exchangeable cations cmol/100g
Sample
no.
CEC ex-Ca ex-Mg ex-K ex-Na ex-Al
1
2
3
4
4.0
2.4
1.3
2.7
2.5
1.3
0.6
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
Table 4: Physical analyses
Sample
no.
Particle size (%) Bulk
density
(g/cm3)
Munsell colour Water
repellenc
e (MED)
Clay Silt Sand Wet Dry
1
2
3
4
9.3
8.5
8.3
19.7
6.3
4.5
5.8
8.5
84.4
87.0
86.0
71.8
1.36
1.60
1.66
1.84
10YR
4/2
10YR
5/3
10YR
6/4
10YR
7/6
10YR
4/1
10YR
5/2
2.5Y 7/4
10YR
7/6
0
0
0
0
Profile 11:
Australian Soil Classification:
Mottled sub-natric, brown Sodosol
Location:
GPS UTM coordinates 497935E, 6406296N
UWA Ridgefield Farm, via Page Road
Approximately 10km north of Pingelly, WA
Landform/Topography:
Description: This profile was located in a grazing
field with sparse groups of native vegetation.

Elevation: ~339m above sea level
Slope: Gentle slope of 4%
Parent Material:
Parent material is granite with only quartz and feldspars present in gravel sample.
Drainage:
A high percentage of sand in the A horizon suggests proficient drainage. Decreasing clay content
suggests this would continue with depth.
Weather and Climate:
Pingelly has a Mediterranean climate as it experiences dry summers and cool winters. On the day
the profile was dug, Pingelly experienced 19 °C maximum temperature, with light rain throughout
the morning. Pingelly’s annual mean rainfall is 445mm, with a January mean of 11.3mm and
81.2mm in July. The highest rainfall recorded in those months was 116.9mm and 222.6mm
respectively.
Natural vegetation and land use:
A concentrated abundance of the invasive species Citrullus Lanatus was seen in proximity to the
profile pit. Marri trees and Eucalyptus dominate in areas that don’t favour laterite development.
Open sparse areas with remnant vegetation including possibly barley grass and samphire. Much of
the land in this area contains weeds e.g. paddy melon.
SMU 4:
SMU4 was located in a grazing pasture with gentle 4% slope. The pit profile consisted of a loamy
sand AP horizon, A2 horizon, and B11 horizon, and a sandy B12 horizon. Gravel content increased
with depth, with the exception of a slightly lower A2 than AP horizon, ranging from 11.87% in the
A2 horizon to 41.97% in the B12 horizon. All horizons were classed as not water repellent.
Emerson aggregate stability was class 7 for all horizons except B12 which was N/A. The percentage
of nitrogen and organic carbon decreased with depth. The ratio of C to N overall decreased with
depth, however once again it was slightly higher in the A2 horizon than AP horizon. The C to N
ratio ranged from 13.33 to 6.47. EC decreasing with depth, with a dramatic decrease from 192 to
25.02 μS/cm between horizons AP and A2, and dropping to 12.25 in horizon B12. pH values
increased with depth, from 5.48 (in H2O) in horizon AP to 6.6 in horizon B12. Both extractable
phosphorus and extractable potassium decreased with depth, with both decreasing dramatically in
the first 7 centimetres. Exchangeable calcium, potassium, magnesium and sodium all decreased
with depth. Phosphorus retention was moderately absorbing in the AP and A2 horizons, and very
weakly absorbing in the B11 and B12 horizons.
Table 1: Description of the G11 soil profile
Sample no. Horizon Depth (cm) Description
1 AP 1-7 Poorly sorted, angular, 13.6% gravel
2 A2 7-30 Moderately sorted, subangular, 11.87%
gravel
3 B11 30-65 Moderately sorted, angular, 23.2% gravel

4 B12 65-95 Very poorly sorted, very angular, 41.97%
Table 2: Chemical analyses
pH Extractable
(mg/kg)
Sample
no.
H2O CaCl2 EC
(μS/cm
)
Organi
c C (%)
Total N
(%)
CN
Ratio
PRI P K
1 5.48 4.88 192 3.440 0.284 12.113 6.577 2.894 19.892
2 6.13 5.19 25.02 1.040 0.078 13.333 7.839 0.365 3.635
3 6.43 5.6 13.51 0.120 0.017 7.059 1.485 0.041 1.456
4 6.6 5.74 12.25 0.110 0.017 6.471 1.484 0.025 1.163
Table 3: CEC analysis (<2mm fraction) exchangeable cations cmol/100g
Sample
no.
CEC ex-Ca ex-Mg ex-K ex-Na ex-Al
1 8.8 7 1.5 0.4 0.5 0
2 7.4 5.5 1.6 0.1 0.1 0
3 1.5 0.9 0.5 0 0.1 0
4 1.4 0.9 0.6 0 0.1 0
Table 4: Physical analyses
Sample
no.
Particle size (%) Bulk
density
(g/cm3)
Munsell colour Water
repellenc
e (MED)
Clay Silt Sand Wet Dry
1
8.843 7.834 83.323 1.398 10YR 3/2
10YR
3/3
0
2
9.831 9.328 80.841 1.241 10YR 2/1
10YR
4/4
0
3 1.754 7.265 90.981 1.844 10Y 3/4 10YR 0

7/3
4
2.003 4.758 93.238 1.505 2.5YR 5/2
10YR
7/4
0
Auger Descriptions
Profile 9:
Table 1: General Auger description
Auger
Number
Location Current
Land Use
Stage of
Erosion
Native
Vegetation
Weather
Condition
1 50H0497625,
50H6407009
Cropping NIL Overcast, no
rain

2 550H0497626
, 50H6407010
Cropping NIL Overcast, no
rain
3 50H0497627,
50H6407011
Cropping NIL Overcast, no
rain
4 50H0497628,
50H6407012
Cropping NIL Overcast, no
rain
5 50H0497629,
50H6407013
Cropping NILL
Table 2. Auger/ Horizon: Specific Parameters
Auger
Number
Horizon
O,A,E,B
,C
Depth
(cm)
Texture pH
Value
Gravel
Content
(%)
Root
Availabl
ity
EC Wet
Colour
(Munsel
)
1 A1 0-24 Loamy
Sand
7.61 10 NA 350 10YR,
4/3
2 A 24-47 Sand 7.48 12 NA 490 10YR,
3/2
3 B2 47-54 Sand 7.84 90 NA 263.1 10YR,
4/3
4 B2e 54-69 Sand 8.2 35 NA 167.7 10YR,
5/3
5 B1 >69 Loamy
Coarse
Sand
8.34 13 NA 258.00 2.5 YR,
6/2
Auger 1 Auger 2

Auger 3 Auger 4
Profile 10:
Table 1: General Auger description
Auger
Number
Location
(UTM)
Topograp
hy/
Landform
Curren
t Land
Use
Stage
of
Erosio
n
Native
Vegetati
on
Geology/
geomorpholo
gy
Weather
Condition
1 50H04976
00,
50H64068
51
Slight
slope, 4
degrees
Natural
land
use
Yes -
trees and
shrubs
Classic
laterite
breakaway &
granite
outcrops
Sunny and
windy

2 50H04976
00,
50H64068
51
Slight
slope, 4
degrees
Croppi
ng
(mainly
wheat)
No Sunny and
windy
3 50H04976
00,
50H64068
51
Slight
slope, 4
degrees
Histori
c
grazing
No Sunny and
windy
(comparitiv
ely hotter
temp)
4 50H04976
00,
50H64068
51
Slight
slope, 4
degrees
Natural
land
use -
wetland
s
Very
eroded
(creek
water
erosio
n )
Yes -
trees and
shrubs
Colluvium &
alluvium
Sunny and
windy
Table 2. Auger/ Horizon: Specific Parameters
Auger
Number
Horizon
O,A,E,B,
C
Depth
(cm)
Texture pH Value Gravel
Content
(%)
EC Wet
Colour
(Munsell)
1 A 0 - 21 Sandy
loam
5.54 NA 16.30 4/2 @ 10
years
2 B1 21 - 33 Sand 6.00 NA 7.10 5/3 @ 10
years
3 B2.1 33- 46 Clayey
sand
6.33 NA 6.00 6/4 @ 10
years
4 B2.2 >46 Sandy
clay loam
6.58 NA 18.30 7/6 @ 10
years
Auger 1 Auger 2
Auger 3 Auger 4

Profile 11:
Table 1: General Auger description
Auger
Number
Location Topograph
y/
Landform
Current
Land Use
Native
Vegetation
Geology/
geomorpho
logy
Weather
Condition
1 50H049793
5,
50H640629
6
Gentle
slope,
elevation
339m
Grazing Cleared,
prostrate
exotics
On dolorite
dike
Clear and
windy
2 50H049793
5,
50H640629
6
Gentle
slope,
elevation
339m
Grazing Cleared,
small
exotics
Near
dolorite
dike
Clear and
windy
3 50H049793
5,
50H640629
6
Gentle
slope,
elevation
339m
Grazing Cleared,
small
exotics
Along
creek, near
granite
outcrops
Clear
4 50H049793
5,
50H640629
6
Gentle
slope,
elevation
339m
Grazing Cleared,
Citrullus
lanatus
following
waterline
Near
dolorite
dike
Clear
Table 2. Auger/ Horizon: Specific Parameters
Auger
Numbe
Horizon
O,A,E,B,
Depth
(cm)
Textur
e
pH
Value
Gravel
Conten
Root
Availablit
EC
(μs)
Wet
Colour

r C t (%) y (%) (Munsell
)
1 Ap 1 to 7 LS 6.79 10 to
15
<2 192.00 10YR
2/1
2 A2 7 to 30 LS 6.94 10 to
15
<2 25.02 5 YR
2.5/2
3 B11 30 to
65
SL 6.74 5 to 10 0 13.51 2.5YR
5/4
4 B12 65 to
95
LS 4.99 5 to 10 2 to 10 269.1 10YR
5/4
Auger 1 Auger 2
Auger 3 Auger 4
Profile 7:
Table 1: General Auger description
Auger
Number Location
Topograp
hy/
Landfor
m
Current
Land Use
Stage of
Erosion
Native
Vegetatio
n
Geology/
geomorp
hology
Weather
Conditio
n
1 50H04986
21/50H64
Slope
31%
Grazing NA NA Dolerite
dyke
Sunny,dry
, windy

06819
South
2
50H04986
21/50H64
06819 Slope Grazing NA NA
Dolerite
dyke
Sunny,dry
, windy
3
50H04986
21/50H64
06819 Slope Grazing NA
NA/
Grasses
only
Dolerite
dyke
Sunny,dry
, windy
4
50H04986
21/50H64
06819 Slope
Vegetatio
n NA YES Granite
Sunny,dry
, windy
Table 2. Auger/ Horizon: Specific Parameters
Auger
Number
Horizon
O,A,E,B,
C
Depth
(cm)
Texture pH Value Gravel
Content
(%)
EC Wet
Colour
(Munsell)
1 A1 0-7 Sandy
loam
4.7 10 1888.00 10YR 3/3
2 B2 7 to 91+ Silty clay 4.05 2 1916.00 5 YR6/4
3 B2 7 to 91+ Clay 3.95 0 1515.00 10 YR5/4
4 B2 7 to 91+ Silty loam 4.10 20 2473.00 10 YR6/6
(wet)
Auger 1 Auger 2
Auger 3.1 Auger 3.2

Auger 4
Profile 8:
Table 1: General Auger description
1 50H498605
,
50H640659
7
Gentle slope
6%
Grazing Mild Nil Granite
parent
material
Cloud
y 20˚
2 50H498605
,
50H640659
7
Gentle slope
6%
Grazing/
native
Mild Grassy with
some trees
near by
Granite
parent
material
Cloud
y 20˚
3 50H498605
,
50H640659
7
Gentle slope
6%
Cropping Mild Nil Small granite
outcrop close
by
Partly
cloudy
23˚
4 50H498605
,
50H640659
7
Gentle slope
6%
cropping
5 50H498605
,
50H640659
7
Gentle slope
6%
cropping
Table 2. Auger/ Horizon: Specific Parameters
Auger
Numbe
Horizon
O,A,E,B,
Depth
(cm)
Textur
e
pH
Value
Gravel
Conten
Root
Availablit
EC Wet
Colour

r C t (%) y (Munsell
)
1 A 0-10 5mm 4.8 8% 81.5 uS 7.5YR2/
2
2 B2.1 10-20 8mm 5.55 2% 43.5 uS 7.5
YR4/3
3 B2.2 22-35 18mm 6.3 5% 27.5 uS 7.5 YR4/
4
4 B2.3 35-48 12mm 6.25 4% 107.3
uS
10
YR4/6
5 B2.4 >48 12mm 5.86 5% 53.5 uS 7.5
YR5/5
Auger 1 Auger 2
Auger 3

References
Mrazova, M. J., Faggian, R., Johnson, M. M., & Sposito, V. (2017). LAND CAPABILITY
ASSESSMENT.
Kidd, D., Field, D., McBratney, A., & Webb, M. (2018). A preliminary spatial quantification of the soil
security dimensions for Tasmania. Geoderma, 322, 184-200.

Murphy, B. (2017). Testing the links between soil security, sustainable land management practices and
land evaluation. In Global Soil Security (pp. 87-97). Springer, Cham.
Su, Y., & Jones, D. (2017). Healing the ‘Scar’of the Landscape: Post-Mining Landscape in
Anglesea. KnE Engineering, 2(2), 182-189.
Qureshi, M. E., & Harrison, S. R. (2017). Comparing Riparian revegetation policy options using the
analytic hierarchy process. In Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Natural Resource
Management (pp. 57-76). Routledge.
Vaudour, E., & Shaw, A. B. (2017). A worldwide perspective on viticultural zoning. South African
Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 26(2), 106-115.
Brown, I., Poggio, L., Gimona, A., & Castellazzi, M. (2011). Climate change, drought risk and land
capability for agriculture: implications for land use in Scotland. Regional Environmental
Change, 11(3), 503-518.
Metternicht, G. (2018). Contributions of Land Use Planning to Sustainable Land Use and Management.
In Land Use and Spatial Planning (pp. 35-51). Springer, Cham.
Brown, I., Towers, W., Rivington, M., & Black, H. I. (2008). Influence of climate change on
agricultural land-use potential: adapting and updating the land capability system for Scotland.
Climate Research, 37(1), 43-57.
Commonwealth of Australia (2014). Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas
Inventory. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7d5f76fe-3128-
44dd-bef1-f6fa008f686f/files/nggi-quarterly-update-mar-2014_0.pdf (Accessed April 10, 2018).
Cosier P., Flannery T., Harding R., Karoly D., Lindenmayer D., Possingham F. A. A., et al. (2009).
Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape. Boston: Wentworth Group.
Earl, R., Thomas, G., & Blackmore, B. S. (2000). The potential role of GIS in autonomous field
operations. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 25(1-2), 107-120.
Henderson, B. L., Bui, E. N., Moran, C. J., & Simon, D. A. P. (2005). Australia-wide predictions of soil
properties using decision trees. Geoderma, 124(3-4), 383-398.
Hillel D., Rosenzweig C. (2011). “The role of soils in climate change,” in Handbook of Climate
Change and Agroecosystems, Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation eds Hillel D., Rosenzweig
C., editors. (London: Imperial College Press; ) 9–20.
Krishnamurthy, J., Venkatesa Kumar, N., Jayaraman, V., & Manivel, M. (1996). An approach to
demarcate groundwater potential zones through remote sensing and a geographical information
system. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17(10), 1867-1884.
Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in
Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of rural studies, 23(1), 1-11.
Pittock, B. (2003) Climate Change: An Australian guide to the science and potential impacts.Australian
Greenhouse Office, Canberra
Renschler, C. S., & Harbor, J. (2002). Soil erosion assessment tools from point to regional scales—the
role of geomorphologists in land management research and implementation. Geomorphology,
47(2-4), 189-209.
Sanderman J., Farquharson R., Baldock J. (2010). Soil Carbon Sequestration Potential: A Review for
Australian Agriculture. Canberra: CSIRO Report