EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
Principles, structure and prospects of
the new Russian soil classification
system
SHISHOV Lev1, TONKONOGOV Valentin1,
LEBEDEVA Irina1 and GERASIMOVA Maria2
1
2
Dokuchaev Soil Institute, Pyzhevskii per., 7, 109047, Moscow, Russia
Moscow State University, Vorob’evy Gory, 119899, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
The history of conceptual approaches to soil classification in Russia is presented, since much of the former
experience was introduced into the new system. The basic principles were formulated by V.M. Fridland in
the early 1980’s, along with the idea of parallel substantive (profile)-genetic, regime and mineralogical
classification systems as components of a comprehensive system for soils. The new system preserved the
traditional central taxonomic unit – genetic soil type, almost in its former volume, although its definition is
now derived from soil properties. Soil types are identified in the new system by combinations of diagnostic
horizons, while subtypes are differentiated at the basis of minor or complementary soil properties –
diagnostic features. Although this approach is very close to the principles of the International and other
national systems its implementation produces different soil groupings. Much attention in the new Russian
system is paid to human-modified soils; their categorization does not take into account the goals and
character of human impacts on soil, or soil quality; as for natural soils, it is determined by the combination
of diagnostic horizons and features (anthropogenic, transitional and natural). The system is open, and
“new” soils will easily find their niche there. Presumably, future efforts will be oriented on horizons’
definitions, criteria for strongly modified soils, and intergrades, along with the development of a
comprehensive poly-component system.
Keywords: substantive-genetic system, historical aspect, horizons and features, genetic
soil type, agro-soils.
Introduction
The new system was recently published as a first approximation, and is broadly discussed and verified in
Russia1. It differs from the previous official ecologic-genetic system of 1977 by a strong bias toward soil
properties as the conceptual background. However, the choice of soil properties used for the definitions of
diagnostic horizons and diagnostic features is controlled by soil genesis. This is a major area of coincidence
with the western classification systems. Another common feature is the exclusion of circumstantial
parameters, primarily the landscape ones, and land use types as well, from criteria for soil diagnostics.
These parameters are very important for applied purposes, for identifying the pedotransfer functions, for
correlation with other natural classification systems, and for soil survey. They should not be disregarded;
moreover, they deserve an individual classification area, independent of the substantial system for soils
(and non-soils). In this case, they may acquire even a greater importance, and may be presented more
adequately. Therefore, the idea of a poly-component soil (or soil-attached) classification system was
proposed (Fridland, 1982; Lebedeva, Tonkonogov et al., 2000), and we shall mention the advantages and
problems of such an alternative.
1
The new system was first published in 1997, and in 2000 more copies were issued; the English version edited by R.W.
Arnold appeared in 2001.
Principles, structure and prospects of new Russian soil classification system. Shishov et al. 29
EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
Thus, the new system is “released” from the circumstantial, or “factor” parameters. Human-modified soils
are presented in more details in the new system, than in the former ones in Russia, and in the western
systems. The same substantial, or factor-disregarding approach is applied to them: their history, or way of
their formation by humans does not serve as a high-level criterion in the substantive-genetic soil
classification system, where only soil properties are important. Nevertheless, agricultural, or technogenic
mechanisms of soil formation are referred to in a special factor classification, or partially at lower levels of
the system.
The history of classification problem in Russia is rich in events – individual systems were diverse and
numerous starting with the eve of the XX century. Contrary to the common opinion on exclusively factor,
or “zonal” ideology of Russian systems, we should like to emphasize that there were many attempts to
apply various genetic, or substantial aspects to develop a classification system. Probably, this diversity of
approaches is one of the sources for the new Russian system. However, its ideology and categories were
laid down by V. M. Fridland in early eighties.
Materials and Methods
The diversity of concepts in the classification area was always inherent to Russian pedology, and the
construction of the new system of 1997 is derived from the previous experience accumulated. The major
systems of the XX century are worth mentioning (Table 1).
Table 1. Classification systems in Russia – USSR– Russia
Official systems
(soil-forming agents, zonality)
Individual systems
(soil properties and processes)
Name (authors), year
Upper level
Author, year
Upper level
Dokuchaev – Sibirtsev,
1886-1900
Gerasimov, Zavalishin,
Ivanova, 1939
Ivanova, Rozov , 1956
Soil types
Glinka, 1908
Types of weathering
Genetic soil types
Neustruev,
1926
Glazovskaya
1972
Kovda, 1973
Elementary soil processes
Guidelines…, 1967
Classification and
diagnostics of the soils of
the USSR, 1977
Classes of soil
formation
Genetic soil types
Genetic soil types
Gerasimov,
1975
Redox and pH conditions
Soil evolution, biogeochemical cycles
Elementary soil processes
The first classification systems of V.V. Dokuchaev and N.M. Sibirtsev affected strongly the principles and
priorities of the later ones. V.V. Dokuchaev subdivided all soils (14 groups) into normal – zonal soils,
transitional, and abnormal ones. Groups of zonal soils were ascribed to zones, and characterized in terms of
processes, climate, sediments, vegetation, fauna, and topography. In the system of N.M. Sibirtsev, the same
soils were grouped into zonal, intrazonal, incomplete and surface geologic formations, with lower
categories specified by soil texture and parent rocks. Both early systems are qualified as factor–genetic,
although some importance was attributed to soil properties, and the stage of soil development. These major
features of pedogenetic manifestations related to environment are key points in the future classification
schemes in Russia.
The ecological-genetic system of I.P. Gerasimov, A.A. Zavalishin, and E.N. Ivanova (supervised by L. I.
Prasolov) is known to be based on the strictly defined concept of “genetic soil type”, and using the degree
of hydromorphism to subdivide soils. Since those times the perception of (genetic) soil type, the essence
30 Principles, structure and prospects of new Russian soil classification system. Shishov et al.
EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
and names of types were practically the same in all later constructions. The less known features of this
system are the following: formulation of low-level taxa criteria, categorization of subtypes and species
(stages of pedogenesis); moreover, introduction of units identified in accordance with land use and soil
degradation (old-arable, limed, old-irrigated, secondary saline, etc.).
A strong shift to soil-forming agents, and primarily climate, is characteristic of the system of E.N. Ivanova
and N.N. Rozov (1956). Indeed, the highest taxa were differentiated with respect to climate and vegetation
(the so-called “bioclimate”), and the names of genetic soil types were supplemented with landscape names.
The number of genetic soil types reached 80. An above-type category for soil hydromorphism
(automorphic, transitional and hydromorphic series) was introduced. The system was termed evolutionary
genetic-geographical and highly appreciated in the USSR for its geographical core. All above-mentioned
classification systems were similar in their major principles, which were most comprehensively
implemented in the official system of 1977.
However, this was not the only way of thinking even in the early period; for example, K.D. Glinka (1908)
subdivided soils according to the types of soil formation and weathering along with some chemical
properties, S.S. Neustruev developed a weakly known hierarchical system with “elementary soil forming
processes” at the highest level (1926). I.P. Gerasimov, Neustruev’s very devoted follower and pupil,
repeated his experience in 1973-1975, and proposed to classify genetic soil types basing on the system of
EPP – elementary pedogenetic processes, that were grouped and attached to environmental conditions. Sets
of EPP expressed as profile formulas were regarded diagnostic for genetic soil types. Geochemical
approaches concerning above-type categories were popular in the 70’s.
Perception of soils as results of major geochemical mass-energy exchange processes interacting in time
parallel to the evolution of landscapes induced by geological mechanisms served as background for the
world system elaborated by V.A. Kovda with his colleagues (1967-1975). The upper category is presented
by soil-geochemical formations differentiated by major trends of weathering, types of humus and clay
minerals and, acid-base properties. Another entry –“stadial groups of soils”, corresponded to hypothetical
soil evolution stages from submerged sites to excessively drained ones. The following stadial groups were
proposed: hydroaccumulative → hydromorphic → mesohydromorphic → paleohydromorphic →
proterohydromorphic.
The geochemical classification of world soils of M.A. Glazovskaya (1972) comprises three above-type
levels: associations → generations → families. The below-type categories were preserved traditional.
Criteria for the highest category are pH and soil features indicative of redox conditions; members of the
second category are differentiated by broad processes of organic matter accumulation, formation of
secondary minerals, translocation of substances, effects of ground water, etc. For example, the following
associations were identified: acid ulmate-fulvate subaerial, weakly alkaline superaquatic (gley). The former
was subdivided into generations: acid humus-accumulative, acid argillified, acid eluvial-illuvial. The
difference in composition of pedogenetic accumulations (humus, illuvial horizons, concretions, etc.)
permits specification of families within generations. Thus, the generation of acid humus-accumulative soils
comprise families of acid soddy, alfehumus, and volcanic ash soils. At the next level genetic soil types are
main units.
Since both official systems (1967, 1977) were designed for soil survey, they had clearly and adequately
defined below-type categories, whereas there were no above-type groups. The last version of 1977 is best
known. It is very popular owing to its logics and consistency, and was efficiently used in soil survey and
small-scale mapping for more than 30 years. The ecological – genetic principle of the system is dominating
in soil diagnostics and grouping. The upper category corresponds to genetic soil types, which essence
remained without changes, though their number exceeds 100.
Very numerous are the subtypes owing to their dual – geographic and genetic nature: the subzonal and
facial (in the version of 1977) subtypes are geographic units, while the intergrades and the “central images” of
types are genetic ones. The “genetic” subtypes are identified by strong and distinct type-forming process,
or modifications of types by superimposed processes. The facial subtypes are rather virtual geographic
phenomena, as they are recognized only by climatic parameters (total air and topsoil temperatures >10oC,
depth and duration of soil freezing).
Principles, structure and prospects of new Russian soil classification system. Shishov et al. 31
EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
The third category – genus was specified by the properties of parent rocks and ground water, or soil
evolution. Species and sub-species, unlike genera, were more consistent in specifying the quantitative
parameters of pedogenetic processes (not horizons properties!). For example, the thickness of a humusaccumulative horizon and humus content in the 0-10 cm layer qualified the intensity of “chernozemic
process”, and quantitative parameters of eluvial horizons responded to the intensity of podzolization.
Texture classes and erosion phases found their appropriate place in the end of both systems (Table 2).
V.M. Fridland (1982) initiated the development of a new integrated system based on three components:
petrographic-mineralogical, regime, and profile+genesis. The latter presumed the involvement of soil
properties via genetic (diagnostic) horizons; the above-type categories were liberated from zonal or any
factor-oriented criteria. This system evolved into the new soil classification system of 1997.
Results and Discussion
The new system is defined as substantive-genetic It is open, hierarchical (with 8 categories) embracing
soils of all regions. Soil properties related to genesis are used as criteria for the highest taxonomic
categories. Environmental agents, including climatic parameters are excluded from the diagnostics of soil
taxa.
The definition of genetic soil type being a central (and traditional) taxonomic unit is regarded to represent
the conceptual background of the system. Genetic soil types are identified by the combination of diagnostic
horizons in the profile – “profile formula”, so that a substitution of one horizon by another produces
another type. The horizons are defined by the integrity of substantive soil properties, whose choice is
controlled by pedogenetic processes. For example, the following diagnostic horizons are identified: rawhumus, mucky, light- and dark-humus, dry-peat, eluvial and podzolic, textural and clay-illuvial, solonetzic,
alfehumus, cryoturbated, gleyic and cryptogleyic, etc. Consequently, a combination of organic and
alfehumus horizons will produce a podbur (O-BHF), while organic and alfehumus horizons with a podzolic
horizon between them (O-E-BHF) identify a podzol.
Diagnostic features are used for the lower taxonomic level – subtype, they are complementary to profile
formulas, and indicate minor characteristics insufficient to specify a horizon, or some additional properties
(f.i, tonguing, forms of secondary carbonates or of iron oxides segregations, etc.). In the above example for
podzols the following subtypes may be recognized: gleyic podzol (O-E-BHFg), pseudofibric podzol (O-EBHFff), top-turbated podzol (Otr-Etr-BHF); the superposition of diagnostic features is very common, so
that composite subtypes are formed – gleyic, pseudofibric, top-turbated podzol.
Genetic soil types are grouped at higher level (order) in accordance with major trends in soil forming
processes. The contribution of soil-forming material is taken into account to differentiate soils at the
uppermost level – trunk (Table 2).
Below, brief definitions of criteria for taxonomic categories are given.










↓
TRUNK
Combination of pedogenesis with lithogenesis
and peat accumulation
ORDER
Major elements of profile composition as related
to pedogenetic processes
TYPE
System of diagnostic horizons
SUBTYPE
Diagnostic features indicative of soil forming
processes
modification
or
superposition.
Intergrades










↓
GENUS
Characteristics of CEC, carbonates and/or
gypsum content, type of salinity
SPECIES
Quantitative parameters of types or subtypes
VARIETY
Texture, amount of stones
PHASE
Origin of parent material, depth of the solum
The same criteria are applied to categorize the human-modified soils, which are identified by the
combination of diagnostic horizons and features, no more by the nature and purposes of human impacts on
soil, or level of soil fertility. To exemplify this approach, a list of human-modified horizons are given: PU
32 Principles, structure and prospects of new Russian soil classification system. Shishov et al.
EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
agro-dark-humus, PY agro-light-humus, PT agro-peat, PAT agro-peat-mineral, PB (PC) postabrasive, X
chemically polluted. Among the diagnostic features there are some for human-modified soils (compacted,
polluted, post-arable), along with the “natural-anthropogenic” that may be of dual origin and occur as in
natural, so in human-modified soils (eroded, top-turbated, with surface deposition, etc.). The propertiesoriented criteria provide the placement of human-modified soils at several taxonomic levels.
Table
2.
Example of the
in two systems
Taxonomic level
Trunk
Order
Type
Subtype
Genus
Species
Variety
Phase
taxonomic
Old system – 1 9 7 7
Podzolic
moderately cold, freezing
iron-illuvial, pseudofibric,
gleyic podzol on sands
shallow
sandy, weakly skeletal
non-eroded
position
deeply
of
the
above-mentioned
podzol
New system – 1 9 9 7
Postlithogenic
Al-Fe-humus soils
Podzol
gleyic, pseudofibric, top- turbated
unsaturated
shallow, deeply gleyic
sandy, weakly skeletal
glaciofluvial sand with gravel
It is worth to emphasize that all soils in the system are perceived as a conceptual and/or spatial continuum:
from natural soils to natural-anthropogenic soils (weakly to moderately modified), then to strongly
modified anthropogenic soils. Non-soil surface formations are classified separately. Traditional soil names
were preserved for the majority of natural soils, and supplemented by new constructions for humanmodified soils, and new clumsy names for non-soils (Tonkonogov et al., 2002).
Conclusion
Diverse approaches to soil classification in Russia contributed to the development of the new system,
which embraced the ideas on soil genesis apparent in soil horizons and soil properties, on application
profile formulas for classification purposes, and addressing to soil evolution and regimes. The attitude to
soil-forming agents in the classification area changed from overestimating them in the “official” systems,
disregarding them in alternative systems, and separating them from soils in substantive-genetic component
of a poly-component system, where they may receive adequate importance.
The former ecological-genetic systems had many advantages, they summarized extensive genetic
knowledge and soil-survey experience, and its influence can be traced in many national classifications.
Although it was based on the “genetic soil type” concept, inherited by the new system, it could not
adequately provide unambiguous morphological diagnostics of soil types and subtypes. It embraced only
soils of agriculturally suitable areas, and little attention was paid there to human-modified soils.
The new Russian system has common features with the International and American systems in
methodology, in particular, in the attitude to soil horizons and features. The former are more numerous in
the Russian system partly at the expense of anthropogenic and natural-anthropogenic ones, and have
flexible quantitative boundaries.
However, in spite of many efforts made, the correlation of soils remains still hardly adequate, it requires
deeper insight into the principles of the systems correlated, and this may be a challenge for the future.
Acknowledgements.
Field testing of the new Russian system of soil classification was supported by the Federal Centre for
Promoting the Integration of Academic Science and Higher School Activities, project # E0072.
References
Classification and Diagnostics of the Soils of the USSR; Kolos Publ.: Moscow, 1977, 222 pp., or USDA
and National Science Foundation: Washington, D.C., 1986
Principles, structure and prospects of new Russian soil classification system. Shishov et al. 33
EUROPEAN SOIL BUREAU  RESEARCH REPORT NO. 7
Classification of Soils of Russia; Tonkonogov V.D.; Lebedeva I.I.; Shishov L.L., Eds., Dokuchaev Soil
Institute: Moscow, 1997; pp.; English version, Ed. By R. W. Arnold, 2001, 221pp.
Dokuchaev, V.V. Classification of Soils of Professor V.V. Dokuchaev (Northern Hemisphere).
Pochvovedeniye 1900, 2, Appendix.
Fridland, V.M. Major Principles and Elements of a Basic Soil Classification System and the Program of Its
Development; Dokuchaev Soil Institute: Moscow, 1982, 149 pp.
Gerasimov, I.P., Elementary Pedogenetic Processes as a Basis for Genetic Diagnostics of Soils.
Pochvovedeniye 1975, 5, 3-9.
Gerasimov, I.P.; Zavalishin, A.A.; Ivanova, E.N. A New Scheme of a General Soil Classsification for the
USSR. Pochvovedeniye 1939, 7, 10-43.
Glazovskaya, M.A. Soils of the World; Moscow Univ. Press: Moscow, 1972; Vol.1,
231 pp.
Glinka, K.D., Soil Science; St-Peterb., 1908, 596pp.
Guidelines for Soil Classification and Diagnostics, Dokuchaev Soil Institute, Kolos Publ. Volumes I-V.,
1967.
Ivanova, E.N., Rozov N.N., Essai de Classification Générale des Sols. Rapports, VIe Congrés International
de la Science du Sol, Paris, France, Volume E (Commission V), 1956, 387-394.
Lebedeva I.I.,Tonkonogov V.D., Gerasimova M.I., An Experience in Developing the Factor-Based
Classification of Soils, 2000, Eurasian Soil Sci., vol. 33, no. 2.
Kovda, V.A.; Lobova, E.V.; Rozanov, B.G. Problem of World Soils Classification. Pochvovedeniye, 1967,
7, 3-15.
Neustruev, S.S., Experience of soil-forming processes classification in relation to soil genesis, Izv.
Geogr.Inst., 6, 1926, 3-46.
Sibirtsev, N.M. Soil Classification as Applied to Russia (Table), S.Peterburg, 1896.
Tonkonogov V.D., Gerasimova M.I., Lebedeva I.I., 2002. Genetic soil classification system - what is its
objective?. In: Soil Classification 2001. E. Micheli, F. O. Nachtergaele, R.J.A. Jones and L.
Montanarella (eds). European Soil Bureau Research Report No.7, EUR 20398 EN, (2002), p.9-13.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
34 Principles, structure and prospects of new Russian soil classification system. Shishov et al.