Metode Kesesuaian Lahan Fao CSR

Scanned from original by ISRIC - World Soil Information, as ICSU
.World Data Centre for Soils. The purpose is to make a safe

depository for endangered documents and to make the accrued
information available for consultation, following Fair Use i'1
Guidelines. Every effort is taken to respect Copyright of the ÄGOF/1NS/78/006
. materials within the archives where the identification of the
Copyright holder is clear and, where feasible, to contact the Manual 4
originators. For questions please contact . soil.isric@wur.nl ^Version 1
indicating the item reference number concerned.
RECONNAISSANCE LAND RESOURCE SURVEYS

1 : 250,000 scale
ATLAS FORMAT PROCEDURES
Dy
C S R / F A O Staff
May, 1983
Prepared for the Land Resources Evaluation with Emphasis

on Outer Islands Project
at
CENTRE FOR S O I L RESEARCH, BOGOR
INDONESIA
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT P R O G R A M M E AND

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION
w!
.&ö3>
i
FOREWORD
This manual presents the findings of the joint Centre for Soil Research
(CSR)/FAO working group convened in July 1982 to design standard formats for
a 1:250,000 scale, reconnaissance land resource survey atlas, as part of the
activities of the Government of Indonesia/UNDP/FAO Project - Land Resources
Evaluation with Emphasis on Outer Islands.
The working group operated under the overall supervision of Dr. D.

Muljadi (Director, CSR) and the joint chairmanship of Mr. Soepraptohardjo
(CSR) and D.L. Gallup (FAO). The manual was compiled by F.J. Dent (FAO) and
D.L. Gallup. The working group consisted of the following personnel:
CSR FAQ
Dr. D. Muljadi (supervisor/Director CSR) F.J. Dent (Team Leader)

M. Soepraptohardjo (co-chairman) D.L. Gallup (co-chairman)
M. Sudjadi M.A. Ali
H. Suhardjo M.R. Rahman
Subagj o
D. Djaenudin
'Nata Suharta
Marsudi
J. Dai
Sunyoto
Darul
A. Suroto
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD i
INTRODUCTION 1
PART 1.
EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 1, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

OF LANDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS 5
Map unit symbol 5
Landforms and parent material 6
Extent 6
Elevation 6
Major Land uses 7
Evidence of erosion 7
Climate :' 7
Classification of soil components and proportion of map units . . 7
Geomorphic component and slope .... 8
Limiting layer and depth 8
Drainage 9
Permeability 9
Soil layer and depth 10
Colour 10
Texture ..... 10
Structure 10
Field pH 11
Laboratory textural class . 11
Laboratory pH 12 •
Organic matter content 12
Total nitrogen 12
Available P2O5 12
Available K2O . 13
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) 13
Base saturation 13
X\l
Page
Free Fe 2 0 3 14
Aluminium saturation 14
Representative pedon 14
Other features that affect use and management 14
APPENDIX I LECS landform definitions and codes' 16

APPENDIX II Parent material names 22
APPENDIX III Land use descriptions 26
APPENDIX IV Geomorphic component 27
APPENDIX V Brief description of soils in seven
drainage classes 28
APPENDIX VI Definition of soil layers 30
PART 2
EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY

AND POTENTIAL RATINGS . 31
Map unit symbol 31
Extent 31
Soil component 31
Cereals, Wetland 32
Cereals, Dryland .32
Root Crops, lowland 33
Legumes, Lowland 33
Root Crops, Highland 33
Legumes, Highland , 33
Estate and Industrial Crops, Lowland 33
Estate and Industrial Crops, Highland 33
Pasture (grasses) 34
Forestry, Lowland 34
Forestry, Highland 34
Irrigation potential 34
Drainage potential 35
Cereals, Wetland potential 35
Cereals, Dryland potential 35
IV
Page
Root Crops and Legumes, Lowland potential 35

Root Crops and Legumes, Highland potential 35
Estate and Industrial Crops, Lowland potential 35
Estate and Industrial Crops, Highland potential 35
Pasture potential . . . ." • 35
Forestry, Lowland potential 35
Forestry, Highland potential 35
PART 3
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATING
PROCEDURES 36
1. INTRODUCTION 36
2. LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND QUALITIES 36

2.1 Definitions 36
2.2 Descriptions 36
3. GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY RATINGS 41

3.1 Introduction '. 41
3.2 Representative crop and timber species requirements . • 42
76
4. GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION PROCEDURES
4. 1 Introduction '"
4.2 Suitability Classification and Symbols ^6
4.3 Evaluating Current or Present Suitability ^9
4.4 Identifying Improvements Needed for Development . • 80
4.5 Evaluation of Potential Suitability after Improvements . 83
85
5. GENERAL RATINGS OF POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ...
OJ
o.l Introduction
5.2 Potential for Development Ratings and Symbols ... °-*
5.3 Evaluating Potential for Project Development .... 86
V
Page
PART 4
PRESENTATION OF.RESULTS 91
1. INTRODUCTION 91
2. HOW TO USE THE ATLAS 92
3. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..." . 93

3.1 Introduction 93
3.2 Preparation of Project Development Potential Maps . . 94
4. EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND FOOTNOTES USED IN TABLE 1,

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS ... 99
5. TABLE 1, PART 1, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS,

CLIMATE AND SOILS 99
6. TABLE 1, PART 2, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS,

CLIMATE AND SOILS 99
7. EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND

SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATINGS ... 99
8. TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATINGS . . 99
Figures
Figure 1. Example of Suitability Evaluation 84

Figure 2. Explanation of Terms and Footnotes used in Table 1,
Parts 1 and 2 - Main Characteristics of Landforms,
Climate and Soils 100
Figure 3. Table 1.' Main Characteristics of Landforms, Climate
and Soils, Part 1 •. 101
Figure 4. Table 1. Main Characteristics of Landforms, Climate
and Soils, Part 2 . . . 103
Figure 5. Explanation of Symbols used in Table 2, General Land
Suitability and Potential Ratings .105
Figure 6. Table 2, General Land Suitability and Potential
Ratings 106
1
INTRODUCTION
The Centre for Soil Research (CSR), is responsible for the inventory,
classification, mapping and evaluation of Indonesia's soil and land resources
for agricultural uses to serve the needs of the country.
For the past ten years. CSR survey activities have concentrated on detailed,
semi-detailed and detailed reconnaissance studies for specific agriculturally
oriented development projects. However, in 1981 priority was given to the in-
ventory, mapping and evaluation of land resources at reconnaissance level
(1:250,000) to generate urgently needed data for use in regional agricultural
planning at Provincial level; and the selection of potential and priority areas
for agricultural development in general and the transmigration programme in par-
ticular.
Although the techniques involved in physically carrying out a reconnais-

sance land resource survey are relatively well known and understood by CSR per-
sonnel, it was felt that improvements could be made in the presentation of re-
suits to better satisfy the needs of the users.
Previously, survey results were presented in map and narrative report form.
However, narrative report preparation is time consuming resulting inconsiderable
time gaps between the completion of field operations and the publication of
data. In addition narrative.reports tended to be biased towards the technical
reader rather than the non-technical planner who, at least in theory, would be
the principal user.
In order to overcome this problem and hopefully to provide more user or-
iented data it was decided to investigate the feasibility of employing an atlas
format consisting of soil and development potential maps supported by tabular
presentations of land resource characteristics and suitability evaluations.
Consequently, in July 1982 a working group consisting of CSR and FAO per-
sonnel was formed to design standard formats for a 1:250,000 scale, reconnais-
sance land resource survey atlas. A series of meetings were held over the next
six months and preliminary designs tested during field operations of the West
Sumatra and Southeast Sulawesi reconnaissance surveys.
This present manual presents the working group findings and although some
changes in design and methodology can be expected in the future, this manual
2
will be used as a basis for the presentation of results generated by current

reconnaissance land resource surveys conducted by CSR.
The manual consists of four parts.
PART 1 - is an explanation of entries to be made in Table 1 of the atlas,

"Main Characteristics of Landforms, Climate and Soils". Entries, are made for
mapping units, main soil components of each mapping unit, and soil layers of
each soil component. Data on landform and parent material, extent, eleva-
tion, major land uses, evidence of erosion and climate are entered for the
mapping unit as a whole with each mapping unit being identified by the map unit
symbol occurring on the 1:250,000 soil map. Each mapping unit is made up of
one or more soil components. These soil components cannot be delineated on
the soil map at the scale of survey employed; but an indication of the pro-
potion of the mapping unit occupied by each soil component is given and each
soil .component is classified according to the USDA, P.P.T. and FAO/Unesco clas-
sification systems. Data on Geomorphic component and slope, limiting layer and
depth, drainage, permeability, layer and depth, and representative profile re-
ference codes are entered for each soil component. Data on colour, texture,
structure, field and laboratory pH, organic matter content, total nitrogen,
available P„0 and K 0, cation exchange capacity, base saturation, free Fe 0„,
and aluminum saturation are entered for each soil layer. Finally, space is
provided for additional remarks on any other features that affect use and man-
agement. The data provided under Table 1 in the atlas forms the basis for the
evaluation of crop/timber species suitability (by manual or computerized pro-
cesses) and development project potential.
PART 2 - is an explanation of entries to be made in Table 2 of the atlas,

"General Land Suitability and Potential Ratings". Data on map unit symbol, ex-
tent, soil component classification (USDA only), and the proportion of the map-
ping unit occupied by each soil component are repeated for cross-reference pur-
poses. Suitability evaluations for primary uses and potential for project de-
velopment ratings are then entered for each soil component of each mapping unit.
Data on current or present suitability, improvement needs for development, and
potential suitability after improvements are entered for crops and timber spe-
cies chosen to represent cereals (3 crops), root crops and legumes (4 crops),
estate and industrial crops (3 crops), pasture (1 crop), and forestry (2 timber
species). Representative crops/timber species are chosen from a list of 23
3
crops and 10 timber species for which adequate data on growth requirements is
available, with choice being dependent on prevailing climatic conditions and
socio-economic strategy of the study area. Finally, ratings are entered to
indicate potential for irrigation project development, drainage project devel-
opment, cereals project development, root crop and legumes project develop-
ment, arid estate and industrial crop project development. Potential ratings
for pasture and forestry project development are only entered for those soil
components having poor or no potential for other primary uses, unless high
priority is given to such projects by local authorities.
PART 3 - describes manual procedures employed in determining general

land suitability and potential ratings. .Land characteristics and land quali-
ties i — ed in the evaluation p. ocess are defined and described and growth re-
quiio.Hint's listed for 23 crops and 10 timber species. The structure of the
suitability classification used is described and symbols explained and ex-
ample" 'ven of the evaluati.n procedures used. Finally, methods employed in
de -"ing ratings of potential for project development are explained.
It should be noted that the land evaluation procedures outlined in PART

3 of this manual involve processing by hand and are labour intensive. Trial
runs using the methodology proposed indicated that 40 man/days would be re-
quired to complete evaluations of 200 mapping units for 13 representative
crops/timber species.
An attractive alternative would be to utilize the land evaluation com-

puter system (LECS) developed by the "Land Resource Evaluation with Emphasis
on Outer Islands Project". This system will become operational during 1983
and, with minor adjustments, all required environmental data could be provided
from Table I of the atlas "Main Characteristics of Landforms, Climate and
Soils". Computerized processing would substantially reduce the time required
for evaluation and provide more precise data on current and potential suit-
abilities, viability and effect of improvements needed for development, and
time related degradation risks to sustained cultivation.
Consequently, the hand processing techniques described in this manual

are seen as an interim measure which will hopefully be replaced by LECS tech-
nology when this is operational and technicians become familiar with its use.
PART 4 - describes standard formats to be used in the atlas presentation

of results of current CSR reconnaissance surveys. The various components
4
making up the atlas are listed as they will occur in published form.
Standard formats are provided for: "How to Use the Atlas"; "Explanation of
Terms and Footnotes Used in Table 1, Main Characteristics of Landforms,
Climate and Soils"; and "Explanation of Symbols Used in Table 2, General Land
Suitability and Potential Ratings". Examples are given for Table 1 (part 1
and 2), and Table 2 with complete data entry for two hypothetical mapping
units. Finally the methodology used in preparing project development poten-
tial maps is explained.
5
PART 1
EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 1,

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS
Column
No.
1. Map unit symbol is a listing of all symbols that represent land
unit and soil delineations on the map. Symbols are alphanumeric,
e.g. Al, A2, HI, etc. The capital letters denote broad landform
classes, which are listed below :
Symbol Landform Symbol Lanform
A AllT-ial M. Mountain
B Marine P Plain
H Hilly V Volcanic
K Kar ;t X Miscellaneous.
These landform, names and symbols are the ones used in LECSJL',
as listed in appendix IX in the Pedon Coding Manual 1.', and repro-
duced in this report as appendix I.
In Table 1, map units should be listed in alphabetical and

numeric sequence; e.g. Al, A2, kl, followed by Bl, B2, then Hl, H2,
K3, and so on. As far as possible, the arrangement of subclasses
within each broad landform class should be in sequence as listed in
appendix IX of the Pedon Coding Manual, Thus, mapping units will be
grouped by major landforms.
1/ Land Evaluation Computer System (LECS), System and Program

~ Manual, Version 1.1, Land Resources Evaluation with Emphasis
on Outer Islands Project, FAO/UNDP INS/78/006, Bogor, March
1980, by S.R. Wood.
2/ Proposed Coding System for Pedon Data for.Trial by the Centre
for Soil Research, AGOF/INS/78/006, Manual 3, Version 1, Land
Resources Evaluation with Emphasis on Outer Islands Project at
Centre for Soil Research, Bogor, December 1981, by D.L. Gallup.
" 6" " "" '""
Column
No.
2. Landforms and Parent Material are named for each map unit.. Names
should be brief, but distinctive enough that each map unit can be
distinguished clearly from all others. No two map units should have
the same name.
Landform names from LECS should be used. Most of them are de-
fined in the Catalogue of Landforms of Indonesia, FAO/Soil Research
Institute, Bogor,' 1976, by J.R. Desaunette. Parent material names
will be from the Pedon Coding Manual, pp 17-20, and reproduced in
this report as appendix II. Codes will not be used in Table 1.
Two examples of landform and parent materials are :

Al Narrow river valleys; alluvium from sedimentary rock
VI Slightly dissected middle slope of volcanoes; acidic tuff.
If surveyors experience difficulty in recognizing specific land--

forms, such.as "flat/hummocky volcanic plain" (LECS code V804), then
the more general term "volcanic plain" (LECS code V8) may be used.
However, where possible the more specific landform definition should
be used.
3. Extent is indicated by two entries. First is the number of nect-

ares for each map unit. The second is the percentage of the survey
area occupied by each map unit.
4. Elevation is estimated as a range of meters above mean sea level.

The precision of the estimates varies with the kinds of land units.
Low-lying areas with little variation in relief, such as tidal flats
or flat coastal plains, may be listed in terms of 0.5 to 1.0, and 2
to 5 meters respectively.
Estimates of elevation of upland areas should be in units of

10's, 50's or even 100's of meters. Some examples of appropriate
entries for land units of upland areas are :
rolling plains, 20 to 60 meters
hilly landforms, 350 to 450 meters
dissected mountain slope, 1500 to 2000 meters.
7
Column
No.
5. Major land uses are listed for each unit. If a land unit has more
than one land use, the most extensive use should be listed first,
the next most extensive second, and so on. Land use classes in the
Pedon Coding Manual, pages 21 and 22 will be recorded. Descriptive
names such as "cropland, flooded rice, rainfed", will be used rather
than the computer codes. Descriptive names are reproduced in this
report as appendix III.
6. Evidence of Erosion that was observed within the map unit will be
recorded. Such conditions as severe sheet erosion, many small
rills, few large gu! ies, few blowouts and dunes, will be noted.
If no erosion features were observed, write "none" in this column.
7. Climate for each map unit should be estimated from data recorded
at nearby climatological stations or climatic maps, and from inter-
views with local people, and observations of soils and vegetation.
The following information should be entered in vertical se-

quence under column 7 as follows :
1. average annual rainfall in millimeters
2. number of wet months with long term averages of > 150
millimeters rainfall
3. number of dry months with long term averages of < 75 milli-
meters rainfall
. . o_
4. average annual temperature in C
5. maximum month (average)temperature in C
6. minimum month (average) temperature in C
7. the station number assigned by the Directorate of Meteorology
and Geophysics to the nearest representative meteorological
station.
8. Classification of soil components and proportion of map units
will be given for each component of each map unit. Most map units
will have two or three major soil components. The most extensive
component should be listed first, the least extensive last, with the
first component being preceded by the terms, "Association of",
"Complex of", or "Undifferentiated Group of" as applicable.
" 8" " " " ~ ' " "" "' ""
Column
No.
Each soil component will be classified in each of the three
classification systems commonly used in Indonesia.
Soil Taxonomy, USDA Agr. Handbook 436, Washington D.C., 1975.

If possible, classify soils to the family level for all soils that
are suitable for agricultural development. Soils which are not
suitable for agricultural development should be classified to the
subgroup level, but give a broad textural class, such as sandy,
clayey, etc.
PPT, a national, Indonesian system of the Pusat Penelitian

Tanah (Centre for Soil Research) Bogor, 1982. If possible, classify
soils to the subgroup level.
FAO/TJNESCO, Soil Map of the World, Vol. 1, Legend, Paris 1974.
In the column 8a the estimated proportion of the map unit will

be given for each major soil component using one of the following
appropriate symbols: P - predominant (>75%); D-dominant (50-75%);
F-fair (25-49%); M-minor (10-24%); and T - traces (<10%).
9. Geomorphic component and slope are listed for each soil component.
Geomorphic component indicates a specific part of the landscape that
is characteristic of each kind of soil. Geomorphic terms from the
Pedon Coding Manual, pages 14 and 15 should be used. Descriptive
terms are reproduced in this report as appendix IV.
The slope of each component is recorded as a range in percent.
Examples of appropriate entries for item 9 are :

foots lopes, 3 to 8%, or
terraces, 0 to 2%.
10. Limiting layer and depth is the range in depth (in centimeters) to
a soil layer that severely restricts root penetration and downward
water movement. If a limiting layer is thin, such as some iron pans,
and is underlain by soil that is non-restricting to roots and water,
the thickness of the limiting layer should be mentioned also.
The kind of limiting layer should be indicated after its depth.

Some common limiting layers include bedrock, ironpan, ironstone,
9
hardpan, claypan, dense massive layers, gravel, concretionary iron-

stone, plinthite, and manganese pan.
Examples of appropriate entries are:

30 - 50, bedrock
90 - 110, ironpan, 1 - 3 cm thick.
If a soil has no limiting layer within about 1.5 meters from the
surface write "none" in this column.
Drainage is an indication of the wetness or dryness of a soil. Soil

drainage is influenced by several factors including topography, tex-
ture, structure, permeability, and availability of water from rainfall,
seepage or runoff from nearby higher areas.
The seven drainage classes which will be used in this table are :
very poorly drained well drained
poorly drained somewhat excessively drained
somewhat poorly drained ' excessively drained. '
moderately well drained
The kind of soils in these drainage classes are described

briefly in appendix V.
Permeability classes 'indicate the rate that water moves through the
soil . Permeability varies greatly with kinds of soils and between
layers in a soil. The rating to be recorded in this column is for
the least permeable layer of the soil.
Permeability may be estimated from observations of soil struc-

ture, texture, porosity and cracking.
Because permeability estimates are difficult and not precise,

the seven classes of the soil survey manual will be combined into
three classes as follows :
Class name cm/hr.
slow < 0.5
moderate 0.5 to 16
rapid >16
10
Soil layer and depth for most soil components, two layers called
surface soil and subsoil will be listed. A range in depth from the
top to the bottom of each layer is recorded in cm. If a soil has
three distinctly different layers, a third layer, called substratum,
may be listed.
Examples of entries in this column are :

0 to 15/25 •
15/25 to 85/110. •
Definitions of soil layers are presented in appendix VI.
ENTRIES WILL BE MADE IN COLUMNS 14 THROUGH 27

FOR EACH MAJOR LAYER OF EACH SOIL COMPONENT
Colour terms from Munsell colour charts will be given for each soil
layer. Terms such as reddish brown, black and dark gray will be re-
corded, rather than their Munsell notations of 2.5YR 4/4, N 2/0 and
IOYR 4/1.
Texture of each soil layer of each component will be recorded using

the following broad textural classes.
Class Textures included
sandy sands and loamy sands
loamy sandy loams, loams and clay loams
silty silts, silt loams, silty clay loams
clayey clays, sandy clays, silty clays
If soil layers are gravelly, stony or bouldery appropriate

modifiers will precede the textural class; e.g. stony loamy, gravel-
ly sandy, etc.
Structure of each layer will be given in general terms expressing

strength and kind. The following terms will be used.
Strength Kind
weak granular blocky (angular & subangular)
moderate crumb prismatic
strong platy columnar
11
Column
No.
If a layer is structureless, write single grain or massive
whichever the layer may be.
17. Field pH of each layer will be given as either a single 'value, or

a range of values if variation is characteristic of the layer con-
cerned.
e.g. 4.5 or 4.5 to 5.0
The entries in columns 18 through 27, of part 2 of Table 1, are

based on laboratory data. Hopefully, data will be available for
several pedons of each soil component so that ranges in values can
be expressed. Ratings such as low, medium and high, are adapted
from guidelines of the soil laboratory of the Centre for Soil Research,
Bogor.
18. Laboratory textural class refers to the relative proportion (by

weight) of sand, silt and clay, as determined in the laboratory on
the fine earth fraction (< 2 mm). Texture classes will be named
using USDA classes represented in the chart that follows :
TEXTURAL CLASSES
percent sand
<_ .
12
Column
No.
19. Laboratory pH of each soil layer of each component is given as a
range in values based on laboratory data.
For column 19, pH measured in water (1:2.5) will be recorded.
Examples of appropriate entries in this column are :
5.0 - 5.5
6.0 - 6.5
20. Organic matter content (% Organic carbon X 1.724) of each layer

is expressed according to the following classes :
Class % P.M.
very low < 2.0 •
low 2.0 - 3.5
medium 3.6 - 5.0
high 5.1 - 8.5
very high > 8.5
21. Total Nitrogen of each layer is expressed in terms of the fol-

lowing classes :
Class % N.
very low < 0.10
low 0.10 - 0.20
medium 0;21 - 0.50
high 0.51 - 0.75
very high > 0.75
22. Available PÔ,. (phosphate) in each layer is expressed in the following

classes based on parts per million (ppm) of available phosphate or
phorphorus (P) by one of the laboratory methods listed below :
Class P20 (Bray) P(Bray & Kurtz) P 2 0 5 (Olsen)
Xppm) (ppm) Ippm)
very low < 10 < 3 < 4.56 •
low 10 - 15 3 - 7 4.57 - 11.4
medium 16 - 25 8-20 11.5 - 22.8
high 26 - 35 > 20 > 22.8
very high > 35
N.B. The Olsen method actually measures P (ppm). P 2 0 5 figures are
calculated by multiplying P (ppm) by a conversion factor of
.2.28. The Olsen method is preferred for saline/alkaline soils.
13
Column
No.
23. Available KÔ (potash) in each layer is expressed in the following
classes, based on milligrams (mg) per 100 grams of soil using the
citric acid method, milliequivalents (me) of K using the NH.OAc,
pH 7 method, or by total K~0 (ppm) using the HCl 25% method.
Acid Citrate NH40Ac Total K20(HCl 25%)
Class
(mg) (me) PP"
very low < 5 < 0.2 < 10
low 5-10 0.2 - 0.3 10 - 20
medium 11-15 • 0.4 - 0.5 . 21 - 40
high 16-25 .0.6 - 1.0 41 - 60
very high " > 25 >1.0 >60
24. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

one of the following classes based on milliequivalents per 100 grams,
of soil
il as measured by the NH.OAc,
ï> pH 7.0 method
Class CEC
very low < 5
low 5-16
medium 17 - 24
high 25 - 40
very high > 40
25. Base Saturation of each lay

following classes based on the milliequivalents of exchangeable
bases divided by CEC.
Class % - .
very low < 20
low 20-35
medium 36-50
high 51-75
very high > 75
3/ Percentages were modified slightly from PPT criteria to cor-

respond to base saturation levels used to separate classes in
Soil Taxonomy.
14
Column
No.
26. Free FeÔ- (iron oxides), as measured in the laboratory by the
Sodium dithionite method and expressed as a range in percent, will
be recorded for each soil layer. Examples of appropriate entries
are 2.0 - 3.0, 6.5 - 8.0, etc.
No classes of low to high have been established, but this para-

meter is included for future use when critical levels have been
worked out for major crops.
27. Aluminum Saturation, as measured in IN KCl extract and expressed

as a range in milliequiyalents per 100 grams of soil, will be re-
corded for each soil layer. No classes' of low to high levels of '
aluminum have been worked out. Varieties within crops vary consid-
erably in their aluminum tolerance and the variation between crops
is very wide. However this parameter is included for future use
when levels of aluminum tolerances of major crops are known.
Preliminary data indicate that aluminum becomes limiting to rice

growth when saturation level reaches 22 to 70%, depending on variety.
When hydrogen ion is included in the calculation of aluminum satura-
tion, the critical level is 35 to 40%.
Appropriate entries for aluminum saturation under column 27 will

be ranges in values such as 2.0 - 5.0, 10 - 15, and 20 to 30.
28. Representative pedon includes two columns that are used to record
the field and laboratory numbers assigned to representative pedons
of the major soils of each napping unit. Generally, the field number
includes the initials of the person who described and sampled the
pedon. Examples of field numbers are NS 46 and HS 22.
The laboratory number consists of six digits assigned by the

laboratory to the samples from the representative pedon. Use the
number assigned to the first or upper most layer. For example, the
first layer of pedon NS 46 is numbered 214206.
29. Other features that affect use and management are recorded in «the
last column. Brief statements should be made concerning any impor-
tant features that are not mentioned elsewhere in Table 1.
15
Such features include, but are not limited to :

- surface stoniness and/or rockiness (use terms for classes in
the Soil Survey Manual)
flooding (note depth, duration and probability)
- presence of plinthite (note depth & thickness)
presence of concretions (note kind, size, depth to and thick-
ness of layer)
salinity or alkalinity (if known, give range in EC values)
presence of peat (depth, thickness, kind)
depth to pyrites (Acid sulfate potential)
low bulk density
presence of hardpans, cementation, etc.
- mottling
- unsual topographic features, including micro-relief
presence of toxic micro-elements
- thixotropy
ground water (depth and fluctuation, if not apparent from
drainage statements)
- Workability problems of surface soil.
N.B. Access to additional data

Although Table 1 provide a comprehensive overview of climate,
landform and soil; complete sets of profile descriptions and
laboratory analysis of representative pedons listed in column
28 should be cyclostyled and bound.for future reference and
for users interested in more detailed soils information.
Appendix I. LECS landform definitions and codes
USER FULL DEFINITION USER FULL DEFINITION

CODE CODE
A ALLUVIAL LANDF0RMS B3 R0CKY SEASIDE/BARRIERS

AI ALLUVI0-MARINE LANDF0RMS B301. BARRIER/BARRIER FLATS
A101 SWAMP- TREE C0VER B302 CLIFF
A102 MARSH-L0W C0VER B303 REEF
A103 LEVEL L0WLAND CULTIVATED B304 WAVE CUT TERRACE
A104 UNDULATING L0WLAND B305 R0CKY CAPE
A105 DELTA DEP0SITS B306 REEF FLAT
A106 ANCIENT SEASH0RE/SANDBAR B4 LAGUNA/LAG00N
A107 INLAND TIDAL SWAMP B401 LAGUNA
A2 ALLUVIAL-RIVERINE LANDF0RMS B402 C0RAL REEF-LAGUNAL
A201 NARR0W RIVER VALLEY B403 C0RAL FLAT-LAGUNAL
A202 BR0AD RIVER VALLEY B404 LAG00N
A203 MEANDER BELT B5 AT0LL/C0RAL
A204 UND/R0LLING RIVER VALLEY B501 AT0LL
A205 RECENT TERRACE B502 C0RAL REEF-AT0LL
A206 LEVEE B503 C0RAL FLAT-AT0LL
A207 ALLUVIAL FAN B6 TIDAL FLATS
A208 ALLUVIAL LAND B601 BARE/CULT TIDAL FLAT
A3 ALLUVI0-C0LLUVIAL LANDF0RMS B602 MARSHY TIDAL FLAT
A301 NARR0W INTHILL MINIPLAIN B603 TIDAL FLAT-MANGR0VE
A302 BR0AD INTHILL MINIPLAIN B7 DELTA 0UTCR0P
A303 RAMIFIED INTHILL MINIPLAIN B701 SANDY DELTA
A304 . UND/R0LL INTHILL MINIPLAIN B702 SILTY DELTA
A305 ALLUVI0-C0LLUVIAL FAN B703 CLAYEY DELTA
A306 C0LLUVIAL FAN PO PLAINS-GENERAL TERMS
A307 STRIP F00TSL0PE C0LLUVIUM POOI FLAT PLAIN
A4 CL0SED ALLUVIAL LANDF0RMS P002 UNDULATING PLAIN
A401 NARR0W DEPRESSED AREA P003 R0LLING PLAIN
A402 CL0SED BASIN/DEPRESSI0N P004 FLAT/HUMM0CKY PLAIN
A403 FRESHWATER SWAMP/MARSH P005 FLAT/HILL0CKY PLAIN
A404 RECENT LACUSTRINE PLAIN P006 UND/HILL0CKY PLAIN
A405 ANCIENT LAKE B0TT0M P007 R0LL/HILL0CKY PLAIN
B MARINE LANDF0RMS P008 HILL0CKY PLAIN
Bl BEACHES P009 HILLY MINIPLAINS
B101 SAND BEACH PI C0ASTAL PLAIN
B102 MUD BEACH P101 FLAT C0ASTPLAIN
B103 SHINGLE BEACH P102 UNDULATING C0ASTPLAIN
B104 C0VE P103 R0LLING C0ASTPLAIN
B105 MUD FLAT P104 FLAT/HUMM0CKY C0ASTPLAIN
B2 DUNES AND LID0 P105 FLAT/HILL0CKY C0ASTPLAIN
B201 SHIFTING SAND P106 UND/HILL0CKY C0ASTPLAIN
B202 FLAT SANDY DEP0SITS P107 R0LL/HILL0CKY C0ASTPLAIN
B203 LID0 P108 HILL0CKY C0ASTPLAIN
B204 BEACH RIDGE P109 C0ASTAL HILLY/MINIPLAIN
B205 T0MB0L0' P2 MARINE TERRACE
CODE CODE
P201 FLAT MARINE TERRACE P606 UND/HILL0CKY PIEDM0NT

P202 UND MARINE TERRACE P607 R0LL/HILL0CKY PIEDM0NT
P203 R0LL MARINE TERRACE P608 HILL0CKY PIEDM0NT
P204 FLAT/HUMM0CKY MARINE TER P609 PIEDM0NT HILLY/MINIPLAIN
P205 FLAT/HILL0CKY MARINE TER P7 ER0SI0N REMNANT
P206 UND/HILL0CKY MARINE TER P701 HUMM0CK-0UTLIER
P207 R0LL/HILL0CKY MARINE TER ' P702 HILL0CK 0UTLIER
P208 HILL0CKY MARINE TER P703 HILL-0UTLIER
P209 MARINE TER HILLY/MINIPLAIN P704 HUMM0CK-INLIER
P3 RIVER/LAKE TERRACE P705 HILL0CK-INLIER
P301 FLAT RIVER TERRACE P706 HILL-INLIER
P302 UNDULATING RIVER TERRACE P707 INSELBERG
P303 R0LLING RIVER TERRACE P708 M0NADN0CK
P304 FLAT/HUMM0CKY RIVER TER P709 R0CK HEAP
P305 FLAT/HILL0CKY RIVER TER P8 ER0SI0N SURFACE FEATURES
P306 UND/HILL0CKY RIVER TER P800 FLAT RIVER-CUT VALLEY
P307 R0L/HILL0CKY RIVER TER P801 UND SURFACE < 8% SL0PE
P308 HILL0CKY RIVER TER P802 R0LL SURFACE < 15% SL0PE
P309 RIVER TER HILLY/MINIPLAIN P803 HUMM0CKY SURFACE < 15% SL0PE
P4 ER0SI0N GLACIS P804 HUMM0CKY SURFACE > 1 5 % SL0PE
P401 FLAT ER0/GLACIS « P805 UND SURFACE > 15% SL0PE
P402 UNDULATING ER0/GLACIS • P806 R0LL SURFACE > 15% SL0PE
:
P403 R0LLING ER0/GLACIS P807 HILL0CKY SURFACE < 15% SL0PE
P404 FLAT/HUMM0CKY ER0/GLACIS ?808 HILL0CKY SURFACE > 15% SL0PE
P405 FLAT/HILL0CKY ER0/GLACIS P809 HILLY SURFACE
P406 UND/HILL0CKY ER0/GLACIS P9 SPECIAL FEATURES
P407 R0LL/HILL0CKY ER0/GLACIS P901 DISSECTED TERRACE F00T
P408 HILL0CKY ER0/GLACIS P902 DISSECTED 0LD ALL/C0LL FAN
P409 ER0/GLACIS HILLY/MINIPLAIN P903 R0LL SCALPED ANTICLINE
P5 ACCUMULATING GLACIS P904 HUMM0CKY SCALPED ANTICLINE
P501 FLAT ACC/GLACIS P905 HILL0CKY SCALPED ANTICLINE
P502 UNDULATING ACC/GLACIS P906 TERRACE REMNANT
P503 R0LLING ACC/GLACIS H HILLY LANDF0RMS
P504 FLAT/HUMM0CKY ACC/GLACIS Hl . HILL0CKS/HILL PATTERNS
P505 FLAT/HILL0CKY ACC/GLACIS H101 IS0LATED HILL0CK
P506 UND/HILL0CKY ACC/GLACIS H102 HILL0CKS-UND PATTERN
P507 R0LL/HILL0CKY ACC/GLACIS H103 R0LL LAND IS0LATED HILL0CKS
P508 . HILL0CKY ACC/GLACIS H104 HILL0CKS-R0LL PATTERN
P509 ACC/GLACIS HILLY/MINIPLAIN H105 F00THILLS
P6 PIEDM0NT PLAIN H106 LANIERS/SPURS
P601 FLAT PIEDM0NT H107 R0LLING INTERHILL AREA
P602 UNDULATING PIEDM0NT H108 R0UNDED HILL/KN0B
P603 R0LLING PIEDM0NT H109 UND INTERHILL B0TT0M
P604 FLAT/HUMM0CKY PIEDM0NT H2 PARALLEL RIDGES-BEDDED R0CK
P605 FLAT/HILL0CKY PIEDM0NT H201 A/B SL0PE CLASSES
CODE CODE
H202 C SL0PE CLASS H606 N0N-SLT DISSECT F00TSL0PE

H203 D SL0PE CLASS H607 SLT-M0D DISSECT PIEDM0NT
H204 E SL0PE CLASS H608 SLT-M0D DISSECT VERSANT
H205 A/B/C SL0PE CLASSES H609 TERRACED PIED/F00TSL0PE
H206 D/E CLASS 30%-75% SL0PE H7 FR0NT/ESCARPMENT > 30% SL0PE
H207 D/E CLASS > 50% SL0PE H701 SLT DISSECTED-CLASS C SL0PE
H208 C/D/E SL0PE CLASSES H702 M0D.DISSECTED-CLASS C SL0PE
H209 TERRACED RIDGE SL0PE H703 DISSECTED CLASS C SL0PE
H3 M0D DISSECTED HILL SL0PES H704 STR0NG DISSECT CLASS C SL0PE
H301 A/B SL0PE CLASSES H705 M0D DISSECTED CLASS D SL0PE
H302 C SL0PE CLASS H706 DISSECTED CLASS D SL0PE
H303 D SL0PE CLASS H707 STR0NG DISSECT CLASS D SL0PE
H304 E SL0PE CLASS H708 DISSECTED CLASS E SL0PE
H305 A/B/C SL0PE CLASSES H709 STR0NG DISSECT CLASS E SL0PE
H306 D/E CLASS 30-75% SL0PE H8 STRUCTURAL SL0PES
H307 D/E CLASS > 50% SL0PE H800 SLT DISSECT DIPSL0PE (A)
H308 C/D/E SL0PE CLASSES H801 M0D DISSECT DIPSL0PE (AB)
H309 TERRACED HILL SL0PE H802 M0D DISSECT DIPSL0PE (BC)
H4 DISSECTED HILL SL0PES H803 STR0NG DISSECT DIPSL0PE (BC)
H401 A/B SL0PE CLASSES H804 M0D DISSECT DIPSL0PE (CD)'
H402 C SL0PE CLASS H805 STR0NG DISSECT DIPSL0PE (CD)
H403 D SL0PE CLASS . H806 M0D DISSECT DIPSL0PE (DE)
H404 E SL0PE CLASS H807 STR0NG DISSECT DIPSL0PE (DE)
H405 A/B/C SL0PE CLASSES H808 SCARPSL0PE C/D CLASS
H406 D/E CLASS 30-75% SL0PE H809 SCARPSL0PE D/E CLASS
H407 D/E CLASS > 50% SL0PE H9 SUMMIT AREAS-REMNANTS
H408 C/D/E SL0PE CLASSES H901 FLAT SUMMIT
H409. TERRACED HILL SL0PE H902 UNDULATING SUMMIT
H5 STR0NG DISSECTED HILL SL0PES H903 R0LLING SUMMIT
H501 A/B SL0PE CLASSES H904 HUMM0CKY SUMMIT
H502 C SL0PE CLASS H905 HILL0CKY SUMMIT
H503 D SL0PE CLASS M PLATEAU/M0UNTAIN LANDF0RM
H504 E SL0PE CLASS Ml PLATEAU/HIGH PLAIN
H505 A/B/C SL0PE CLASSES M101 FLAT PLATEAU
H506 D/E CLASS 30-75% SL0PE M102 UNDULATING PLATEAU
H507 D/E CLASS > 50% SL0PE M103 R0LLING PLATEAU
H508 C/D/E SL0PE CLASSES M104 HUMM0CKY PLATEAU
H509 TERRACED HILL SL0PE H105 SERRATED PLATEAU
H6 VERSANT/PIEDM0NT/F00TSL0PES H106 HILL0CKY PLATEAU
H601 SLT DISSECTED F00TSL0PE H107 STR0NGLY DISSECTED PLATEAU
H602 M0D DISSECTED F00TSL0PE H108 EXTREMELY DISSECTED PLATEAU
H603 DISSECTED PIEDM0NT SL0PE M2 N0N-SLTLY DISSECT M0UNTSL0PE
H604 STR0NG DISSECT PIED/VERSANT M201 A/B M0UNTSL0PE < 30%
H605 DEEPLY DISSECTED VERSANT M202 C M0UNTSL0PE 30-50%
M203 D M0UNSL0PE 60-75%
19

CODE CODE
M204 E M0UNTSL0PE > 75% M706 TET0N

M205 A/B/C M0UNTSL0PE < 50% M8 CIRQUE/NATURAL TERRACE
M206 . C/D M0UNTSL0PE 30-75% M800 DISSECT VALL0N/VALLEY HEAD
M207- D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 50% M801 CIRQUE SL0PE
M208 C/D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 20% M802 UNDULATING CIRQUE FL00R
M209 TERRACED M0UNTAIN SL0PE. M803 R0LLING CIRQUE FL00R
M3 M0D DISSECTED M0UNTAIN SL0PE M804 CAT STEP
M301 A/B M0UNTSL0PE < 30% M805 C0RRUGATED SL0PE BREAK
M302 C M0UNTSL0PE 30-50% M806 FLAT-R0LLING NATURAL TERRACE
M303 D M0UNTSL0PE 50-75% M807 R0LL-HILLY NATURAL TERRACE
M304 E M0UNTSL0PE > 75% X MISCELLANE0US LANDF0RMS
M305 A/B/C M0UNTSL0PE < 50% XI 0UTCR0PS
M306 C/D M0UNTSL0PE 30-75% X101 BLUFF
M307 D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 50% X102 R0CK 0UTCR0P
M308 C/D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 20% X2 SALT PAN/SALT W0RKS
M309 TERRACED M0UNTAIN SL0PE X3 SETTLEMENT
M4 DISSECTED M0UNTAIN SL0PE X301 VILLAGE
M401 A/B M0UNTSL0PE < 30% X302 T0WN
M402 C M0UNTSL0PE 30-50% X4 . RIVER BED
M403 D M0UNTSL0PE 50-75% X401 STRAIGHT RIVER BED
M404 E M0UNTSL0PE > 75% X402 MEANDERING RIVER BED
M405 A/B/G M0UNTSL0PE < 50% y ('A 7 DEEPLY INCISED RIVER BED
M406 C/D M0UNTSL0PE 30-75% X5 LAKES
M407 D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 50% X501 SALINE/BRACKISH LAKE
M408 C/D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 20% X502 FRESH LAKE
M409 TERRACED M0UNTAIN SL0PE X503 H0T WATER P0ND
M5 STR0NG DISSECT M0UNTSL0PE X504 RESERV0IR
M501 A/B M0UNTSL0PE < 30% X6 MISCELLANEOUS LANDTYPES
M502 C M0UNTSL0PE 30-50% X601 BADLANDS
M503 D M0UNTSL0PE 50-75% X602 R0UGH BR0KEN R0CKY LAND
M504 E M0UNTSL0PE > 75% X603 M0UNTAIN SCREE
M505 A/B/C M0UNTSL0PE < 50% X604 SCREE/FAN/DEBRIS C0NE
M506 C/D M0UNTSL0PE 30-75% X605 LANDSLIDE SCAR
M507 D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 50% X606 LAND/EARTH SLIDE/LANDSLIP
M508 C/D/E M0UNTSL0PE > 20% X607 S0LIFLUX STREAM/FL0W/SLUMP
M509 TERRACED M0UNTAIN SL0PE X7 NARR0W VALLEY LANDTYPES
M6 SPECIAL FEATURED SL0PES X701 V-SHAPED VALLEY .
M601 TALUS SL0PE X702 GULLY/RAVINE/FLUME
M602 R0UGH BR0KEN/R0CKY SL0PE X703 G0RGE
M7 SPECIAL M0UNTAIN FEATURES X704 • CANY0N
M701 PEAK/PINACH0 X705 TERRACED VALLEY SIDE/B0TT0M
M702 SERRATED SCARPS/CRAGS X706 TERRACED VALLEY HEAD/VALL0N
M703 H0RN X707 EMBAYMENT/C0VE
M704 T0WER X708 DISSECT VALL0N/DEEP RAVINES
M705 ARETE X709 RIVER-CUT VALLEY
20

CODE CODE
X8 SUMMIT TYPES V601 TERRACED F00TSL0PE/B0ULDERY

.X801 SHARP SUMMIT/CREST LINE V602 UND-R0LL VALLEY/B0ULDERY
X802 C0NVEX R0UNDED SUMMIT V603 TERRACED F00TSL0PE/HUMM0CKY
X803 FLAT SUMMIT V604 SL0PE WITH CATSTEP/HILL0CKS
X804 M0UNTAIN PASS V605 TALUS SL0PE WITH BL0CKS
X805 SADDLE V7 PLANEZE LANDTYPES
V V0LCANIC LANDF0RMS V701 LEVEL PLANEZE FLAT N0NDISECT
VI CRATERS V702 LEVEL PLANEZE UND DISECT
V101 CRATER V703 LEVEL PLANEZE R0LL STGDISECT
V102 CALDERA V704 SL0PE PLANEZE
V103 V0LCANIC VENT V705 INTERV0LCANIC PLAIN UND
V2 V0LCANO UPPER SL0PES V706 INTERV0LCANIC PLAIN R0LL
V201 SLT-DISSECT UPPER SL0PE V707 INTERV0LANIC PLAIN HUMM0CKY
V202 M0D-DISSECT UPPER SL0PE V8 V0LCANIC PLAIN LANDTYPES
V203 DISSECTED UPPER SL0PE V801 FLAT V0LCANIC PLAIN
V204 STR0NG DISSECT UPPER SL0PE V802 UNDULATING V0LCANIC PLAIN
V3 V0LCAN0 MIDDLE SL0PE V803 R0LLING V0LCANIC PLAIN
V301 SLT-DISSECT MIDDLE SL0PE V804 FLAT/HUMM0CKY V0LCANIC PLAIN
V302 M0D-DISSECT MIDDLE SLOPE V805 UND/HUMM0CKY V0LCANIC PLAIN
V303 DISSECTED MIDDLE SL0PE V806 R0LL/HUMM0CKY V0LCANIC PLAIN
V304 . STR0NG DISSECT MIDDLE SL0PE V807 UND/HILL0CKY V0LCANIC PLAIN
V305 FLAT PART MIDDLE SL0PE V808 R0LL/HILL0CKY V0LCANIC PLAIN
V306 EL0NGATED SPUR/V0LCANIC RIDGE V809 TILTED V0LCANIC PLAIN
V307 BENCHED MIDDLE SL0PE V9 V0LCANIC 0UTCR0PS
V308 TERRACED MIDDLE SL0PE V901 BATH0LITH
V4 V0LCAN0 L0WER SL0PE V902 DYKE
V401 SLT-DISSECT L0WER SL0PE V903 B0SS
V402 M0D-DISSECT L0WER SL0PE V904 ST0CK
V403 DISSECTED L0WER SL0PE V905 NECK/PLUG
V404 STR0NG DISSECT L0WER SL0PE V906 SPINE
V405 FLATTISH L0WER SL0PE V907 PIT0N
V406 V0LCANIC RIDGE K KARST LANDF0RMS
V407 TERRACED L0WER SL0PE Kl KARST PLATEAU/TERRACE
V5 LAVA FL0WS K101 UND/R0LL HUMM0CKY PLATEAU
V501 RECENT LAVA FL0W K102 UND/R0LL HILL0CKY PLATEAU
V502 ANCIENT LAVA FL0W K103 UND/R0LL HILLY PLATEAU
V503 VERY ANCIENT DISSECT FL0W K104 PLATEAU WITH LAPIES RELIEF
V504 SC0RIES/CINDER C0NE K105 PLATEAU WITH KN0BS/GR0TT0S
V505 C0MBINED LAVA/LAHAR FL0W K106 PLATEAU WITH CLIFFS/CAVES
V506 LAVA FL0W R0E/V0LCANIC RIDGE K2 GENTLE KARSTIC SL0PES
V507 LAVA PLAIN K201 GENTLE SL0PE-HUMM0CKY
V508 LAVA PLATEAU K202 GENTLE SL0PE-HILL0CKY
V509 LAVA D0ME K203 GENTLE SL0PE-HILLY
V510 LAVA FIELD K204 GENTLE SL0PE-LAPIES RELIEF
V6 LAHAR LANDTYPES K205 GENTLE SL0PE-KN0BS/GR0TT0S
USER FULL DEFINITION
CODE
K206 GENTLE SL0PE-CLIFFS/CAVES

K3 STEEP KARSTIC SL0PES
K301 STEEP SL0PE-HUMM0CKY
K302 STEEP SL0PE-HILL0CKY
K303 STEEP SL0PE-HILLY
K304 STEEP SL0PE-LAPIES RELIEF
K305 STEEP SL0PE-KN0BS/GR0TT0S
K306 STEEP SL0PE-CLIFFS/CAVES
K4 KARSTIC VERSANTS
K401 HUMM0CKY VERSANT
K402 HILL0CKY VERSANT
K403 HILLY VERSANT
K404 VERSANT-LAPIES RELIEF
K405 VERSANT-KN0BS/GR0TT0S
K406 VERSANT-CLIFFS/CAVES
K407 L0NG RIDGE/VALLEY RELIEF
K5 KARST 0UTCR0PS
K501 HUM
K502 CLIFFS
K503 PINNACLE
K6 KARSTIC DEPRESSI0NS
K601 D0LINE
K602 UVALA
K603 SINKH0LES
K604 KATAV0THRE
K7 KARSTIC PLAINS/P0LJE
K701 FLAT P0LJE
K702 FLAT P0LJE WITH HILL0CKS
K8 BEDDED CHALK ER0SURFACES
-K800 VALLON-DENDRITIC DRAINAGE
K801 UNDULATING ER0SURFACE
K802 R0LLING ER0SURFACE
K803 HUMM0CKY ER0SURFACE
K804 HILL0CKY ER0SURFACE
K805 STR0NG DISECT PARALLEL RIDGE
K806 EXTREME DISECT R0LL HILL0CKS
.22- _ —
Appendix II. Parent material names
1. Mode of accumulation or deposition

- Alluvium (including fans and pedisediments)
Eolian, mixed or undifferentiated
- Eolian and/or ejecta, ash
- Eolian, loess
- Eolian, sand
- Lacustrine (including glacial-lacustrine)
- Marine •
- Organic sediment
- Local colluvium
- Residual material
- Soliflucate
- Solid rock (also includes material under a
contact)
- Unconsolidated mineral sediments, unspecifi
2. Origin or source of materials
Mixed lithology and composition

- Unknown or generalized
Noncalcareous or acid
Calcareous
Mixed lithology, unspecified
Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimetary
- Igneous and metanorphic
Igneous and sedimetary
- Metamorphic and sedimentary.
Conglomerate
Conglomerate, unspecified
- Noncalcareous
- Calcareous.
23
Igneous rocks
- Unspecified kind
Coarse (or Intrusive)
- Basic (e.g. Gabbro, Nepheline rocks, Peridotite)
Intermediate (e.g. Diorite, Monzonite, tonalite)
Acid (e.g. Granite)
- Fine (Extrusive)
- Basic (e.g. Basalt)
Intermediate (e.g. Andesite)
- Acid (e.g. Rhyolite, Trachyte)
- Ultrabasic.
Metamorphic rocks
Unspecified kind
Gneiss, unspecified
Acidic
- Basic
Serpentine
Schist and Thyllite, unspecified
Acidic
Basic
- Slate
Quartzite.
Sedimentary rocks
Unspecified kind
- Marl, unspecified
- Glauconite, unspecified.
Interbedded sedimentary rocks

- Unspecified kind
Limestone, Sandstone, and Shale, with or without Siltstone
- Limestone and Sandstone
Limestone and Shale ""
Limestone and Siltstone
Sandstone and Shale
- Sandstone and Siltstone
Shale and Siltstone.
24
Sandstone
- Unspecified kind
- Noncalcareous
- Arkosic
- Other noncalcareous
- Calcareous.
Shale
- Unspecified kind
- Noncalcareous
- Calcareous.
Siltstone
- Unspecified kind
- Noncalcareous
Calcareous.
Limestone
- Either unspecified kind or calcitic
- Chalk
- Marble
- Dolomitic
- Phospahatic
- Arenaceous (sandy)
- Argillaceous (shaly)
- Cherty, unspecified or calcitic.
Phyroclastic consolidated
- Unspecified kind
- Tuff, unspecified (including Ignembrites)
- Acidic
- Basic
- Volcanic Breccia, unspecified
- Acidic
- Basic
- Tuff-Breccia
- Lava flow.
25
E j e c t a - Ash
- Unspecified kind
- Acidic
Basic, unspecified
- Basaltic ash
Andesitic ash
Cinders
Pumice
Scoria
Volcanic bombs.
Miscellaneous organic material

Unspecified kind
Mossy material
Herbaceous material
Woody material
- Wood fragments (< 1 m in length)
Wood fragments (logs or stumps)
Charcoal
- Coal
Other organic materials.
26
Appendix III. Land use descriptions
- Cropland, flooded rice, rainfed

Cropland, flooded rice, irrigated
Cropland estate tree crops
Cropland, small holdings tree crops
Cropland, general (extensive management, includes upland rice)
Cropland, irrigated (not flooded rice)
- Forest or woodland, grazed
- Forest ungrazed
- Grassland or grazing land
Grassland, irrigated
Horticultural crop (intensive management, includes special drainage
and/or irrigation practices)
Landfill (includes soil - nonsoil mix)
Surface mines, pit or spoil
- Nearly barren or barren land
- Swamp or marshland
- Swamp or marsh, drained
- Urban land
- Woodland, open.
27
Appendix IV. Geomorphic component
- Summit
- Upper slope
- Middle slope
- Lower slope
- Foot slope
- Terrace (includes fans)
- Plain.
aak -
Appendix V. Brief description of soils in seven drainage classes
Very poorly drained. These soils are wet to the surface most of the
time. Mpst of them are in low-lying level areas. These soils are wet
enough to prevent growth of most crops (except rice) unless artificial-
ly drained. Surface colours are black to gray. Generally, subsurface
colours are gray or light grey, but may be greenish or bluish. Mottles
if present have low chroma, generally 2 or less. .
Poorly drained. These soils are wet at or near the surface during a con-
siderable part of the year, so that field crops (except for rice) cannot
be grown, unless artificially drained. Most of these soils are low-lying
and level. They have a saturated zone caused by a layer of slow permea-
bility, seepage or a combination of both. Surface colours of most of
these soils are black or grey. Generally, subsurface colors are grey
or light grey, commonly with mottles of chroma of 3 or more.
Somewhat poorly drained. These soils are wet near the surface for long
enough periods that planting and/or harvesting operations are hindered
and yields of some field crops are low, unless artificial drainage is
provided. They have a layer with slow permeability or additions of
water through seepage or both. Commonly, surface colours are greyish
brown to yellowish. Subsurface layers are greyish and mottles of high
chroma are at depths between about 20 to 50 cm.
Moderately well drained. These soils are wet near enough to the surface
for long enough periods that planting or harvesting operations are delayed
for short periods and yields of some field crops are a little lower than
on well drained soils. They have a layer with slow permeability or addi- •
tions of water by seepage, or both. Commonly, these soils have dark- col-
ored surface horizons and mottles of high chroma in the lower part of the
subsoil.
Well drained. These soils retain moisture for some time after rainfall,
but water passes through them readily. They are not wet long enough after
heavy rains to delay planting or harvesting operations or suppress yield
of field crops. Most well drained soils have reddish, brownish or yellow-
ish surface and subsurface layers. If high chroma mottles are present they
29
are deeper than 100 cm.
Somewhat excessively drained. These soils are rapidly permeable and

have low water-holding capacity. Without irrigation only drought resistant
crops can be grown and yields are low. Many of these soils are sandy and
porous. Soil colors are reddish, brownish, yellowish or grayish. If
mottles are present they are inherited from the weathered rock in which
they formed rather than from wet condition.
Excessively drained. These soils are rapidly permeable and have low water
holding capacity. They are not suited for crop production unless irri-
gated. Most of them are sandy, gravelly or stony and are very porous.
Many of them are steep. Generally, excessively drained soils are reddish,
brownish, yellowish or grayish. They are free of mottles associated with
wetness.
Appendix VI. Definition of soil layers
Surface soil is the layer which is either darkened by humus in undis-

turbed soils or is disturbed by tillage operations in cultivated soils.
It is usually referred to as the soil ordinarily moved by tillage or it's
equivalent soil thickness (10 - 25 cm). It is sometimes thinner in
heavy clay soils or thicker where deeply ploughed. The plough pan is
included in the surface soil.
It is important for supplying plant food, particularly for field

crops, and regulates the penetration of water into the soil. It's pro-
perties determine whether tillage operations are easy or difficult.
Subsoil is the layer below the surface soil which"has undergone effects
of soil forming processes. Its thickness is usually considered as the
thickness of the solum minus the surface soil.
It is important in determining internal soil drainage, dry season

moisture retention and for supplying plant food, particularly for tree
crops and deep rooted field crops
Substratum is the material underlying the subsoil or where there is no

subsoil, the layer directly under the surface soil.
The substratum may influence soil drainage and moisture retention and
may also play a role in plant nutrition.
31
PART 2
EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 2,

GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATINGS
Column
No.
Columns 1,2 and 3 indicating Map Unit Symbol, Extent and Soil Compo-
nent, respectively, are included for the users convenience allowing
for quick cross-reference between Table 1 and Table 2.
1. Map unit symbol - enter the same alphanumeric symbols as listed in

column 1 of Table 1.
2. Extent is indicated by one entry of the number of hectares for each

map unit as listed in the first entry of column 3, Table 1.
3. Soil component is indicated by two entries. The first lists the

USDA Soil Taxonomy "sub-group", e.g. Typic Pelluderts, entered in
the same sequence as the first entry of column 8, Table 1. Note
that the family description is not required for Table 2. The second
entry indicates the estimated proportion of the map unit for each
soil component represented by appropriate symbols (P,D,F,M or T) as
listed in column 8a, Table 1.
Column 4 through 16 indicate suitabilities for 5 Primary Uses,

namely :
- Cereals (columns 4 through 6)
Root Crops and Legumes (columns 7 through 10)
- Estate and Industrial Crops (columns 11 through 13)
- Pasture (column 14)
- Forestry (columns 16 and 17)
Cereals are divided into wetland and dryland, while Root Crops and
Legumes, Estate and Industrial Crops, and Forestry are divided into
lowland and highland.
Suitability for each primary use division is given for a repre-

sentative crop(s) or timber species.
Choice of crop or timber species representatives is made from

those listed in PART 3, section 3.1 and will be dependent on pre-
Column
No. ... , . . -,.. , • • ,.
vailing climatic conditions and socio-economic strategy applying to
the survey area as a whole.
Representative crops and timber species are chosen at the out-

set with the same crop/timber species being evaluated for each map-
ping unit and their soil components.
If any mapping unit has an average annual rainfall of less than

1,000 mm (see Table 1, column 7, entry 1) then "sorghum" will be the
crop choice for column 6 (Cereals, Dryland) with suitability evalua-
tions being made for every soil component of each mapping unit.
4. Cereals, Wetland - suitability for wetland rice is indicated under

three entries.
The first entry under heading 'C' indicates current or present
suitability represented by an alphanumeric symbol comprising suit-
ability class or order and major limiting quality (if any), e.g. S3w.
The second entry under heading 'I' identifies improvements

needed for development represented by combined letter symbols indi-
cating the type of improvement and level of input required,e.g M/Mi.
The third entry under heading 'P' indicates potential suitabil-

ity after improvements (if any) represented by an alphanumeric sym-
bol comprising suitability class or order, e.g. S2.
The process of evaluation is described in PART 3, section 4.
5. Cereal, Dryland - suitability for either 'upland rice' or 'maize'

(choose one) is indicated by three entries under headings C,I and P
as described for column 4 above.
6. Cereal, Dryland - refer back to the mapping unit description under

Table 1, column 7 (climate), entry 1 (average annual rainfall in mm).
If the average annual rainfall is less than 1,000 mm for any mapping
unit give suitability for 'sorghum'. If the average annual rainfall
is 1,000 mm or more give suitability for either 'upland rice' or
'maize' (whichever remains after selection made for column 5 ) .
Three entries are made under headings C,I and P as described

for column 4 above.
33
Column
N°-.. The process of evaluation is described in PART 3, section 4.
Columns 7,8,9 and 10 are used to list suitabilities for 'Root

Crops and Legumes" allowing for the choice of one root crop and one
legume under lowland conditions and one root crop and one legume un-
der highland conditions.
7. Root Crops, lowland - Choose one crop from "cassava","sweet potato",

"yam" or "cocoyam". Indicate suitability by making three entries
under headings C,I and P as described for column 4 above.
8. Legumes, Lowland - Choose one crop from "soybean" or "groundnut".

Indicate suitability by making three entries under headings C,I and
P as described for column 4 above.
j
9. Root Crops, Highland - At present "white potato" is the only repre-

sentative crop for which adequate data is available. Indicate suit-
ability by making three entries under headings C,I and P as described
under column 4 above.
10. Legumes, Highland - At present "phaseolus bean" is the only repre-
sentative crop for which adequate data is available. Indicate suit-
ability by making three entries under headings C,I and P as described
for column 4 above.
Columns 11,12 and 13 are used to list suitabilities for "Estate

and Industrial Crops" allowing for the choice of two crops under low-
land conditions and one crop under highland conditions.
11. Estate and Industrial Crops, Lowland - Choose one crop from "cotton",
"sugarcane", "cocoa", "rubber", "oil palm", "banana", "coconut", or
"cloves". Indicate suitability by making three entries under headings.
C,I and P as described for column 4 above.
12. Estate and Industrial Crops, Lowland - Choose one crop from those
remaining as listed for column 11. Indicate suitability by making
three entries under headings C,I and P as described for column 4
above.
Estate and Industrial Crops, Highland - Choose one crop from "tea"
or "coffee". Indicate suitability by making three entries under
headings C,I and P as described for column 4 above.
Pasture (grasses) - Limited data is presently only available for

grasses. Indicate suitability for all mapping units by making three
entries under headings C,I and P as described for column 4 above.
Columns 15 and 16 are used to list suitabilities for "Forestry"

allowing for the choice of one timber species under lowland condi-
tions and one timber species under highland conditions.
Forestry, Lowland - Choose one timber, species from "Teak", "Maho-

gany", "Leucena leucocephela", "Acacia auriculformis", or "Melaleuca
leucodendron". Indicate suitability by making "three entries under
headings C,I and P as described for column 4 above.
Forestry, Highland - Choose one timber species from "Agathis loran-

thifolia", "Altingia excelsa","Albizia falcataria", "Eucalyptus
grandis", or "Pinus merkusii". Indicate suitability by making three
entries under headings C,I and P as described for column 4 above.
Columns 17 through 27 indicate "Potential for Project Develop-

ment" to provide general guidelines to planners in selecting preli-
minary sites that merit further study.
Irrigation potential is indicated by entering one of the following

symbols :
++ (indicating good potential)
+ (Poor or marginal potential)
- (no potential)

35
Column
No.
18. Drainage potential is indicated by entering the appropriate symbol
as described under column 17 above.
19. Cereals, Wetland potential is indicated by entering the appropri-

ate symbol as described under column 1,7 above.
20. Cereals »Dryland potential is indicated by entering the appropriate

symbol as described under column 17 above.
21. Root Crops and Legumes, Lowland potential is indicated by entering

the appropriate symbol, as described under column 17 above.
22. Root Crops and Legumes, Highland potential is indicated by entering

the appropriate symbol as described under column 17 above.
23. Estate and Industrial Crops, Lowland potential is indicated by en-

tering the appropriate symbol as described under column 17 above.
24. Estate and Industrial Crops, Highland potential is indicated by en-

tering the appropriate symbol as described under column 17 above.
25. Pasture — potential is indicated by entering the appropriate symbol

as described under column 17 above.
26. Forestry, Lowland — potential is indicated by entering the appropri-

ate symbol as described under column 17 above.
27. Forestry, Highland — potential is indicated by entering the appro-

priate symbol as described under column 17 above.
1/-Refer.to PART 3, section 5.39 - "Pasture and Forestry Projects-General

• ---Statement" „before „.evaluating potential for project development.
36
PART 3
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL

RATING PROCEDURES
1. INTRODUCTION
The principles of land suitability and land potential evaluation in-

volve the matching of defined attributes of a mapped unit of land against
defined requirements of. a specific land use.
Evaluations of reconnaissance surveys are from necessity general in

nature as the mapped units of land are larger in area and their attributes
are wider in range than in more detailed surveys.
The basic aim of reconnaissance surveys is to provide an initial

screening of suitabilities and potential for primary agricultural and
forestry uses. Where reconnaissance findings identify potential for pro-
ject development, the area concerned is then subject to more detailed in-
vestigations and evaluation.
The data" generated by current reconnaissance surveys for evaluation

purposes consist of 15 land characteristics which are grouped under 7 lard
qualities. These are matched against tabulated requirements of represen-
tative crops and timber species chosen from a listing of 23 crops and 10
timber species grouped under 5 primary uses. The following sections define
and describe the land characteristics and qualities; the requirements of
the representative crops and timber species; and the method of evaluation.
2. LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND QUALITIES
2.1 Definitions (FAO, 1976)
"A land characteristics is an attributes of land that can be

measured or estimated".
"A land quality is a complex attribute of land which acts in

a distinct manner in its influence on the suitability of land for
a specific kind of use".
Land characteristics are generally not employed directly in

evaluations as problems arise from the interaction between character-
istic. Land qualities can sometimes be estimated or measured direct-
37
ly; but are more usually described by means of a grouping of two

or more land characteristics.
In the evaluation of current reconnaissance surveys 15 land

characteristics are grouped under 7 land qualities as follows :
Land Qualities Land Characteristics
t Temperature Regime 1. Annual Average Temp. ( C)

w Water Availability 1. Dry months ( < 75 mm)
2. Average Annual Rainfall (mm)
r Rooting Conditions 1. Soil Drainage Class
2. Soil Texture (surface)
3. Rooting Depth (cm)
f Nutrient Retention 1. CEC me/100g soil (subsoil)
2. pH (surface soil)
n Nutrient Availability 1. Total Nitrogen
2. Available P205
3. Available K20
x Toxicity 1. Salinity mmhos/cm(subsurface)
s Terrain 1. Slope %
2. Surface Stoniness
3. Rock Outcrops.
2 Descriptions
The following descriptions indicate data source for each cha-

racteristic as listed under Table 1, parts 1 and 2. Where ratings,
classes, and values are the same as described in part 1 of this manu-
al the user is referred to the section concerned. However,
full descriptions are given where different ratings, classes ór val-
ues are used for evaluation..
t - Temperature Regime
1. Annual Average Temp. ( C) - Data source is Table 1, part 1,
column 7, entry 4. The description is found in PART 1 of
this manual.
w - Water Regime
1. Dry months (< 75 mm) - Data source is Table 1, part 1, co-
lumn 7, entry 3. The description is found in PART 1, of this
manual.
2. Average Annual Rainfall (ma) - Data source is Table 1, part
1, column 7, entry 1. The description is found in PART 1
of this manual.
r - Rooting Conditions
1. Soil Drainage Class - Data source is Table 1, part 1, co-
lumn 11. The description is found in PART 1 of this manual.
2. Soil Texture (surface) - Data source is Table 1, part 2,
column 18. The description is found in PART 1 of this ma-
nual. However, in the tabulated crop and timber species re-
quirements the following textural groupings are used :
gravels (includes cinders, fragmental material,
gravel and sandy gravel)
- sands
- loamy sand
sandy loam
loam
sandy clay loam
silt loam
- silt
clay loam
silty clay loam •
- sandy clay
silty clay
structured clay (clays having all structures except
"structureless-massive")
- massive, clay (clays which are 'structureless-massive").
(Data source for structure is Table 1, part 1, column 16).

3. Rooting Depth (cm) - Data source is Table 1, part 1, column
10. The description is found in PART 1 of this manual. How-
ever, if a range of depth is entered in column 10, use the
shallower depth for evaluation purposes.
f - Nutrient Retention —
1. CEC me/100g soil (subsoil) - Data source is Table 1, part 2,
1/ The Nutrient Retention quality refers to the capacity of the soil

to retain added nutrients, as against losses caused by_ leaching as indi-
cated by CEC. The inclusion of pH as a characteristic under this quality
also serves as a means of indicating the soils fixing capacity.
39
column 24. The description is found in PART 1 of this

manual.
2. ' pH (surface) -• Laboratory analysis is preferred, data
source being Table 1, part 2, column 19, described in PART
1 of this manual, page 10. However, if laboratory data is
not available then field pH may be used, data source being
Table 1, part 1, column 17, described in PART 1 of this manu-
al. Where a range of pH is entered in either column 19
or 17, cases may occur where the range crosses two suit-
ability classes. In such instances use thé poorer suitabili-
ty class for evaluation purposes.
2/
n - Nutrient Availability —
1. Total Nitrogen (surface) - Data source is Table 1, part 2,
column 21. The description is found in PART 1 of this ma-
nual.
2. Available P9OS (surface) - Data source is Table 1, part 2,
column 22. -The description is found in PART 1 of this ma-
nual.
3. Available K?0 (surface) - Data source is Table 1, part 2,
column 23. . The description is found in PART 1 of this ma-
nual.
x - Toxicity
1. Salinity mmhos/cm (subsoil) - Data source is Table l.part
2, column 29. - "other features that affect use and manage-
ment". E.C. mmhos/cm is only determined if salinity is sus-
pected for the mapping unit conce.rned. Subsoil values should
be determined for evaluation purposes rather than surface
soil as considerable variation over short distances is a
common feature of surface soil salinity.
2/ The Nutrient Availability quality refers to the quantities of

major nutrients present, as determined by analysis of samples
from the surface soil.
• . 3/
s - Terrain —
1. Slope % - Data source is Table 1, part 1, column 9. The
description is found in PART 1 of this manual. However,as
a range in slope is entered in column 9, cases may occur
where the range crosses two suitability classes. In such
cases use the poorer suitability class for evaluation pur-
poses.
2. Surface stoniness - Data source is Table 1, part 2, column
29 - "Other features that affect use and management". Sur-
face stoniness is only recorded if present. Class codes are
used in the tabulated primary use requirements as follows :
Code Stoniness Classes (FAQ, 1977)
0 No stones or very few stones; too few stones

to interfere with tillage. Stones cover less
than 0.01% of the area.
1 Fairly stony; sufficient stones to interfere
with tillage but not to make inter-tilled
crops impractical. Stones cover 0.01% to 0.1%
of the area (stones 15 to 30cm in diameter,
10 to 30 meters apart).
2 Stony; sufficient stones to make tillage of
inter-tilled crops impracticable, but the soil
can be worked for hay crops or improved pas-
ture if other soil characteristics are favour-
able. Stones cover 0.1% to 3.0% of the area.
(Stones 15 to 30cm in diameter, 1.6 to 10 me-
ters apart).
3 Very stony; sufficient stones to make all use
of machinery impracticable, except for very
light machinery or hand tools where other soil
characteristics are especially favourable for
improved pastures. Stones cover 3.0% to 15% of
the area. (Stones 15 to 30cm in diameter, 75
to 160cm apart).
A Exceedingly stony; sufficient stones to make
all use of machinery impracticable. Stones cov-
er 15% to 90% of the land. (Stones 15 to 30cm
in diameter, less than 75cm apart).
3/ The Terrain quality is related to the management inputs required

for sustained production of representative crops or timber spe-
cies. Slope directly influences present run-off and soil erosion,
especially if mechanization is considered at a high input level.
Surface stoniness is also important with regarded to limitations
related to mechanization and together with rock outcrops restricts
the surface area available for plant growth.
41
5 Rubble land; land essentially paved with

stones which occupy more than 90% of the
surface area.
3. Rock outcrops - Data source is Table 1, part 2, column 29 -
"Other features that affect use and management". Rock out-
crops are only recorded if present. Class codes are used
in the tabulated use requirements as follows :
Code Rock Outcrop Classes (FAQ, 1977)
0 No rocks or very few rocks; no bedrock expo-

sure or too few to interfere with tillage.Less
than 2% bedrock exposed.
1 Fairly rocky; sufficient bedrock exposures to
interfere with tillage but not to make inter-
tilled crops impracticable. Depending on the
pattern of outcrops, exposures are roughly 35
to 100 meters apart and cover 2% to 10% of the
surface.
2 Rocky; sufficient bedrock exposures to make
tillage of inter-tilled crops impracticable,
but soil can be worked for hay crops or im-
proved pasture if other soil characteristics
are favourable. Rock exposures are roughly
10 to 35 meters apart and cover about 10% to
25% of the area, depending on their pattern.
3 Very rocky; sufficient rock outcrops to make
all use of machinery impracticable, except for
light machinery where the other soil character-
istics are especially favourable for improved
pasture. Rock exposures, or patches of soil
too shallow over rock for use, are roughly 3.5
to 10 meters apart and cover about 25% to 50%
of the surface, depending on their pattern.
4 Extremely rocky; sufficient rock outcrops (or
very shallow soil over rock) to make all use of
machinery impractical. Rock outcrops are about
'3.5 meters apart or less and cover some 50% to
90% of the area.
5 Rock o u t c r o p s ; over 90% of t h e land i s exposed
bedrock.
3. GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY RATINGS
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of e v a l u a t i o n s based on c u r r e n t r e c o n n a i s s a n c e s u r -

veys i s t o i n d i c a t e e x p e c t e d p o t e n t i a l f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e crops/tim-
.42.
ber species of five primary agricultural/forestry uses.
Representative crops/timber species requirements are expressed

as value or class ranges by four suitability ratings for each land
characteristic arranged in land quality groupings.
The five primary uses and their representative crops/timber

species are listed below :
1. Cereals
Wetland•- rice.
Dryland - upland rice, maize, sorghum.
2. Root Crops and Legumes

Lowland - cassava,sweet potato,yam,cocoyam,soybean,ground-
nut.
Highland - white potato, phaseolus bean.
3. Estate and Industrial Crops

Lowland - cot ton, sugarcane^, cocoa, rubber, oil palm,banana,
coconut,cloves.
Highland - coffee,tea.
4. Pasture (grasses)
5'. Forestry
Lowland - Teak,Mahogany,Leucena leucocephela,Acacia auri-
culformis,Melaleuca leucodendron.
Highland - Agathis loranthifolia,Altingia excelsa,Albizia
falcataria,Eucalyptus grandis,Pinus merkusii.
3.2 Representative crop and timber species requirements
The following tables list requirements for 23 crops and 10 tim-

ber species. The first column identifies relevant land characteris-
tics grouped by land qualities. Columns 2 to 5 list ratings for four
suitability classes. The 6th column indicates the data source (Ta-
ble and column number) for matching recorded land characteristic es-
timates or measurements against the crop/timber species requirements.
43
Wetland Rice
Land C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s grouped Land S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings

Data
by Land Q u a l i t i e s S2 Source
SI S3 N
1.Annual average tetnp.( C) 25-29 3Q-32 33-35 > 35 Table l,col 7
24-22 21-18 < 18
w-Water A v a i l a b i l i t y
l.Dry months (<75mm) 0-3 3.1-9 9.1-9.5 > 9.5 Table L.C0I 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) > 1500 1200-1500 800-1200 < 800 Table l,col 7
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s somewhat poor. very poor, well somewhat ex- Table 1, col 11
moderately poor cessive »ex-
well cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy clay sandy loam, loamy sand, g r a v e l s , Table L,col
loam, s i l t l o a m , s i l t y massive sands 18 and col
loam, s i l t , clay loam, clay
clay loam s i l t y clay, 16
structured
clay
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 50 41-50 20-40 < 20 Table lyaollO
f-Nutrient Retention
l.CECme/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low very low Table l,col24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 5.5-7.0 7.1-8.0 8.1-8.5 • > 8.5 Tablel.col
5.4-4.5 4.6-4.0 < 4.0 19 or 17
n - Nutrient A v a i l a b i l i t y
1.Total N (surface) > medium low very low Tablel,col21
2.Available P2O5 (surface) very high high medium-low very low Table l,col22
3.Available K2O (surface) > medium low very low Table 1^)123
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cn(subsoil) • < 3 3.1-5 5.1-8 > 8 Table 1, col 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-3 3-5 5-8 > 8 Tablel,col9
2.Surface stoniness 0 > 1 Table 1/»129
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 > 2 Table l,col29
Upland Rice
Land S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings
Land C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s grouped Data
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 Source
S3 N
1.Annual average temp.( C) 20-26 . 2 7-30 31-32 > 32 Table l,col 7
19-18 17-16 < 16
w.-Water A v a i l a b i l i t y -
l.Dry months (<75mm) 5-8 8.1-8.5 8.6-9 > 9 Table Lcol 7
< 5
2. Ave rage annual rainfall (mm) > 1500 1500-1000 1000-750 < 750 Table Lcol 7
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s moderately poor.some- very poor, excessive Table Lcol 11
w e l l , well what poor somewhat
excessive
2 . S o i l texture (surface) sandy clay lo- sandy loam, loamy sand, g r a v e l s , Table l,coll8
am, s i l t loam, loam, sandy s i l t y clay, sands mas- and col 16
si It,clay loam, clay structured sive clay
s i l t y clay lo- clay
am.
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 60 40-59 20-39 < 20 Table Ljcol 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l (subsoil) > medium low very low Table Lpol24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 5.0-6.0 6.1-7.0 7.1-8.5 > 8.5 Table l/;ol
4.9-4.5 4.5-4.0 < 4.0 19 or 17
n-Nutrient Availability
1.Total N (surface) > low ve ry 1 ow Table l£ol21
2.Available P2O5 (surface) > high medium low ve ry 1 ow Table Lcol 22
3.Available K2O (surface) > low ve ry 1 ow Table Lcol 23
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhcs/cm (subsoil) < 3 3-5 5-8 > 8 Table Lcol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-15 15-24 > 24 Table Lcol9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 >2 Table Lôl 29
3. Rock, outcrops 0 1 >2 Table Lcol 29
Maize
Land S u i t ä b i l i t y Ratings
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 N Source
S3
1.Annual average temp.( C) 20-26 27-30 31-32 > 32 Table lôl 7
20-18 < 18
l.Dry months (<75mm) 1-7 7.1-8.0 8.1-9 > 9 Table Ljiol 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) > 1200 1200-900 900-600 < 600 Table Lpol 7
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s moderately somewhat poor.some- very poor, Table Lôl 11
w e l l , well poor what exces- excessive
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy clay sandy loam, loamy sand, grave Is, sands, Table lôl 18
loamîlt loam, sandy clay s i l t y clay, massive clay and col 16
silt, clay loam, structured
s i l t y clay clay
loam
3.Root ing depth (cm) > 60 40-59 20-39 < 20 Table Leol 10
1.CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low very low Table Ljcol 24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 6.0-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table 1,
5.9-5.5 5.4-5.0 < 5.0 col 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) > medium low very low rable L/:ol 21
2.Available P2O5 (surface) very high high medium- low very low Table 1 col 22
3.Available K2O (surface) > medium low very low. Table l,col 23
x-Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cn (subsoil) < 2 2-4 4.8 > 8 rable ly:ól 29
-
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-15 15-20 > 20 Table Lpol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 > 2 Table lpol 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 ' 1 >2 Table l,col 29
Sorghum

Data
S3 N
1.Annual average temp.( C) 27-32 33-37 38-40 > 40 . Table Lpol 7
26-18 17-15 <: 15
l.Dry months (< 75mm) 4-8 8.1-8.5 . '8.6-9.5 > 9.5 Table l,col 7
4.1-2.5 2.4-1.5 < 1.5
2.Average annual rainfall (mm) 600-1500 1500-2000 2000-4000 > 4000 Table L,col 7
600-400 400-250 < 250
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s moderately somewhat poor,some- very poor, Table lôl 11
w e l l , well excessive what poor excessive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loamy sand, g r a v e l s , Table ly:ol 18
clay loam, sandy clay s i l t y clay, sands,mas-
s i l t loam, structured sive clay and col 16
s i l t , clay clay
loam,silty
clay loam
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 60 40-59 20-39 < 20 Table V»l 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l (subsoil) > medium low very low Table L/;ol24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 6.0-7.5 7.6-8.0 8.1-9.0 > 9.0 Table l . c o l
5.9-5.5 5.4-5.0 < 5.0 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) > medium low very low Table l^col21
2.Available P2O5 (surface) »high medium low very low Table l,col 22
3.Available K2O (surface) > low ve ry 1 ow Table 1^51 23
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cn (subsoil) < 4 4-6.5 6.5-12.5 > 12.5 Table l,col29
s - Terrain
1.Slope.% 0-5 5-15 15-20 > 20 Table lpol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 > 2 Table l,col 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 > 2 Table l^col 29
47
Cassava y
Data
by Land Q u a l i t i e s Source
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 22-28 29-30 31-35 > 35 Table l,col 7
21-20 19-18 < 18
u-Water Availability
l . D r y months (<75mm) 2-4 4.1-6 6.1-7 > 7 Table Lpol 7
<2
2 . Ave rage annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1000-2000 2000-4000 > 4000 Table ljcol 7
1000-750 750-500 <500
l . S o i l drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table l,col 11
w e l l , some- p o o r , e x - poor
what e x c e s s c e s s i v e
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy loamy s a n d , s a n d s , s i l t y g r a v e l s , Table l,col 18

c l a y loam, sandy loam, c l a y . s t r u c - m a s s i v e
and c o l 16
s i l t loam, s i l t y clay tured clay clay
s i l t , clay loam,sandy
loam clay
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 100 75-99 50-74 <50 Table l,col 10
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low v e r y low Table l,col24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5- 6.5 6.6-7.5 7.6-8.5 >8.5 Table l.col
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.0 <4.0 19 o r 17
n -Nutrient Availability
1.Total N (surface) ;s medium low v e r y low Table l,col 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 ( s u r f a c e ) > high me d i um low-very low Table l,col 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K9O ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table lycol 2 3
x-Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm ( s u b s o i l ) <2 2-3 3-6 > 6 Table l,col29
s - Terrain
I.Slope % 0-5 5-8 8-16 > 16 Table l ^ o l 9
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 > 2 Table l,col2S
48
Sweet Potato

Data
• by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 Source
S3 N
1.Annual average temp.( C) 20-22 23-26 27-30 > 30 Table l,col 7
19-18 17-16 < 16
l.Dry months (<75mm) 1-7 7.1-8 8.1-9 > 9 Table l p o l 7
< 1
•2.Average annual rainfall (mm) 800-1500 1500-2500 2500-4000 > 4000 Table lôl 7
800-600 600-400 <400
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s Moderately somewhat poor,some- very poor Table l,col 11
2„Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy loamy sand, s a n d s , s i l t > gravels Table lycol 18
clay loam, sandy loam, c l a y . s t r u c - massive and col 16
s i l t loam, silty clay tured clay clay
s i l t , clay loam, sandy
loam clay
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 75 . 50-74 20-49 < 20 Table lpol 1C
f - N u t r i e n t - Retention
1.CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low very low Table l,col 24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 5.5-6.5 6.6-7.0 7.1-8.0 > 8.0 Table l , c o l
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.0 < 4.0 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) > lew very low Table l p o l 21
2.Available P2O5 (surface) > high medium low-very lov • lab l e l pol 22
3.Available K2O (surface) > medium low ve ry 1 ow Table l,col 23
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cn(subsoil) < 2 2-3.5 3.5-7 > 7 Table lfiol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-15 15-20 > 20 Table lpol9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 > 2 Table lpol29
3. Rock outcrops 0 1 > 2 Table. l,col2<
49
White P o t a t o X * """*..
Land S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings "-;•, 11

Land C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s grouped "•'feat a
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 S3 N '~V .- ^ ' t l r c e
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 16-20 21-22 23 > 23 Table l-,col7
4
15-14 13-12 < 12
w-Water Availability
l.Dry months (<:75mm) 3-7 7.1-8 8.1-9 > 9 Table 1, c o l 7
< 3
2. Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 750-3000 > 3000 Table Lôl 7
750-500 500-400 < 400
l . S o i l drainage class well moderately somewhat poor,very- Table l,col 11
well poor»some- poor, e x -
what e x c e s s c e s s i v e
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy loamy s a n d , s i l t y clay, g r a v e l s , Tablel,coll8

c l a y loam, sandy loam, s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s , mas- and col 16
s i l t loam, s i l t y clay clay sive clay
silt,clay loam, sandy
loam clay
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 75 50-74 30-49 < 30 Table l.col 10
f - Nutrient Retention
l.CECme/lOOgsoil (subsoil) > medium low v e r y low Table lycol 24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.0-6.5 6.6-7.0 7.1-8.0 > 8.0' • Table l . c o l
4.9-4.5 4.4-4.0 < 4.0 19 o t 17
' i . T o t a l N' ( s u r f a c e ) > low v e r y low Table l,col 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > medium low v e r y low Table l,col22
3. A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > low v e r y low Table l,col 23
x-Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cm(subsoi1) < 2 2-3.5 3.5-7 > 7 Table l,col 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-15 15-20 > 20 Table Ipol 9
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 >2 t a b l e l,col 29
Yams
Land Suitability Ratings

L a n d ^ C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s grouped Data
•r-$?jf. Lah'tf.Qual i t i e s S2 Source
SI S3 N
t-Temperature Regime
L.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 25-30 31-32 > 32 Table l,col 7
20-25 < 20
w-Water Availability •
l . D r y months ( < 75mm) < 5 5.1-6 6.1-7 > 7 Table ljcol 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1200-2000 2000-5000 > 5000 Table l,col 7

1200-800 800-600 < 600
l . S o i l drainage class well moderately poor,some- very poor, Table Ljcol 11
well what p o o r , excessive
somewhat
exces s i v e
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy loamy s a n d , s i l t y c l a y , g r a v e l s , Table 1 p a l 18

c l a y loam, sandy loam, s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s . m a s - and col 16
s i l t loam, s i l t y clay clay sive clay
s i l t , clay loam,sandy
loam clay
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 75 50-74 25-49 <25 Table l p o l 1C
l.CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low ve ry 1 ow Table l,col 24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-6.5 6.5-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table l . c o l
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) > medium low ve ry 1 ow Table L,col 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > medium low v e r y low Table l,col 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table 1,co 123
x - Toxicit y
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cn: ( s u b s o i l ) < 2 2-3 3-6 > 6 Table l,col29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-8 8-16 > 16 rablel,col9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 > 2 Table l,col29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 > 2 Table l,col29
51
Cocoyam/Taro
Land C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s gro-.-ed Data
S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 25-32 > 32 Table lycol 7
24-22 21-20 < 20
w -Water Availability
l . D r y months ( <75mm) < 5 5.1-6 6.1-7 > 7 Table Lcol7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2500-5000 >5000 Table Ijcol 7

2500-1500 1500-1000 < 1000
r - Rooting C o n d i t i o n s
l . S o i l drainage class poor, somewhat very poor well somewhat ex- Table Lpol 11
poor,moderate- cessive .ex-
ly w e l l cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy loamy sand, s i l t y clay, g r a v e l s , Table l,col 18

c l a y loam, sandy loam, s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s , m a s - and col 16
s i l t loam, silty clay clay sive clay
silt,clay 1- '- sandy
loam clay
3. R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 75 50-74 30-49 <: 30 Table l,col 10
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low v e r y low Table l £ o l 24
5.4-5.0 <5.0 19 or 17
1.Total N ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table l,col21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2°5 (surface) > medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 22

3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 23
x - Toxicit y
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm ( s u b s o i l ) < 2 2-3 3-6 > 6 Table l,col29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-8 8-16 >*16 Table l,col 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 >1 Table l p o l 29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 >2 Table lysol 29
52
Soybean
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 N Source
S3
1.Annual average temp.( C) 23-28 29-30 31-32 > 32 Table l,col 7
22-20 19-18 < 18
l.Dry months (<75mm) 3-7.5 7.6-8.5 8.6-9.5 > 9.5 Table lfiol 7
< 3
2. Average annual rainfall (mm) 100-1500 1500-2500 2500-3500 > 3500 Table 1,col 7
1000-700 700-500 < 500
r - R o o t i n g Conditions
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s moderately • somewhat poor,some- very poor Table l,col 11
we 11, we 11 excessive what poor excessive
2."Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loamy sand g r a v e l s , Table i'ôl 18
clay loam, sandy clay s i l t y c l a y , sands.mas- and col 16
s i l t loam, s t r u c t u r e d sive clay
s i l t , clay clay
loam, s i l t y
clay loam
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 50 30-49 15-29 < 15 Table l,col 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low very low Table l c o l 24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 6.0-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table l . c o l
5.9-5.5 5.4-5.0 < 5.0 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) > medium low very low Table l,col 21
2.Available P2O5 (surface) > high medium low- very low Table l,col 22
3.Available K2O (surface) > very low Table lpol 23
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhus/cia ( s u b s o i l ) < 2.5 2.5-4 4-8 > 8 Tablel,col29
s - Terrain
1.Slope Z 0-5 5-15 15-20 > 20 Table lcol 9
2.Surface s t o n i n e s s 0 1 > 2 Table Lcol 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 > 2 Iable l.col.29
53
Groundnut
SI S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 25-30 31-33 34 > 34 Table lpol 7
24-20 19-18 < 18.
l.Dry months ( < 75tnm) < 8 8.1-9 9.1-9.5 > 9.5 Tab le l p o l 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 900-2000 2000-3000 > 3000 Table Lpol 7

900-400 400-250 < 250
l . S o i l drain'age class we11,somewhat m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table l p o l 11
excessive w e l l , e x c e s - poor poor
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy s a n d , c l a y loam, g r a v e l s , t a b l e Lcol 18

loam,sandy s i l t loam, s i l t y c l a y s a n d s . m a s -
and c o l 16
c l a y loam silt l o a m , s a n d y sive- c l a y
clay,silty
clay .struc-
tured clay
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 50 30-49 • 15-29 < 15 Table l,col 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low v e r y low Table l p o l 24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 6.0-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table l , c o l
. 5.9-5.5 5.4-5.0 < 5.0 19 o r 17
1.Total N ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table Lpol 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > medium low v e r y low Table l p o l 22

3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > v e r y low Table l p o l 23
•
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cm(subsoil) < 3 3-4 4-6 > 6 Table l p o l 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-15 15-20 > 20 Table Lcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 B» 2 Table l p o l 29
3. Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 5» 2 Table l c o l 29
Phoseolus Bean )

Data
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 22r-26 27-30 31-32 > .32 Table l ^ o l 7
21-18 17 < 17
l . D r y months (<75mm) 2-8 8.1-9 9.1-9.5 > 9.5 Table i c o l 7
1.9-1 < 1
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 900-2000 2000-3000 > 3000 Table l/:ol 7
900-600 600-350 < 350
l . S o i l drainage class moderately somewhat poor s o m e - very poor Table l,col 11
well, well excessive what poor e x c e s s i v e
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy loamy sand, sands,sandy g r a v e l s , Table l,col 1£

c l a y loam, sandy loam, clay,silty massive and c o l 16
s i l t loam, clay loam, clay s t r u c - clay
silt silty clay tured clay
loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (era) > 50 30-49 15-29 <: 15 Table lpoi 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low ve ry 1 ow Table l,col 24
5.9-5.5 < 5.5 19 o r 17
1.Total N ( s u r f a c e ) > low v e r y low Table l,col21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > v e r y low Table l,col 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > ve ry 1 ow Table ljcol 23
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y inralios/cia ( s u b s o i 1) < 1 1-2 2-4.5 >4.5 Table l,col 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-5 5-15 15-20 >20 Table l,col 9
2.Surface stoni ness 0 1 >2 Table l/:ol 29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 &2 Table lôl 29
55
Cottc

SI S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 26-30 31-33 34-40 > 40 • Table Ljcol 7
25-22 < 22
l.Dry months (<75mm) 3-4 4.1-7 7.1-8 > 8 Table l p a l 7
2.9-1 < 1
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1000-1500 1500-1750 1750-2200 >2200 Table l,col 7
1000-700 700-500 <500
l . S o i l drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table Lxol 11
w e l l , s o m e - p o o r . e x c e s - • poor
what e x c e s - s i v e
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loamy sand, g r a v e l s , Table l , c o l l 8

c l a y loam, sandy c l a y s i l t y c l a y s a n d s , m a s -
and c o l 16
s i l t loam, structured sive clay
silt,clay clay
loam,silty
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 80 60-79 35-59 < 35 Table l,col 10
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low v e r y low Table l,col 24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 6.5-7.5 • 7.6-8.0 8.1-8.5 > 8.5 Table l,col
'6.4-6.0 < 6.0 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface) > medium low v e r y low Table l,col21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > high medium low v e r y low Table lycbl 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > low ve r y 1 ow Table l/:ol 23
'
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm ( s u b s o i l ) < 8 8-13 13-20 > 20 Table lv=ol29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-30 > 30 Tablel,col9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 > 2 Table L/x>129
I 3.Rock outcrops 0 1 > 2 Table L/x>129
56
Sugarcane

by band Q u a l i t i e s SI Source
S2 S3 N
t - T e m p e r a t u r e Regime
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 25-30 31-32 33-34 > 34 Table Lcol 7
24-23 22-21 < 21
l . D r y months ( <s 75mm) 1-3 3.1-5 > 5 Table Lcol 7
< 1
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1500-4000 < 4000 Table Lcol 7
1500-1200 1200-1000 < 1000
r-Rooting Conditions
l . S o i l drainage class moderately somewhat p o o r , s o m e - v e r y poor Table Lcol 11
well, well poor what e x c e s - e x c e s s i v e
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy s a n d , s i l t y clay, gravels, Table Lcol 18
loam,sandy sandy c l a y s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s , mas-
and c o l 16
c l a y loam, clay sive clay
s i l t y loam,
s i l t , clay
loam,silty
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 75 55-74 .30-54 < 30 Table Lcol 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) 5- h i g h medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 24
5.4-4.5 4.4-4.0 <4.0 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface) > medium low v e r y low , Table l/zo 121
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) very high high medium-low v e r y low Table Lcol 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) & medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 23
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm(subsoil) < 3.5 3.5-5.5 5.5-12 . > 12 Table Lcol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-20 > 20 Table Lcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 S»2 Table Lcol 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 5».2 Table Lcol 29
57
Coffee (robusta)
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 20-27 28-30 31-32 > 32 Table l^col 7
19-18 17-16 < 16
l.Dry months (< 75mm) 2-3 3.1-5 5.1-6 > 6 Table Lpol 7
< 2
2 . Ave rage annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 > 5000 Table l^col 7
2000-1500 1500-1000 < 1000
l . S o i l drainage class well moderately poor.some- v e r y poor Table Lôl 11
w e l l . s o m e - what poor excessive
what e x c e s -
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loamy s a n d , g r a v e l s , Table JV:ol 18

c l a y loam, sandy c l a y s i l t y c l a y , s a n d s . m a s -
and c o l 16
s i l t , clay clay
loam, s i l t y
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 100-149 50-99 < 50 Table Lpol 10
1.CEC m e / 1 0 0 g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) & medium low ve ry 1 ow Table l,col24
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.5 < 4.5 .-..- ' 19 or 17
a-Nutrient Availability
1.Total N (surface) & low v e r y low Table Lpol 21
, 2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) S= low v e r y low Table l,col 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K.20 ( s u r f a c e ) & low v e r y low Table L.C0I £3
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mrchos/cm(subsoil) < 1 1-3 . 3-4 > 4 Table L£ol29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-30 > 30 T a b l e Lpol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 5» 3 T a b l e Lpol29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 & 3 T a b l e lpol2S
58
Tea
< $
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C< 19-21 22-23 24-27 > 27 Table Lcol 7
18-17 16-14 < 14
l . D r y months (<: 75mm) 0 1 > 1 Table Lcol 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2500-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 > 6000 Table Lcol 7
2500-1800 1800-1300 < 1300
l . S o i l drainage class well moderately poor.some- v e r y p o o r , Table lyool U
w e l l , s o m e - what poor excessive
what e x c e s -
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loaray s a n d , g r a v e l s , Table Lcol 18

c l a y loam, sandy c l a y s i l t y c l a y , s a n d s , mas-
and c o l 16
s i l t , clay clay
loam,silty
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 100-149 40-99 < 40 Table Lcol 10
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) S> low v e r y low Table Lcol 21
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) A.5-5.0 5.1-5.5 5.6-6.5 > 6.5 Table Lcol 19
4.4-4.0 3.9-3.5 < 3.5 or 17
1.Total N (surface) Ë» medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > high medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > v e r y low Table Lcol 23
x - Toxicity '
1 . S a l i n i t y mrJios/cm ( s u b s o i l ) < 1 1-2 2-4.5 > 4.5 Table Lcol29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > 50 Table Lcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 I 2 > 3 Table Lcol 2<
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 > 3 Table l,col 29^

59
Cocoa
S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 25-28 29-32 33-35 > 35 Table L/:ol 7
24-20 < 20
l . D r y months (< 75mm) 0 1-2 > 2 Table l,col 7
2 . Ave rage annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1500-2500 > 2500 Table L/;ol 7

1500-1200 1200-1000 <1000
l . S o i l drainage class well somewhat somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table Lpol 11
poo ^ m o d e r - excessive p o o r , exces-
ately well sive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy s a n d , silty clay, gravels, Table Lpol 18
loam,sandy sandy c l a y s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s , mas-
and c o l 16
silt loam,
s i l t , clay
loam, s i l t y
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 100-149 60-9 9 < 60 Table I p o l l O
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) S* h i g h medium low v e r y low Table L.C0I 24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.0-6.5 6.6-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table l . c o l '
4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 or 17
n - Nutrient Availability ,
1.Total N (surface) 5> medium low v e r y low Table Lpol21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) ^ medium low v e r y low Table l,col22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K.2O ( s u r f a c e ) > low v e r y low Table L.00I 23
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm ( s u b s o i l ) < 1 1-3 3-6 > 6 Table l,col29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > 50 Table l p o l 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 > 3 Table Ifol 29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 > 3 Table Lôl29
Rubber ^\ /
Land C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s g r o u p e d Data
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e temp.CC) 26-30 31-34 > 34 Table Ljcol 7
25-24 2 3-22 < 22
l . D r y months (< 75mm) 0 1 2 > 2 Table l^col 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2500-4000 4000 Table Lcol 7

2500-2000 2000-1500 < 1500
l . S o i l drainage class well moderately somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table lôl 11
w e l l , s o m e - poor poor.exces-
what e x c e s - sive
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy s a n d , s i l t y c l a y , g r a v e l s , Table V » l 18

loam,sandy sandy c l a y s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s p a s -
and c o l 16'
s i l t loam,
s i l t , clay
loam, s i l t y
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 200 130-199 80-12 9 < 80 Table Ljcol 10
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low ve ry 1 ow Table lys>124
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 4.0-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table 1, c o l
3.9-3.0 < 3.0 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) & medium low ve ry 1 ow Table lôl 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) > high medium low v e r y low Table lycol22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) «* low v e r y low Table l ^ o l 2 3
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cn ( s u b s o i l ) < 1 1-3 3-6 > 6 Table Lôl 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > 50 Table l ^ o l 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 » 3 Table l,co 129
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2 • S* 3 Table l ^ o l 2 9
61
O i l Palm
SI S2 S3 . N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 24-28 29-32 33-34 > 34 Table l,col 7
23-22 21-20 < 20
l . D r y months (< 75mm) 0-1 1.1-2 2.1-3 > 3 Table lycol 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-6000 >6000 Table Lôl 7

2000-1750 1750-1500 < 1500
l . S o i l drainage class moderately poor.some- somewhat very poor, Table Lcol 11
we 1 1 , we11 what poor excessive excessive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy s a n d , s i l t y c l a y , g r a v e l s , Table Lcol 18

loam, sandy sandy c l a y s t r u c t u r e d s a n d s , m a s -
silt loam,
s i l t , clay
loam, s i l t y
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g depth (cm) > 100 70-99 ' 45-69 < 45 Table Ipol 10
l.CECme/lOOgsoil ( s u b s o i l ) ^ medium low v e r y low Table l,col24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.0-6.0 6.1-7.0 7.1-8.5 >8.5 Table 1, c o l
4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface) ^ medium low v e r y low Table l,col21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2Ü5 (surface) ^ medium low v e r y low Table La>l 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) ^ low v e r y low Table 1/»1 23
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cm(subsoil) < 2 2-3 •3-6 > 6 Table l p o l 2 S
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > 50 Table l ^ o l 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 > 3 Table l p o l 2 9
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 S* 3 T a b l e ] , col 29
62
Banana
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 S3 N Source
1.Annual average temp.( C) 25-27 28-29 30-32 > 32 Table lôl 7
24-23 22-19 < 19
•
l.Dry months (< 75mm) 0-1 1.1-2 2.2-3 > 3 Table l,col 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-4000 4000-5000 > 5000 Table Ifol 7

• 2000-1500 1500-1000 < 1000
1.Soil'drainage class moderately somewhat poor,some- very poor, Table Lôlll
2 . S o i l texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy sand, s i l t y clay gravels, Table l,col 18
loam, sandy sandy clay s t r u c t u r e d sands, mas- and col 16
clay loam, clay sive clay
s i l t loam, ,
s i l t , clay
loam, s i l t y
clay loam
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 100 70-79 45-69 < 45 Table V:ol 10
1.CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) gj medium low very low Table l,col 24
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 6.0-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table Lpol 19
5.9-5,0 < 5.0 or 17
1.Total N (surface) ^ medium low very low Table l,col 21
2.Available .P2O5 (surface) ^ medium low very low Table l,col 22
3.Available K2O (surface) ^ high medium low-very low Table Ifiol 23
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cra(subsoil) < 2 2-3 3-6 > 6 Table ljcol29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > 50 Table lpol 9
2.Surface s t o n i n e s s 0 1 2 2s 3 Tab le l.col 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2 > 3 Table l,col 29
63
Coconut
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 25-28 29-32 33-34 > 34 Table Lpol 7
' 24-23 22-21 < 21
l . D r y months (< 75mm) 0-1 1.1-2 2.1-4 > 4 Table L.col 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-3000 3000-5000 > 5000 Table Lcol 7

2000-1300 1300-1000 < 1000
l . S o i l drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat' v e r y p o o r , Table l^col 11
w e l l , some- p o o r . e x c e s - poor
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loamy s a n d , sandy c l a y sands.silty gravels, Table l/:ol 18

sandy loam, clay »struc- massive
and c o l 16
loam, sandy tured c l a y clay
clay l o a m , s i l t
loam, s i l t , c l a y
loam,silty
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 90-149 40-89 < 40 Table Lpol 10
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) 55 high medium low very low Table Lcol 24
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.5 > 8.5 Table 1, c o l
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.0 < 4.0 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface) :> medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface) 5» medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) ^ medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 23
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cm(subsoil) < 2 2-4 4-8 > 8 Table lôl 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > -50 Table Lcol9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 S* 3 Table Lcol 29
3. Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 S* 3 Table 1 A > 1 2 9
64
Cloves (tentative)
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) .25-28 29-32 33-34 > 34 Table Lj:ol 7
24-23 22-21 < 21
l . D r y months ( < 75mm) • .0-1 1.1-2 2.1-4 > 4 Table Lcol 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-3000 3000-5000 > 5000 Table Lcol 7

2000-1300 1300-1000 < 1000
r-Rooting Conditions
l.Soil drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table Lcol 11
w e l l , some- p o o r , e x c e s - poor
sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loamy s a n d , s a n d y clay sands , s i l t y g r a v e l s , Table l c o l 18

sandy loam, l o - c l a y , s t r u c - massive and c o l 16
am, sandy c l a y tured clay clav
loam,silt lo-
am, s i l t , c l a y
loam,silty
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 100-149 50-99 < 50 Table Lool 10
l.CECme/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) ^ medium low very low Table Lpol 24
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.0 < 4.0 19 or 17
n - N u t r i e n t A v a i l a b i l i t y '~
1.Total N (surface) 5s medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 21
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 22
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > medium low v e r y low Table Lcol 23
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cra(subsoil) < 2 2-4 4-8 > 8 Table Lcol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-50 > 50 Table Ljcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 Ss 3 Table Lcol 29
3 . Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 S* 3 Table Lcol 29
65
Pasture
Land S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings "
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 S3 Source
N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 20-30 31-35 36-40 > 40 Table lôl 7
19-18 17-12 < 12
w - Water A v a i l a b i l i t y
l . D r y months (<75mm) 0 0-2 2.1-6 > 6 Table l ^ o l 7
2 . Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1500-4000 4000-6000 > 6000 Table Lcol 7

1500-1000 1000-400 < 400
I . S o i l drainage class somewhat poor poor, somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table lôl 11
moderately excessive excessive
well, well
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, lo- loamy s a n d , s a n d s , s i l t } g r a v e l s Table l , c o l l 8

am, sandy clay s t r u c t u r e d c l a y , mas-
and c o l 16
l o a m ^ i l t loam c l a y sive clay
s i l t , c l a y loam
s i l t y c l a y lo-
am, sandy clay
3 . R o o t i n g depth (cm) > 30 20-29 15-19 < 15 Table l/x>l 10
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) > medium low v e r y low Table lôl 24

4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface) > low v e r y low ' Table La>121
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 ( s u r f a c e ) > high medium low-very lov Table 1 A > 1 2 2
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) > low v e r y low Table lycol 23
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cni ( s u b s o i l ) < 3 3-5 5-10 > 10 Table lôl 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-8 8-15 15-30 > -30 Table V » l 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3 S* 4 Tablel£ol29

0 1 2-3 5» 4 Table lôl 29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s
66
Tectona grandis (Teak)

Land C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - g r o u p e d Data
SI S2 S3 - N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 22-30 31-34 > 34 Table Lôl 7
21 <: 21
l . D r y months ( < 75mm) 3 4 5 i> 5 Table Lool 7
2 1 < 1
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1500-2000 2000-2250 2250-2500 > 2 5 0 0 Table LpDl 7
1500-1250 1250-1000 < 1000
l . S o i l drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table L/:ol 11
well,s ome what p o o r , e x c e s - poor
excessive sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy claj sandy loam, loamy sand, g r a v e l s Table Ijaol 18
l o a m , s i l t loam, s t r u c t u r e d m a s s i v e
s i l t , c l a y loam, c l a y and c o l 16
clay
s i l t y clay
loam,sandy
clay,silty
clay
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 100-149 50-99 < 50 Table L.C0110
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l ) Table L, c o l
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.0 > 8.0 19 o r 17
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.5 < 4.5
1.Total N (surface)
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 (surface)
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e )
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cm(subsoil) < 4 4-8 > 8 Table Lcol29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table l , c o l 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 5» 3 Table Lcol29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 S* 3 Table Lcol29
67
Swietenia macrophylla (Mahogany)

'by Land Q u a l i t i e s Source
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 22-30 31-34 > 34 Table l.col 7
21-20 < 20
w-Water Availability -
l . D r y months (< 75mm) 2 3 4 > 4 Table Lcol 7
1 < 1
2 . Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000 > 4000 Table Lcol 7
2000-1750 1750-1500 < 1500
l.Soil drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Table Lcol 11
well, somewhat p o o r , e x c e s - poor
excessive sive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loamy s a n d , g r a v e l s , Table l p o l 18

c l a y loam, sandy c l a y s i l t y c l a y , s a n d s
and c o l 16
s i l t loam, structured
s i 1 1 , c 1 ay and massive
loam, s i l t y clay
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g depth (cm) > 150 100-149 ' 50-99 < 50 Table Lcol 10
l.CECme/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.0 > 8.0 Table l.col
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface)
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 ( s u r f a c e )
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cra ( s u b s o i l ) < 4 4-8 • > 8 Table Lcol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table Lcol9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 > 3 Table Lcol 29

3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2 5> 3 Table Lcol29
Agathis loranthifolia
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 Source'
S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 20-24 > 24 Table l,col 7
19-17 <• 17
l . D r y months ( < 75mm) 0-1 1.1-3 3.1-4 > 4 Table ljool 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2500-3000 3000-4000 > 4000 Table l,col 7

-
2500-2000 < 2000
l.Soil drainage class moderately somewhat pooi very poor,poor Table L,col 11
well, well somewhat e x - excessive
cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, l o - loamy s a n d , m a s s i v e gravels, Table l,col 18

am, sandy clay sandy c l a y , c l a y sands
and col 16
loam,silt loam, silty clay,
s i l t , c l a y loam, structured
s i l t y clay clay
loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) 2 150 100-149 50-99 < 50 Table Lpol 10
l.CECme/iOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.0 > 8.0 Table L. c o l
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 or 17
n - Nutrient Availability
1.Total N (surface)
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm ( s u b s o i l ) < 4 4-8 > 8 Table Lpol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table ljcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 > 3 Table l,col 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2 > 3 Table ],col 29
69
Altingia excelsa
X
\ L and S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings
Sl S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 19-21 22-23 > 23 Table Lcol 7
18-17 < 17
l . D r y months (<75mm) 1-2 2.1-3 > .3 Table L.col7
< 1.
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 2000-3000 > 3000 Table L.col7
2000-1500 < 1500
l . S o i l drainage class well m o d e r a t e l y somewhat v e r y p o o r , Tables Lcol U
well, somewhat p o o r , e x - 'poor
excessive essive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy sandy loam, loamy s a n d , g r a v e l s , Table L ^ o l l 8

c l a y loam, sandy c l a y , s i l t y c l a y , sands
and c o l 16
s i l t loam, structured massive
silt,clay' clay clay
loam, s i l t y
c l a y loam
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 150 100-149 50-99 < 50 Table Lcol 10
f - Nutrient Retention-
.1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.0 > 8.0 Tsble 1, c o l
5.4-5.0 4.9-4:5 < 4.5 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface)
*
-x-Toxicity •
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/ctn ( s u b s o i l ) < 4 4-8 > 8 Table l,col 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table Lcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2 5» 3 Table Lcol 29
3 . Rock, o u t c r o p s 0 1 2 & 3 Table Lcol29
70
Albizia falcataria
SI S2 S3 N
1. Annual a v e r a g e temp-. ( C) 21-30 31-34 •> 34 T a b l e LJcol 7
20-19 < 19
l . D r y months (<75mm) . 0-2 2.1-4 > 4 T a b l e 1/»1 7
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm)- 2500-3000 3000-4000 > 4000 T a b l e Lcol 7

2500-2000 < 2000
l . S o i l drainage class moderately somewhat very poor, T a b l e Lcol 11
we11, we11 , p o o r , e x c e s - poor
somewhat e x - s i v e
cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam sandy clay gravels, m a s s i v e claj T a b l e lvool 18

Loam, s i l t loam, sands,loamy and c o l 16
si I t , clay loam, sand,sandy
s i l t y clay loam,silty
loam,sandy clay
clay »struc-
tured clay
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 100 50-99 < 50 T a b l e lôl 1C
1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
2,pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 7.6-8.0 > 8.0 Table l,col
5.4-5.C 4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface)
* 3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e )
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cn(subsoil) < 4 4-8 > 8 T a b l e Lôl 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table-Lcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3. S» 4 T a b l e lyMl 29
3.Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2-3 S* 4 T a b l e Lcol 25
71
Leucaena leucocephala
L'and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s grouped Data
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI Source
S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 21-30 31-34 > 34 Table lôl 7
20-19 < 19
l . D r y months ( < 75mm) 3-4' 4.1-6 > 6 Table l^:ol 7
< 3
2 . Ave rage annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 750-1000 1000-2000 > 2000 Table l p o l 7
'750-600 < 600
l . S o i l drainage class moderately somewhat very poor, Table l,col 11
we11, we 1 1 , p o o r , e x c e s - poor
somewhat e x - s i v e
cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) loam,sandy clay gravels, massive Table lj:ol 18

loam,silt loam, sands, loamy clay
and c o l 16
s i l t , c l a y loam, sand,sandy
s i l t y c l a y lo- loam,silty
am, sandy c l a y clay
structured
clay
3. Rooting d e p t h (cm) > 50 < 50 Table l ^ o l l O
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
2.pH ( s u r f a c e soil) 7.0-8.0 8.1-8.5 > 8.5 Table 1, col
6.9-6.0 5.9-5.0 < 5.0 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface)
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2O ( s u r f a c e ) •
•
x - Toxicit y
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cm ( s u b s o i l ) <: 4 4-8 > 8 T a b l e Lcol 29
-
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 ' 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table lôl9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3 > 4 T a b l e lôl 29
3. Rock o u t c r o p s 0 1 2-3 > 4 Table lôl 29
72
Acacia auriculfonnia
SI S2 S3 N
-
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 23-30 31-34 > 34 Table Lcol 7
22-21 < 21
"
l . D r y months (< 75mm) 2-3 3.1-6 >6 Table Lôl 7
<2
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1300-2500 2500-4000 >4000 Table Lcol7
1300-1000 <1000
l . S o i l drainage class moderately pooi; somewhat v e r y p o o r Table l,col 11
we 1 1 , w e 1 1 , poor,exces-
somewhat sive
excessive
. 2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam,lo- sands, loamy gravels, Tab l e Lcol 18
am,sandy c l a y sands, sandy s i l t y clay,
and c o l 16
loam,silt loam, clay,struc- massive
s i l t , c l a y loam, tured clay clay
s i l t y clay loan
3.Root i n g d e p t h (cm) > 50 < 50 Table ly=ol 10
f--Nutrient Retention
' 1. CEC me/100g s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
6.9-6.0 5.9-5.0 < 5.0 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface)
0
3 . A v a i l a b l e K2 (surface)
x - Toxicity
1 . S a l i n i t y mmhos/cn ( s u b s o i l . ) < 4 4-8 8-15 > 15 Table \pa\ 29
s - Terrain -
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Tables Lôl 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3 S> 4 Tables l^col2S
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2-3 > 4- Eables Lcol2<
73
Eucalyptus grandis
SI S3 N
1.Annual average temp.( C) 20-30 31-34 > 34 Table IpoH
19-17 16-14 < 14
l.Dry months ( <75mm) 0-2 2.1-4 4.1-5 > 5 Table Ljcol 7
2. Average annual rainfall (torn) 1500-2000 2000-4000 > 4000 Table l£ol7
1500-1000 1000-750 < 750
r - R o o t i n g Conditions
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s moderately somewhat very poor, Table l ^ o l l l
well, well, poor.exces- poor
somewhat sive
excessive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, l o - loamy sand, gravels, Table Lcol 18
am,sandy clay sandy c l a y , sands.silty and col 16
loam,silt loam, structured clay, mas-
siltjclay loam, clay sive clay
s i l t y clay
loam
3.Rooting depth (cm) > 100 50-99 < 50. T±le LpDl.lD
l.CECme/lOOg s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 5.5-7.0 7.1-7.5 •7.6-8.0 > 8.0 Table l.col
5.4-5.0 4.9-4.5 < 4.5 19 or 17
1.Total N (surface)
2.Available P2O5 (surface)
3.Available K.2O (surface)
•
x - Toxicity
1. Salinity comhos/cm (subsoil) < 4 4-8 > 8 Table L,col £
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15 1 30 30-50 > 50 Table lôl9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3 Ss 4 Table Lcol29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2-3 Ss 4 Table Lcol29
Melaleuca leucadendron
Land S u i t a b i l i t y Ratings -
SI S2 S3 N
1.Annual a v e r a g e t e m p . ( C) 21-30 > 30 Table Lcol 7
w-Water Availability .
l . D r y months ( < 75mm) 2-4 > 4 Table Lcol 7
< 2
2.Average annual r a i n f a l l (mm) 1200-1600 > 1600 Table lôl 7
1200-800 < 800
l.Soil drainage class moderately somewhat poor e x c e s s i v e v e r y p o o r , Table L.C0I 11
well, well, poor
somewhat e x -
cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) loatn,sandy clay loamy s a n d , sands grave I s Table Lcol 18
loain,silt loam, sandy loam,
and col 16
s i l t , c l a y loam, silty clay,
s i l t y clay l o - m a s s i v e clay
am,sandy c l a y ,
structured
clay
3 . R o o t i n g d e p t h (cm) > 100 50-99 < 50 Table l,col 10
l.CEC me/lOüg s o i l ( s u b s o i l )
6.9-6.0 5.9-5.0 < 5.0 19 o r 17
1.Total N (surface)
x - Toxicit y
1.Salinity mmhos/cm(subsoil) < 4 4-8 8-15 > 15 Table Lcol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table Lcol 9
2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3 > 4 Table l,col 29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2-3 £s 4 Table l,col 29
75
Pinus merkusii

Data
by Land Q u a l i t i e s SI S2 S3 N Source
1.Annual average temp.( C) 19-21 22-23 > 23 Table L,col 7
18-17 < 17
w -Water A v a i l a b i l i t y
l.Dry months (<75mm) 1-2 2.1-3 > 3 Table l,col 7
< 1
2. Average annual rainfall (mm) 2500-30Ó0 3000-4000 > 4000 Table lj:ol 7
2500-2000 < 2000
l . S o i l drainage c l a s s moderately excessive somewhat very poor, Table lôl 11
well, well, poor poor
somewhat e x -
cessive
2.Soil texture (surface) sandy loam, loamy sand, gravels, Table Vol 18
löam,sandy sandy clay, sands,silty
and col 16
clay loam, structured' clay.mas-
s i l t loam, clay sive clay
s i l t , clay
löam, s i l t y
clay loam
3". Rooting depth (cm) > 100 50-99 < 50 Table l,col 10
'IvCECme/lOOgsoil ( s u b s o i l )
2.pH (surface s o i l ) 5.5.-7.0 7.1-8.0 > 8.0 Table L,col
5.4-4.5 <s 4.5 19 or 17
n - Nutrient A v a i l a b i l i t y
1.Total N (surface)
2.Available P2O5 (surface) .
3.Available K2O (surface)
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity mmhos/cn ( s u b s o i l ) <2 2-4 4-8 > 8 Table Lcol 29
s - Terrain
1.Slope % 0-15 15-30 30-50 > 50 Table l,col 9
.2.Surface stoniness 0 1 2-3 S* 4 Table lôl29
3.Rock outcrops 0 1 2-3 S* 4 Table l,col 29
GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY EVALUATION PROCEDURES
4.1 Introduction
Table 2 - "General Land Suitability and Potential Ratings" con-

sists of two parts. It is an interpretive table, that in the first
part (columns 4 to 16) shows the general suitability of each soil
component of each mapping unit for representative crops/timber spe-
cies of five primary uses. Each crop/timber species column is di-
vided into three sections with the headings : C = Current or present
suitability; I = Improvements needed for development; and P = Poten-
tial suitability after improvement. In the second part of Table 2
(columns 17 to 27) each soil component is rated as to its potential
for agricultural development projects including drainage and irriga-
tion projects; projects for cereals, root crops and legumes, estate
and industrial crops, and projects for pasture and.forestry.
The ratings of potential for project development in the second

part of Table 2 are based mainly on the suitability ratings in the
first part.
The following sections describe the suitability classification
and symbols used; explain how current or present suitability (C) is
determined; show how improvements needed for development (I) are i-
dentified; and explain how potential suitability after improvements
(P) is determined.
4.2 Suitability Classification and Symbols
Within the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976) each
category of classification retains its basic meaning when applied to
different areas and different types of land use.
In reconnaissance surveys carried out in Indonesia by the Cen-

tre for Soil Research three categories of decreasing generalization
are recognized :
i. Land Suitability Orders : reflecting kind of suitability,
ii. Land Suitability Classes : reflecting degrees of suit-
ability within Orders,
iii. Land Suitability Subclasses:, reflecting kinds of limita-
tions within Classes.
77
4.2.1 Land Suitability Orders - These indicate whether soil- compo-

nents of the mapping units are assessed as suitable or not
suitable for the primary use concerned and under columns C and
P they are represented by the symbols S^ and _N respectively.
The two suitability orders are defined as follows :
Order S Suitable Land on which sustained use of the

kind under consideration is expected
to yield benefits which justify the
inputs,without unacceptable risk of
damage to land resources.
Order N Not Suitable Land which has qualities that appear
to preclude sustained use of the
kind under consideration.
4.2.2 Land Suitability Classes - These reflect degrees of suitabil-

ity. The classes are numbered consecutively, by arabic numer-
als, in sequence of decreasing degrees of suitability within
the Order.
Three suitability classes are recognized in the Order S^
Suitable, together with the following names and definitions:
Class Sl_ Highly Suitable : Land having no significant

limitations to the sustained
application of the given type
of use,or only minor limita-
tions that will not signifi-
cantly reduce productivity
or benefits and will not raise
inputs above an acceptable
level.
Class S2 Moderately Suitable Land having limitations which
in aggregate are moderately
severe for sustained applica-
tion for the given type of
use;the limitations will re-
duce productivity or benefits
and increase required inputs
to the extent that the over-
all advantage to be gained
from the use,although still
attractive,will be appreci-
ably inferior to that ex-
pected on Class ^1 land.
Class j^3 Marginally Suitable : Land having limitations which
in aggregate are severe for
sustained application of the
given type of use and will so
reduce productivity or bene-
fits, or increase required
inputs,that this expenditure
will only be marginally'
justified.
No suitability classes are used for the Order N not Suit-

able. In most cases components of mapping units assessed as
being not suitable for the given type of use will have limi-
tations which appear so severe as to preclude any possibility
of successful application of the type of use in question.
However, in some cases components of mapping units assessed
as being not suitable for the given type of use may have lim-
itations which may be correctable with existing knowledge but
at a cost which may not be currently acceptable by develop-
ment agencies and which will be largely beyond the resources
of an individual farmer.
Land Suitability Subclasses - These reflect kind of limita-

tions. Subclasses are indicated by lower case letters fol-
lowing Class symbols j^2 and ^3 and Order symbol N. There are
no subclasses in Class S_l as this by definition has no signi-
ficant limitations.
In reconnaissance surveys subclass symbols refer to land

quality limitations as follows :
79
Symbol Limitation
t Temperature regime limitations

w Water regime limitations
r Rooting condition limitations
f Nutrient retention limitations
n Nutrient availability limitations
x Toxicity limitations
s Terrain limitations.
It should be noted that Subclasses are only used in the

evaluation of current or present suitability (columns headed
C). Suitability Orders and Classes are used for the evalua-
tion of both current or present suitability and potential
suitability after improvements (columns headed C and P ) .
Evaluating Current or Present Suitability (Columns C)
Evaluation is made by matching the measured or estimated values

or classes of land characteristics against the'ranges of requirements
listed for each of the crops/timber species.
A basic principle in the matching exercise is the application of

"the law of the minimum". This means that the most limiting rating
out of the land characteristics grouped in a single land quality is
taken as the rating for that quality.
For example, if land characteristics grouped under land quality

r - "Rooting Conditions" produce the following ratings for wetland
rice : 1. Soil Drainage Class = Sd
2. Soil Texture (surface) = S2 '
3. Rooting Depth (cm) = S3
Then the suitability rating for land quality r - "Rooting Condi-

tions" will be SJ3.
The same principle holds true for the final evaluation of cur-
rent or present suitability.
For example if the following ratings of all land qualities are
produced by matching land characteristic values or classes against
the ranges of requirements for wetland rice :
t - Temperature regime = SI
w - Water Availability = SI
r - Rooting Conditions = S3
f - Nutrient Retention = S2 •
! n - Nutrient Availability = S2
x - Toxicity = SI
s - Terrain = SI
Then the final evaluation of current or present suitability will be

S3. The symbol S3r will be entered in column C for wetland rice
indicating that the current or present suitability of the soil com-
ponent of the mapping unit is S3 - marginally suitable, while the
small case letter r indicates that the mnjor limitation is the land
quality r - "Rooting Conditions".
If two or more land qualities were rated as having S3 limita-

tions in the above example the final evaluation would still be rated
as S3; but the symbol entered in column C would include small case
letter subclass symbols of each quality concerned.
The above evaluation process is, of course, qualitative; but

gives a general assessment of current or present suitability and in-
dicates the major limiting qualities and characteristics. The next
step is to identify what improvements are needed and feasible in or-
der to determine potential suitability.
Identifying Improvements Needed for Development (Column I)
To identify improvements needed for development it is necessary

to refer again to the land quality groupings of Ian : characteristics.
Some limiting characteristics cannot be improved. Those that can be
improved will vary as to the level (cost inclusive of labour) of input
required to achieve improvement. The following list indicates pos-
sible improvements by land characteristics and the level of input
required.
81
Land Characteristics Level- of

grouped by Qualities Improvement and Symbol ( ) Input
1.Annual Average Temp, no improvement possible -
w - Water Availability
l.Dry months irrigation works - (I) Hi
2. Average Annual R a i n f a l l irrigation works - (I) Hi
r— Rooting C o n d i t i o n s
l . S o i l Drainage Class artificial drainage - (J) Hi
2 . S o i l Texture no improvement possible -
3 . R o o t i n g Depth generally no improvement
possible if root restricting
layer is thick. If root
restricting layer is thin
then mechanical break-up of
the layer may be possible-(K) Hi
f - Nutrient Retention
l.CEC Liming-source available lo-
cally (L) Li
Liming-no local source (L) Mi
2.pH Liming—source available lo-
cally (L) Li
Liming-no local source (L) Mi
n - Nutrient Availability
1.Total.Nitrogen Manure/fertilizer applica-
tion (M) Li
2 . A v a i l a b l e P2O5 Fertilizer application for
S2 rating (M) Li
Fertilizer application
S3/N ratings (M) Mi
3.Available K2O Fertilizer application for
S2 rating (M) Li
Fertilizer application
S3/N ratings (M) Mi
x - Toxicity
1.Salinity Reclamation of saline
soils ratings S2/S3 (N) Mi
Reclamation of saline
soils rating N (N) Hi
s - Terrain
1.Slope Sawah construction for wet-
land rice slopes < 3% (P) Li
Sawah construction for wet-
land rice slopes 3-8% (P) Mi
Sawah construction for wet-
land rice slopes 8-15% (P) Hi
Contour crass strips slopes
0-8% (Q) Li
Moderate standard bench ter-
race without designed water . - ~"
disposal,slopes > 8% (R) \Mi
High standard bench terrace
with fully designed water dis-
posal, slopes > 8% (T) Hi
2.Surface stoniness Stone picking for ratings
S2/S3 only (S) Mi
3.Rock outcrops no improvement possible -
Levels of input indicate costs of improvements in general terms

as follows :
Li = low input, can generally be borne by the landowner.
Mi = moderate input, can be borne by the landowner with cre-
dit facilities.
Hi = high input, requires government funds or long term credit
to the landowner.
Where a combination of improvements is required, two of low input (Li)

will result in an overall moderate input (Mi), similarly two of moder-
ate input (Mi) will result in an overall high input (Hi). Where a
combination of improvements with different input levels is required
the overall input is that of the highest level (e.g. inputs Li and
Hi = Hi overall input). If the limiting quality or any of the com-
bination of limiting qualities cannot be improved then the symbol
(X) is used to indicate that improvement is not possible.
Under columns headed "I" for primary uses a combined symbol is

entered to show the type of improvement(s) and the level of input,
e-g-
83
M/Mi = fertilizer application S3/N ratings/moderate input

MP/Hi = fertilizer application S3/N ratings (Mi),sawah con-
struction for wetland rice slopes 8-15% (Hi)/overall
high input
X = no improvement possible.
Evaluation of Potential Suitability after Improvements (Column P)
It is assumed that the implementation of improvements needed

for development entered under column "I" will correct the most li-
miting qualities identified by subclass symbols entered in' column
"C". This will result in a potential suitability at least one class
higher than the current or present suitability. For example :
if the "C" suitability rating is j32_ and improvements are possible,
then "P" suitability rating will be SI.
if the "C" suitability rating is S^, improvements are possible but
52 limitations still exist, then "P" suitability ratings is S2.
- if the "C" suitability rating is S3, improvements are possible and
no S2 limitations exist,then "P" suitability ratings is SI.
- if the "C" suitability ratings is N_, improvements are possible,but
53 limitations still exist,then "P" suitability rating is S3.
- if the "C" suitability rating is N, improvements are possible, but
S2 limitations still exist,the "P" suitability rating is jS2_. ,
- if the " C suitability rating is Jtf, improvements are possible and /
no other limitations exist,then "P" suitability rating is SI.
if no improvements are possible (X entered in the "I" column), then
suitaMlity ratings for "C" and "P" are the same.
Only class symbols are entered for potential suitability. The

evaluation is subjective at best, as only general suitabilities can
be interpreted from reconnaissance surveys.
An example of the complete evaluation procedure is given in

Figure 1.
84
Figure 1. Example of Suitability Evaluation
Representative Crop : Maize

Mapping Unit Symbol : T 31
Soil Component Name : Typic Ustropepts
Characteristics and Improvement/

Quality Ratings Value C Rating Input level P Rating
Annual average temp, 26°C SI

t - Quality rating SI
Dry months 3 SI
Average annual rainfall 1,850 mm SI
w - Quality rating SI
Soil drainage well SI

Soil texture(surface) sandy loam S2
•
Rooting depth no limitatior SI
r - Quality rating S2r . .S2.
CEC (surface) high si

pH (surface) 5.5 S2
f - Quality rating S2f S2
Total N (surface) low S2

Available P2O5 (surface) me di um S3
Available K 2 O (surface) high Si
n - Quality rating S3n M/Mi
Salinity (subsoil) no limitation SI

x - Quality rating SI
Slope 0-0.5% SI
Surface stoniness 0 SI
Rock outcrops 0 SI
s - Quality rating SI
C = S3n I = M/Mi P = S2
Current or present suitability = Marginally suitable.nutrient availability

limitation
Improvements for development = (M) fertilizer application S3 rating,
(Mi) moderate input.
Potential suitability = Moderately suitable.
85
5. GENERAL RATINGS OF POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
5.1 Introduction
These ratings of potential for development are general in nature

They are a first estimate (based on physical features) of the general
suitability of areas of land for one or more of five primary uses.
Because of the limitations of small-scale reconnaissance maps

and the subjectivity of the suitability ratings, these estimates of
potential for agriculture development should be used with caution.
These ratings of potential will provide general guidelines to plan-
ners in selecting preliminary sites that merit further study.Detailed
surveys of soils, topography, hydrology, economic feasibility, trans-
portation, availability of services, etc., will be needed before final
decisions are made on sites to be developed.
5.2 Potential for Development Ratings and Symbols
Three levels of potential are given in Table 2. They are as

follows :
Symbol Potential
++ good
+ poor or marginal
no
When rating the potential'of map units, consideration should be

given to their size and shape, as well as their general suitability
for a proposed use. Map delineations, either singularly or in com-
bination with others, should be large enough to accommodate the plan-
ned development, project. Map units that consist of long narrow deli-
neations bordered by map units with no potential will be judged as
having low or no potential, even though the soils may be well suited
for the proposed development. General guidelines for rating the po-
tential of components of map units are in the paragraphs that follow.
Note that potentials for irrigation and drainage projects are

separated from potentials for cereals, root crops and legumes and es-
tate and industrial crops, even though drainage or irrigation,or both,
may be needed to reach the highest potential suitability of a soil.
86
• •
But to introduce these improvements into each primary use would make
this part of Table 2 very complicated. Therefore, the potential for
development projects, based on the production of these crops, are
rated according to the present moisture state of soils, i.e., under
rainfed conditions.
When rating the potential for development, the potential suit-

ability (column P) will be used, except where irrigation (I) or drain-
age (J) are listed as improvements needed. If irrigation or drainage
are needed to bring a soil to its highest potential suitability, then
the present suitability for a primary use will be the basis for rating
potential for development projects.
If a soil has been rated as having a good potential for an irri-

gation or a drainage project, it may be assumed that after such pro-
jects are installed the potential for other agricultural development
project will be enhanced.
5.3 Evaluating Potential for Project Development
5.-3.1 Irrigation Project

Potential is good if a component hasthe following features:
a. an apparent source of surface or ground water
b. topography is flat or undulating (Table 1, col.9)
c. the dry season is two months or longer or there are frequent
dry periods of 10 to 15 days (Table 1, col.7)
d. when irrigated,the soil is moderately or highly suited for
wetland rice,dryland cereals,root crops,legumes,and estate
or industrial crops. (Table 2, col.4-13)
e. erosion and salinity hazards are low (Table 1, col.6, 29).
Potential is poor or marginal if a component meets the re-

quirements for good potential except for the following features:
a. topography is rolling (Table 1, col.9)
b. when irrigated,the soil has low suitability for food,estate
or industrial crops (Table 2, col.4-13)
c. erosion and salinity hazards are moderate (Table 1,col.6,29).
5.3.2 Drainage Project

The first consideration in evaluating potential drainage
87
projects should be the opportunities for disposal of excess

water. For example, it may not be feasible to drain closed
basins and most drainage .works in tidal flats are very expen-
sive to construct, operate and maintain.
Potential is good if' a component has the following fea-

tures :
a. drainage is poor or very poor. (Table 1, col. 11)
b. disposal of excess water appears to be easy and construc-
tion, operation and maintenance costs are not high
c. after drainage, the soil is moderately or highly suitable
for food,estate or industrial crops (Table 2,col.4-13)
d. hazards of erosion, extreme acidity or salinity are low
(Table 1, col. 6, 29).
Potential is poor if a component has the following fea-

tures :
a. drainage is somewhat poor to very poor (Table 1, col.11)
b. disposal of excess water appears to be difficult and/or
costly.
c. after drainage, the soil is poorly or marginally suited
for food, estate or industrial crops (Table 2, col. 4-13)
d. hazards of extreme acidity or salinity are moderate
(Table 1, col. 29)
e. erosion hazard is low (Table 1, col. 6).
5.3.3 Cereals, Wetland (See Table 1, col.9; Table 2, col.4)

Potential is good if a component is moderately or highly
suited for wetland rice. In addition, topography should be
smooth enough that extensive areas can be developed without
large and expensive terraces.
Potential is poor if a component is marginally suited

for wetland rice and/or topography is such that large, expen-
sive terraces will be required to develop' the area.
Components of map units that are not suitable for wetland

rice will be rated as having no potential for development pro-
jects.
88 "'" "*
Cereals, Dryland (See Table 2, col. 5 and 6)
Potential is good if a component is rated moderately or

highly suitable for representative dryland cereal crops,and
improvement costs are not high, irrigation or drainage costs
not considered.
Potential is poor if a component is marginally suited

for representative dryland cereal crops and/or improvements
costs are high.
Components of map units that are rated not potentially
suitable for these crops will be rated as having no potential
for development projects.
Lowland Root Crops and Legumes (see Table 2, col 7 and 8)
Potential is good if a soil is rated as moderately or

highly suitable for either or both representative crops, and .
improvement costs are not high, irrigation and drainage costs
not considered.
Potential is poor if a soil is marginally suited for
the representative crops and/or improvement costs are high.
Soils rated as not potentially suitable for these crops

will be rated as having no potential for development projects.
Highland Root Crops and Legumes (see Table 2, col 9 and 10)

highly suitable for either or both representative crops,and
improvement costs are. not high, irrigation and drainage costs
not considered.
Potential is poor if a soil is marginally suited for the
representative crops and/or improvement costs are high.
Soils rated as not potentially suitable for these crops

will be rated as having no potential for development projects.
Lowland Estate and Industrial Crops (see Table 2,col 11 and 12) .

highly suitable for either or both representative crops. Im-
89
provement costs, exclusive of irrigation and drainage, may be

low to high as it is assumed that developers of estate and in-
dustrial crop projects will have the resources to pay for high"
improvement costs.
Potential is poor if a soil is rated as marginally suited

for the representative crops.
Soils rated as not potentially suited for these crops will

be rated as having no potential for development projects.
5.3.8 Highland Estate and Industrial Crops (see Table 2,col. 13)

highly suitable for the representative crop. Improvement
costs may be low to high, exclusive of irrigation and drainage.
Potential is poor if a soil is rated marginally suitable

for the representative crop.
Soils rated as not potentially suited for this crop will

be rated as having no potential for development projects.
5.3.9 Pasture and Forestry Projects - General Statement
Many soils and land units that have good potential for
cultivated crops also have good potential for pasture and fo-
restry. However, in most provinces the development of land
for cereals, root and legume crops, and estate 'and industrial
crops has a higher priority than improvements of pastures and
forests. Therefore, components of map units that are rated
as having good potential for such crops will not be rated as
having potential for pasture or forestry projects, unless
provincial or local officials have set high priorities for
such projects.
Soils rated as having poor or no potential for cereals,
root and legume crops, or estate and industrial crops will
always be rated for pasture and forestry projects.
5.3.10 Pasture (see Table 2, col 14)

highly suitable for pasture and improvement costs are low |
to medium. J
Potential is poor if a soil is rated as marginally suit- J
able for pasture and/or improvement costs are high. |
Soils are rated as not potentially suitable for pasture \

will be rated as having no potential for development of pas- \
ture projects.
5.3.11 Lowland Forestry (see Table 2, col 15)

highly suitable for the representative timber species, improve-
ment costs are low or medium, and desirable tree species
have been removed from the area.
Potential is poor if a soil is rated as marginally suit-

able for the timber species and/or improvement costs are high.
Soils rated as not potentially suitable for the timber

species will be rated as having no potential for development
of forestry projects.
5.3.12 Highland Forestry (see Table 2, col 16)

highly suitable for the representative timber species,improve-
ment costs are low or medium, and desirable tree speci s
have been removed from the area.
Potential is poor if a soil is rated as marginally suit-

able for the timber species and/or improvement costs are high.
Soils rated are not potentially suitable for the timber

species will be rated as having no potential for development
of forestry projects.
X..
91
PART 4
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
Reconnaissance survey findings are produced in "atlas" form. Each

atlas will consist of the following components :
a. Title page (standard format giving name of the survey, date, and
Centre for Soil Research Report Number);
b. Explanation of how to use the.atlas (standard format on inside cover
of the atlas);
c. Table of Contents;
d. Location map combined with map sheet index;
e. Reconnaissance Soil Map Sheets, 1:250,000 scale (number of map sheets
will depend on the size and configuration of the survey area)
f. Map showing Potential for Irrigation Project Development (reduced to
1:500,000 or 1:1,000,000 scale);
g. Map showing P o t e n t i a l for Drainage Project Development (reduced as
above);
h. Map showing P o t e n t i a l ' f o r Wetland Rice Project Development (reduced
as above);
i. Map showing P o t e n t i a l for Dryland Cereals Project Development
(reduced as above);
j. Map showing P o t e n t i a l for Root Crop and Legumes Project Development
(reduced as above);
k. Map showing P o t e n t i a l for Estate and I n d u s t r i a l Crops Project Devel-
opment (reduced as above);
1. Map showing P o t e n t i a l for Pasture Project Development (reduced as
above);
m. Map showing P o t e n t i a l for Forestry Project Development (reduced as
above);
n. Explanation of Terms and Footnotes used in Table 1, p a r t s 1 and 2;
o. Table l , p a r t 1, Main C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Landforms, Climate and S o i l s ;
p. Table 1, part 2, Main C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Landforms, Climate and
Soils;
q. Explanation of Symbols used in Table 2;
r. Table 2, 'General Land S u i t a b i l i t y and P o t e n t i a l Ratings.
92 :3T
Components a,c,d and e above do not require further explanation.

The following sections provide standard formats or explain how the re- j
maining components are prepared.
HOW TO USE THE ATLAS (component b, above)
The following is suggested as a standard format for all current re-

connaissance surveys carried out by personnel of the Centre for Soil Re-
search.
HOW TO USE THE ATLAS
This atlas presents the findings of a reconnaissance land resource

survey carried out by personnel of the Centre for Soil Research, Bogor,
Indonesia.
The brief description of contents which follows is intended to as-
sist users in their understanding of survey results.
It should be realized at the outset that evaluations of reconnais-

sance surveys are from necessity general in nature as the mapped units of
land are larger in area and their attributes are wider in range than is
the case in more detailed surveys. Evaluations made are subjective and
should be used with caution; but will provide general guidelines for
planners in selecting preliminary sites that merit further study.
The atlas is basically composed of a series of maps and tables.
Reconnaissance Soil Map - this consists of a number of map sheets at a

scale of 1:250,000 (see Map Index) delineating mapping units. Each map-
ping unit represents the geographic location and spatial extent of a
parcel of land with a defined set of climate, landform and soil attributed
which are presented in Table 1, parts 1 and 2 -"Main Characteristics of
Landforms, Climate and Soils". Cross reference between the reconnaissance
soil map and Table 1 and Table 2 is achieved through the use of mapping
unit symbols.
Development potential for the survey area as a whole is shown by a
series of up to 8 smaller scale maps (1:500,000 or 1:1,000,000, depending
on convenience). The number of maps presented will depend on the preva-
iling physical conditions and socio-economic strategy of the study area.
A full presentation will provide maps showing areas with project develop-
93
ment potential for irrigation,drainage,wetland rice,dryland cereals,root

crops and legumes.estate and industrial crops.pasture,and forestry. How-
ever, development potential for pasture and forestry projects is not de-
termined for mapping units having good potential for other agricultural
uses,unless such projects are given high priority by local authorities.
The maps showing development potential are derived from evaluations

of General Land Suitability and Potential Ratings, presented in Table 2.
Suitability evaluations, expressed in terms of present or current suit-
ability, improvements needed for development, and potential suitability;
are presented for 13 representative crops and timber species grouped un-
der 5 primary agricultural and forestry uses. Choice of crops and timber
species is dependent on prevailing physical conditions and socio-economic
strategy of the study area, and the availability of data on crop/timber
species requirements. Simple ratings for project development potential
are then derived from the suitability ratings and certain physical attri-
butes listed in Table 1.
Both Table 1 and Table 2 contain numerous codes' and symbols. Conse-
quently, each table is provided with explanations of terms and footnotes.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (components f through m)
3.1 Introduction
Table 2, "General Land Suitability and Potential Ratings",

presents potential for project development under eleven columns (17
to 27). When completed in full,project development potential is in-
dicated by soil component for irrigation, drainage, wetland cereals
(rice), dryland cereals, lowland root crops and legumes, highland
root crops and legumes, lowland estate and industrial crops, high-
land estate and industrial crops, pasture, lowland forestry, and '
highland forestry. However, in most studies potential for pasture
and forestry development projects will only be evaluated for those
soil components having poor or no potential for other primary agri-
cultural uses.
To assist users in the easy identification of project develop-

ment potential it will be beneficial if results are also presented
in map form at reduced scale. To simplify the process a series of
up to eight maps are proposed illustrating potential for irrigation,
drainage,wetland cereals (rice).dryland cereals,root crops and legu-
mes (combining lowland and highland suitabilities),estate and indus-
trial crops (combining lowland and highland suitabilitie),pasture and
forestry (combining lowland and highland suitabilities). These maps
will be prepared at a scale of 1:500,000 or 1:1,000,000, with choice
of scale being dependent on the size and shape of the study area which
will influence photographic reduction options. The following sections
describe the steps taken in the preparation of such maps.
Preparation of Project Development Potential Maps
Underlying problems in map preparation are as follows :

Potential for project ^development ratings (Table 2, columns 17 to
27) are entered for each soil component of every mapping unit.
However, only the mapping units themselves are delineated on the
soil map. -Consequently, a way must be found to show development ••-••-••
potential for each mapping unit as a whole.
- If the above problem is solved, then development potential will
be expressed in terms of proportional extent of each mapping unit.
Difficulties arise here as the proportion of each mapping unit
occupied by an individual soil component is expressed as a range
(Table 1, column 8a), e.g. D = 51-75%.
The following steps overcome these problems.
3.2.1 Map format
Each p o t e n t i a l for project development map w i l l identify

mapping units (as delineated on the s o i l map) with the fol -
lowing p o t e n t i a l :
Good P o t e n t i a l
: > 75% of the land has good p o t e n t i a l
: 50-75% of the land has good p o t e n t i a l
25-49% of the land has good p o t e n t i a l

95
Poor P o t e n t i a l
: > 75% of the land has poor potential
'////A
V, : 50-75% of the land has poor potential
A
: 25-49% of the land has poor potential
*)
No Potential
: > 75% of the land has no potential
3.2.2 Determination of mapping unit development potential
Considerable variation will occur in the number of soil

components per mapping unit and the.proportion of a mapping
unit occupied by each soil component.'
As mentioned above, the proportion of a mapping unit oc-

cupied by an individual soil component (Table 1, column 8a
and Table 2, column 3) is expressed as a range : P =>75%,
D = 50-75%, F = 25-49%, M .= 10-24%, T =< 10%.
In order identify mapping units with good potential or

poor potential for>75%, 50-75%, or 25-49% of their surface
area, the following combinations of soil components and pro-
portions has been prepared for easy reference.
A - Mapping Units with >75% of the land with either good (++)
or poor(+) development potential (refer to Table 2,column 3) .'
Number of soil Combination of Proportion

Components Symbols
Definitely: 1 P
2 D/F
'3 .: ~\y F/F/F
4 F/F/M/M
4 D/M/M/T
*) All remaining map units which do not satisfy the criteria

(proportion) for good or poor potential.
96
Possibly: 2 D/M
2 F/F
2 D/T
3 F/M/M
3 F/M/T
4 M/M/M/M
4 F/T/T/T
4 M/M/M/T
5 M/M/M/T/T
5 M/M/T/T/T
6 M/M/T/T/T/T
B - Mapping U n i t s w i t h 50-75% of the land with e i t h e r good (++)

or poor(+) development p o t e n t i a l ( r e f e r to Table 2,0010011 3)
Number of Soil Combination of Proportional

Components Symbols
Definitely: 1 D
2 F/F
4 F/M/M/T
5 M/M/M/M/M
5 M/M/M/M/T
Possibly : 2 F/M
2 F/T
3 F/T/T
3 M/M/M
3 M/M/T
4 M/M/M/T
4 M/M/T/T
4 M/T/T/T
5 T/T/T/T
C - Mapping U n i t s w i t h 25-49% of t h e land with e i t h e r good

(++) o r poor (+) development p o t e n t i a l ( r e f e r t o Table 2,
column 3)
97
Number of Soil Combination of Proportional

Components Symbols
Definitely: 1 F
3 M/M/M
3 M/M/T
Possibly 2 M/T
2 M/M
3 T/T/T
3 M/T/T
The following example taken from Figure 5 illustrates

the methods used to determine potential for project develop-
ment of mapping unit T21.
Data derived from Figure 6:
C o l u m n s
1 3 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
T21 Typic P e l l u d e r t s D - + + + + + + + + 4 ++
Vertic Tropaquepts F - + ++ + + + ++ +
Plintic Tropaquepts T - + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
Potential for irrigation project development (column 17)
All three soil components are rated (-), consequently > 75%
of mapping unit T21 has no potential.
Potential for drainage project development (column 18)
Vertic Tropaquepts and Plinthic Tropaquepts are rated (+) and

their combination of proportion symbols is F/T. A corres-
ponding combination is found in list B, consequently 50-75%
of mapping unit T21 has poor potential.
Potential for wetland cereals (rice) project development (column 19)

Vertic Tropaquepts and Plinthic Tropaquepts are rated (++) and
their combination of proportion symbols is F/T. A corresponding
combination is found in list B, consequently 50-75% of mapping
unit T21 has good potential.
98
Potential for dryland cereals project development(column 20)

Plinthic Tropaquepts are rated (++) but the proportion - T
is less than 10%. Typic Pelluderts and Vertic Tropaquepts
are rated (+) and their combination of proportion symbols is
D/F. A corresponding combination is found in list A, conse-
quently > 75% of mapping unit T21 has poor potential.
Potential for root crop and legume project development (column 21,22)
Plinthic Tropaquepts are rated (++) but the proportion - T is
less than 10%. Typic Pelluderts and Vertic Tropaquepts are
rated (+) and their combination of proportion symbols is D/F.
A corresponding combination is found in list A, consequently
>75% of mapping unit T21 has poor potential.
Potential for estate and industrial crop project development

(columns, 23,24)
Vertic Tropaquepts and Plinthic Tropaquepts are rated (++) and
their combination of proportion symbols is F/T. A corresponding
combination is found in list B, consequently 50-75% of mapping
unit T21 has good potential.
Potential for pasture project development (column 25)

Typic Pelluderts are rated (+) and the proportion symbol is D.
The corresponding symbol is found in list B, consequently 50-
75% of mapping unit T21 has poor potential.
Potential for forestry project development (columns 26,27)

Typic Pelluderts are rated (++) and the proportion symbol is
D. The corresponding symbol is found in list B, consequently
50-75% of mapping unit T21 has good potential.
Map preparation
Using a ozalite print of the 1:250,000 scale soil map,

or a transparent overlay, mapping units are shaded according
to potential (see section 3.2.1 above "map format"). When
all mapping units are correctly shaded the resulting map is
reduced photographically to the chosen scale' and prepared for
printing.
99
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND FOOTNOTES USED IN TABLE 1, MAIN

CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS (component n)
To enable users to understand terms and footnotes employed in Table

1, parts 1 and 2, these are explained on a separate sheet. A standard
format can be used for all current reconnaissance surveys, as shown in
Figure 2.
TABLE 1, PART 1, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS

(component o)
A standard format is used and data entered as described in PART 1

of this manual. An example of complete entry for two hypothetical map-
ping units is given in Figure 3.
TABLE 1, PART 2, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS

(component p)

of this manual. An example of complete entry for two hypothetical map-
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND

POTENTIAL RATINGS (component q)
To enable users to understand symbols employed in Table 2, these are

explained on a separate sheet. A standard format can be used for all cur-
rent reconnaissance surveys, as shown in Figure 5.
TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATINGS (component r)

of this manual. An example of a complete entry for two hypothetical map-
100
Figure 2 .
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND FOOTNOTES USED IN TABLE 1 , PARTS 1 AMD 2 - MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKDFORMS, CLIMATE AND SOILS
Table 1. Part 1
1/ Climate (column 7) 6/ A v a i l a b l e P3O5 (column 2 2 )
Seven entries numbered 1 to 7 are made in vertical This i s given f o r each s o i l l a y e r a c c o r d i n g to the f o l l o w i n g
sequence to provide the following information : c l a s s e s by one o f t h e l a b o r a t o r y methods l i s t e d b e l o w :
1. average annual rainfall (mo} P 2 0 5 (Bray) P (Bray + K u r t z ) PjOjCOUen)

2. number of wet months with long term averages of > C l a s s Name ( ppm ) ( ppm ) ( ppa )
ISO on rainfall
3. number of dry months with long term averages of v e r y low <10 < 3 4.56
< 75 on rainfall low 10-15 3-7 4.57-11.4
4 . a v e r a g e annual t e m p e r a t u r e ( C) medium 16-25 8-20 11.5-22.8
5 . maximum month ( a v e r a g e ) t e m p e r a t u r e ( C) high 26-35 > 20 >22.8
6 . minimum month ( a v e r a g e ) t e m p e r a t u r e ( C) very high >35
7. s t a t i o n number a s s i g n e d by t h e D i r e c t o r a t e o f M e t e o r o -
l o g y and G e o p h y s i c s t o t h e n e a r e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
meteorological station. 7/ A v a i l a b l e K?0 (column 2 3 )
This i s g i v e n f o r each s o i l l a y e r a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g

2/ P r o p o r t i o n o f Map U n i t (column 8a) c l a s s by one o f t h e l a b o r a t o r y methods l i s t e d below :
E s t i m a t e d p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e map u n i t i s g i v e n f o r e a c h Acid Citrate NH.OAc

major s o i l component by u s i n g a p p r o p r i a t e s y m b o l s a s C l a s s Name ( OR ) Cue)
follows :
v e r y low <5 < 0.2
P • predominant ( > 75X) low 5-10 0.2-0.3
D - dominant (50-75X) medium 11-15 0.4-0.5
F - fair (25-49Z) high 16-25 0.6-1.0
M - minor (10-24X) very high ' >25 > 1.0
T - trace « I0Z)
8/ C a t i o n Exchange C a p a c i t y (column 24)

3/ Permeability (column 12)
This i s given f o r each s o i l l a y e r according t o the f o l l o w i n g
Three p e r m e a b i l i t y c l a s s e s a r e u s e d i n d i c a t i n g t h e rates c l a s s e s b a s e d on o i l l i e q u ï v a l e n t s p e r lOOg o f s o i l a s
t h a t w a t e r moves t h r o u g h t h e s o i l a s f o l l o w s : measured by t h e NH&0AC, pH 7 . 0 m e t h o d .
C l a s s Name cm/hr CEC
slow < 0.5 v e r y low < 5

moderate 0.5-16 low 5-16
rapid >16 medium 17-24
high 25-40
very high >40
T a b l e . 1 , Part 2
9/ Base Saturation (column 25)

4/ O r g a n i c M a t t e r Content Z O r g a n i c Carbon X 1 . 7 2 4 (ralumn 2 0 )
This is given for each soil layer according to the following
This i f given for each a o i l layer according to the classes based on the milliequivalents of exchangeable bases
following classes : divided by CEC.
C l a s s Name Z O.K. Class Name Z
v e r y low < 2.0 very low < 20

low 2.0-3.5 low 20-35
medium 3.6-5.0 medium 36-50
high 5.1-8.5 high 51-75
very high >8.5 very high >75
5/ 'Total Nitrogen (column 21) Classes and limits used for footnotes 4/ to 8/ follow
criteria established by the Centre for Soil Research, Bogor.
This is given for each soil layer according to the Criteria used in footnote 9/ has been slightly modified to
following classes : correspond to base saturation levels used to separate classes
in the USDA Soil Taxonomy.
C l a s s Naa«
.o
v e r y low < 0.10
low 0.10-0.20
mediua 0.21-0.50
high 0.51-0.75
very high > 0.75
101
Figure 3.
Table I. Main Characteristics of Landforms, Climate and S o i l s , Part 1.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Hap Classification of Soil Components

Major
Unit and Land of US 0 A P.P.T. FAO/Unesco
Symbol Parent Material Ha Z a. Uses Erosion Soil Taxonomy
( 1975 ) ( 1982 ) ( 1974 )
T 21 Dissected marine 250 10 20-60 Cropland, None L. 2,100cm Association of:

.clayey terrace flooded r i c e , 2. 10 months Typic Pelluderts,fine, Crumusol Pelik P e l l i c Vcrtisols
irrigated 3. 2 months - mixed,isohyperthermïc
4. 26oc
5. 29°C
6. 23°C
7. 1269 a.
Vertic Tropaquepts, Gleisol Vertik Eutric Cleysols
f i n e , mixed, nonacid,
isohyperthermic
Plinthic Tropaquepts, Gleisol Plintik Plintbic Cleysols-

fine, mixed, nonacid,
isohype rthermi c
T 31 Almost flat 500 20 5-20 Open grazing Slight sheet 1 . l,850nan Association of:
marine terrace. sparse grass erosion, few 2 . 9 months Typic Uscropepts.fine Kombi sol Eucrik Eutric d a b i sols
dry cover small r i l l s 3. 3 months loamy, mixed,
4. 26oc isohyperthermic
5. 29°C
6 23°C
7. 1272 b. Typic Dystropepts, Kanbisol Dist rik Dyscric Cambisols
coarse loamy,siliceous,
isohyperthermic
Aeric Tropaquepts.fine, Kambiaol Cleiik Gleytc Cambisols

loamy.mixed,nonacid,
isohyper the rode.
102
Table 1, Part 1. continued
8a. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. u. 15. 16. 17.

Propor- Field Characteristics by Soil Layer
tion
Limiting Layer
of G e o m o r p h i c Component Field
Layer Drainage Permeability and Colour Texture Structure
Map f
and Slope and Depth an. pH
Unit - D e p t h cm.
D Gently undulating None Moderately Slow 0-20/30 Dark grey,very Clayey Moderate strong 7.0-8.0
terrace, well dark grey blocky
2-8Z
10/30-100/150 Dark g r e y , v e r y Clayey Moderate s t r o n g 7.0-8.0

* dark grey • blocky and p r i s m a t i c
F A l m o s t f l a t b o t t o m s of Hone Poor Slow 0-10/15 Dark g r e y i s h Clayey Weak m o d e r a t e 7.0-8.0

g u l l i e s and s w a l e s , brown blocky
0-2X
10/15-125 Dark g r e y , d a r k Clayey Moderate blocky 7.0-8.0
g i e y i s h brown
mottled
T M a r g i n s of swales, None Somewhat Slow 0-15/20 Dark g r e y i s h Fine loamy Moderate blocky 6.0-7.0
0-2Z poor brown
15/20-80/100 Brow, greyish Clayey Moderate b l o c k y 5.5-6.5

brown
D F l a t , middle p a r t of None Well Moderate 0-10 Brown Coarse loamy Weak b l o c k y 5.5-6.0
terrace, 0-0.51
10-80/100 Reddish y e l l o w , Fine loamy Weak b l o c k y 5.5-6.0
s t r o n g brown
F Almost f l a t t o g e n t l y 30-50 Excessive Rapid 0-5/10 Brown t o dark Coarse loamy Weak b l o c k y 5.0-5.5
sloping northern grave 1 brevn
p a r t of t e r r a c e ,
0-2Z 5/10-30/50» Reddish brown C o a r s e loamy o v e r Weak b l o c k y 5.0-5.5
g r a v e l l y sand
H Almost f l a t con c a v e None Moderately Moderate 0-10/15 Dark g r e y i s h 1.0 any Weak b l o c k y 5.5-6.0
s w a l e s , 0-IX well brown
io/i5-eo/ioo Grey,greyish Fine loamy Moderate blocky 5.5-6.0

Brown
103
Figur« 4, K
Table l . Hain Characteristics of Landforms, Climate and S o i l s , Part 2.
18. ». 20. | 21. | 22. | 23. 24. | 25. 26. 27.

Soil Component Laboratc ry Analysis of Soil Layers
Hap Prop- S o i l Layer Organic Cation Base Free Alum-
U S D A Total Available
Unit ortion Texcural pH Matter K •Exchange Satur- Fe20, inium
S o i l Taxonomy ind Nicrogei P 2° '
Symbol Content 2°5 Capacity ation Saturatior
( 1975 ) Depch cm Class 7/ Z
Unit 4/ 5/ 6/ 8/ 9/ me
T 21 A s s o c i a t i o n of :
Typic P e l l u d e r t s D 0-20/30 Clay 7.2 Medium Low tow Medium Very h i g t Very high 1 . 0 - 2 . 0 2.0-5.0
20/30-100/150 Clay 7.5 Lou Low Very low Low Very h i g h Yery h i g h 1.0-2.0 2.0r5.0
Vertic Tropaquepts P 0-10/15 Clay 7.4 Lou Low Low Medium Very h i g h High 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0
10/15-125 Clay 7.4.-3.0 Low Very low Very low Low High High 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0
Plinthic Tropaquepts T 0-15/20 Clay loam 6.5 Low Low Very low Medium Medium Medium 2.0-3.0 5.0-10
15/20-60/100 Clay 5.6-6.0 V e r y low Ve r y low Very low Low Medium Medium. 2.0-3.0 5.0-10
T 31 A s s o c i a t i o n of :
Typic Ustropepts 0 0-10 Sandy loam 5.5 Low Low Medium High High High 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0
10-80/100 Sandy clay 5.6-6.0 Ve ry low Very low Low Medium High High 2.0-3.0 2.0-5.0
loam
Typic Dystropepts F 0-5/10 Sandy loam 5.0 Very low V e r y low Very low Medium Medium Low 1.0-2.0 5.0-10
5/10-30/501- S a n d y loam 5.4 Very low Very low Very low Medium Low Low 1.0-2.0 5.0-10
over sand
Aerie Tropaquepts M 0-10/15 Loam 5.3-6.0 Low Low Very low Medium Medium Low 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0
10/15-80/100 Clay loam 5.5 Very low Very low Very low Low Low Low 1.0-2.0 2.0-5.0
Table 1, Part 2. continued
28 29
Representative Other F e a t u r e s t h a t A f f e c t Use and Management
Profile
Field Laboratory
No. No.
RS 26 214412 Need p r o t e c t i o n from e r o s i o n on a h i g h p r i o r i t y b a s i s . Wedge shaped peds w i t h

s l i c k e n s i d e s on a l l f a c e s .
RS 27 214501 S l i c k e n s i d e s ' o n some ped f a c e s .
TK 4 213600 5-20% of s o i l mass at some depth i n the s u b s o i l i s red n o d u l e s of Plinthite.
DT 18 215111 Very compact when dry.
TK 11 214101
RS 10 213262 Flooded i n the r a i n y s e a s o n t o maximum depth of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30cm. Used as

water p o i n t s f o r c a t t l e g r a z i n g .
I
105
Figure 5.
EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE 2 - GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATINCS
Suitability f o r P r i m a r y Uses (columns 4 t o 16) Level of I n p u t s Required

Li - Low i n p u t , can g e n e r a l l y be b o r n e b y t h e l a n d o w n e r
S u i t a b i l i t y for each r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c r o p and t i m b e r s p e c i e s is Mi • m o d e r a t e i n p u t c a n b e b o r n e by t h e l a n d o w n e r w i t h
expressed under three headings : credit facilities
Hi - h i g h i n p u t , r e q u i r e s g o v e r n m e n t funds o r l o n g t e r m
C " current or present s u i t a b i l i t y c r e d i t to the landowner.
I • improvement needs f o r development
P • p o t e n t i a l s u i t a b i l i t y a f t e r improvements An e x a m p l e of a t y p i c a l c o m b i n a t i o n symbol e n t e r e d u n d e r h e a d i n g
' I ' c o u l d be M/Mi i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p o s s i b l e i m p r o v e m e n t i s
C. C u r r e n t o r P r e s e n t S u i t a b i l i t y - e x p l a n a t i o n of symbols used ' m a n u r e / f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n ' which would r e q u i r e a ' m o d e r a t e
input l e v e l ' .
A p l h a n u m e r i c s y m b o l s a r e u s e d u n d e r h e a d i n g ' C ' . R e a d i n g from
l e f t Co r i g h t t h e f i r s t o n e o r two e n t r i e s w i l l b e S I , S 2 , S 3 I f a l i m i t a t i o n c a n n o t be c o r r e c t e d t h e n n o i m p r o v e m e n t s are
or N e x p r e s s i n g s u i t a b i l i t y o r d e r s or c l a s s e s as follows : possible. T h i s c o n d i t i o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e symbol
C l a s s SI H i g h l y S u i t a b l e : land having no s i g n i f i c a t l i m i t a t i o n s t o X - no improvement p o s s i b l e .
t h e s u s t a i n e d c u l t i v a t i o n of t h e c r o p o r
timber s p e c i e s , o r o n l y m i n o r l i m i t a t i o n s ?. Potential S u i t a b i l i t y After Improvements - explanation
t h a t w i l l not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e d u c e p r o -
d u c t i v i t y o r b e n e f i t s m d w i l l not r a i s e I t i s assumed t h a t t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f i m p r o v e m e n t s n e e d e d
i n p u t s above a n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l . for development e n t e r e d under heading ' I ' w i l l c o r r e c t t h e major
C l a s s S2 M o d e r a t e l y S u i t a b l e : l a n d h a v i n g L i m i t a t i o n s w h i c h i n l i m i t a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d by s u b c l a s s s y m b o l s e n t e r e d u n d e r h e a d i n g
aggregate are moderately severe for 'C'. T h i s w i l l r e s u l t i n a p o t e n t i a l s u i t a b i l i t y a t l e a s t one
s u s t a i n e d c u l t i v a t i o n of the crop c l a s s h i g h e r than the c u r r e n t or p r e s e n t s u i t a b i l i t y . I f no i m -
or timber s p e c i e s ; the l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v e m e n t s a r e p o s s i b l e t h e n t h e s u i t a b i l i t y c l a s s w i l l be u n -
w i l l r e d u c e p r o d u c t i v i t y or" b e n e f i t s changed.
and i n c r e a s e r e q u i r e d i n p u t s . The same c l a s s and o r d e r s y m b o l s a s d e s c r i b e d u n d e r h e a d i n g
d a s s S3Marginally S u i t a b l e : land h a v i n g l i m i t a t i o n s which i n ' C ' a r e u s e d , i . e . S I , S 2 , S3 o r N.
aggregate are severe for the s u s - No s u b c l a s s s y m b o l s a r e u s e d a s m a j o r l i m i t a t i o n s a r e a s -
\ t a i n e d c u l t i v a t i o n of t h e crop o r sumed t o h a v e b e e n c o r r e c t e d , o r r e m a i n u n c h a n g e d i f i m p r o v e -
t i m b e r s p e c i e s and w i l l s o r e d u c e ments are n o t ' p o s s i b l e .
p r o d u c t i v i t y or b e n e f i t s or increase
required inputs,chat this expendi- Potential for Project Development ( c o l u m n s 17 t o 27)
ture w i l l only be marginally j u s t i -
fied. T h r e e l e v e l s of p o t e n t i a l f o r p r o j e c t development a r e g i v e n as
O r d e r N Not S u i t a b l e : land h a v i n g l i m i t a t i o n which a r e follows :
e i t h e r permanently or p r e s e n t l y too
severe to allow the s u s t a i n e d c u l - Symbol
t i v a t i o n of t h e c r o p o r t i m b e r s p e - good
c i e s . Where l i m i t a t i o n s a r e c o r r e c t - poor or marginal
able with e x i s t i n g knowledge the
c o s t i n v o l v e d may be b e y o n d t h e r e -
s o u r c e s of an i n d i v i d u a l f a r m e r . Note t h a t e v a l u a t i o n s of p o t e n t i a l f o r P a s t u r e and F o r e s t r y
p r o j e c t development a r e n o t m a d e ' f o r s o i l components r a t e d
S m a l l c a s e l e t t e r s e n t e r e d a f t e r S 2 , S3 o r U i d e n t i f y m a j o r limit- a s h a v i n g good p o t e n t i a l f o r o t h e r p r i m a r y u s e s u n l e s s l o c a l
a t i o n s and d e t e r m i n e t h e s u i t a b i l i t y s u b c l a s s a s f o l l o w s : a u t h o r i t i e s h a v e iet h i g h p r i o r i t i e s f o r s u c h p r o j e c t s .
t - t e m p e r a t u r e regime l i m i t a t i o n s
w - w a t e r regime l i m i t a t i o n s
r - rooting condition limitations
f - nutrient retention limitations
n - nutrient availability limitations
x - toxicity limitations
s • terrain limitations.
I. I m p r o v e m e n t Needs f o r D e v e l o p m e n t - e x p l a n a t i o n of s y m b o l s used
A c o m b i n a t i o n «ymbol i s u s e d under h e a d i n g ' I * c o m p r i s i n g p o s -

s i b l e i m p r o v e m e n t s / l e v e l of i n p u t r e q u i r e d ( c o s t i n c l u s i v e of
labour)
P o s s i b l e Improvements
I - i r r i g a t i o n works
J * a r t i f i c i a l d r a i n a g e works
K - m e c h a n i c a l b r e a k - u p of r o o t r e s t r i c t i n g l a y e r
L • liming
M - manure/fertilizer application
N - reclamation of saline soils
P • sawah construction
Q - contour grass strips
R - moderate'standard bench terrace
T - high standard bench terrace
S • stone picking.
106
Figure 6.
Table 2. General Land Suitability and Potential Ratings
1. 2. 3. «• 5. | 6. 7 . | 8. 9. 10.
Suitability Cor Primary Uses

S o i l Cooponent
IUP Extent Root Crops and Legumes
C e r e a l a
Unit Wetland D r y l a n d ' Lowland Highland
Prop-
U S D A
ortie* Maize Cassava Soybean White P o t a t o P h a s e o l u s Bean
Sysfeol ( ha ) Rice Upland rice
Soil Taxonomy of
Hap
( 1975 )
Ihit C I P C I P C I P C 1 P C I P C I p C I P
I 21 250 Typic P e l l u d e r t s 0 S3ns MP/Hi S2 S3rfn X S3 S3m X S3 S3m X S3 S3m X S3 Nt X N S3r X S3

V e r t i c Tropaquepts F S3n M/Hi S2 !3rft X S3 S3m X S3 Nr J/Hi S3 S3m X S3 Ntr X N S3r X S3
P l i n t h i c Tropaquepti T Nn H/Mi S2 Nn M/Mi S2 Nn M/Mi S3 S3n )K/Hi S2 S 3 m JM/Hi S2 Nt X N S3r J/Hi S2
T 31 500 Typic Ustropepts D S3™ JH/Ui S2 S2m X S2 S3n H/Mi S2 S2m X S2 >2rfn X S2 Nt X N S2rf X S2
Typic Dystropepts F Nrn X N Nnr X N Nn X N »r K/Hi S3 Nr X N Ntr X N Nr X N
Aerie Tropaquepti M Nn M/Mi S2 Nn M/Mi S2 Nn M/Mi S2 S3n M/Hi S2 S3tn LM/Ki S2 Nt X N S3f L/Li SI
11. 12. 13. 1... _ 13. _. 16. .7. — 19. 1 2 0 . 21.| 2 2 . | 23.[ 2 3 . | 2 5 . | 26.| 27.
Potential for Project Development
E s t a t e and I n d u s t r i e Cro f' Forestry Cereals toot Crops/ e s t a t e /
Forestry
Lowland Highland Pasture Lowland Highland
j legumes Industrial
Crops Pas-
I
Wet- Dry-
(grasses)
Tectona Eucalyptus GO ture
Sugarcane Coconut Coffee land land Lou- High- Low- High- Low- High-
grandis grandis
land l a n d land land land land
C 1 P C I P C I P C I P C ,1 p C I P
S3rn X S3 S3r X S3 S3rf X S3 S3fn X S3 S2wrf X S2 S2wr( X S2 _ _ , • «. • + . + •• «.+

S3ro X S3 Nr J/Hi S2 S3rf X S3 S3£n X S3 Nr J/Hi S2 Nr J/Hi S2 - • • • •
'* • •• •
Nn H/Mi S2 S3rn JM/Hi S2 S3r J/Hi S2 S3n H/Mi S2 S3r . J / H i S2 S2wr I J / H i SI - * ++ ++ +• • + •• +•
S3n M/Mi SI S3w I/Hi S2 S2vr X- S2 S3w I/Hi S2 S2r X S2 S2w I/Hi SI • - + • + +• +• ». • «•
Km X N S3wm X S3 Nr X N SSwrn X S3 Nr X N S3r IK/Hi S2 - - - - •

- +
- •
- ••
Nn M/Hi S2 S3un WHi S2 ;2vrfn ILMHi SI S3un IH/Hi SI S2rf It/Hi SI S2wf IL/Hi SI * ++ • •
** ++ ••
**
"

Metode Kesesuaian Lahan Fao CSR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metode Kesesuaian Lahan Fao CSR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Metode Kesesuaian Lahan Fao CSR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scanned from original by ISRIC - World Soil Information, as ICSU

.World Data Centre for Soils. The purpose is to make a safe

RECONNAISSANCE LAND RESOURCE SURVEYS

Prepared for the Land Resources Evaluation with Emphasis

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE GOVERNMENT OF INDONESIA

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT P R O G R A M M E AND

The working group operated under the overall supervision of Dr. D.

Dr. D. Muljadi (supervisor/Director CSR) F.J. Dent (Team Leader)

EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 1, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

APPENDIX I LECS landform definitions and codes' 16

EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY

Root Crops and Legumes, Lowland potential 35

DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATING

2. LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND LAND QUALITIES 36

3. GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY RATINGS 41

2. HOW TO USE THE ATLAS 92

3. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ..." . 93

4. EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND FOOTNOTES USED IN TABLE 1,

5. TABLE 1, PART 1, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS,

6. TABLE 1, PART 2, MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDFORMS,

7. EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS USED IN TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND

8. TABLE 2, GENERAL LAND SUITABILITY AND POTENTIAL RATINGS . . 99

Figure 1. Example of Suitability Evaluation 84

Although the techniques involved in physically carrying out a reconnais-

will be used as a basis for the presentation of results generated by current

The manual consists of four parts.

PART 1 - is an explanation of entries to be made in Table 1 of the atlas,

PART 2 - is an explanation of entries to be made in Table 2 of the atlas,

PART 3 - describes manual procedures employed in determining general

It should be noted that the land evaluation procedures outlined in PART

An attractive alternative would be to utilize the land evaluation com-

Consequently, the hand processing techniques described in this manual

PART 4 - describes standard formats to be used in the atlas presentation

EXPLANATION OF ENTRIES TO BE MADE IN TABLE 1,

In Table 1, map units should be listed in alphabetical and

1/ Land Evaluation Computer System (LECS), System and Program

Two examples of landform and parent materials are :

If surveyors experience difficulty in recognizing specific land--

3. Extent is indicated by two entries. First is the number of nect-

4. Elevation is estimated as a range of meters above mean sea level.

Estimates of elevation of upland areas should be in units of

The following information should be entered in vertical se-

Soil Taxonomy, USDA Agr. Handbook 436, Washington D.C., 1975.

PPT, a national, Indonesian system of the Pusat Penelitian

FAO/TJNESCO, Soil Map of the World, Vol. 1, Legend, Paris 1974.

In the column 8a the estimated proportion of the map unit will

The slope of each component is recorded as a range in percent.

Examples of appropriate entries for item 9 are :

The kind of limiting layer should be indicated after its depth.

hardpan, claypan, dense massive layers, gravel, concretionary iron-

Examples of appropriate entries are:

Drainage is an indication of the wetness or dryness of a soil. Soil

The kind of soils in these drainage classes are described

Permeability may be estimated from observations of soil struc-

Because permeability estimates are difficult and not precise,

Examples of entries in this column are :

Definitions of soil layers are presented in appendix VI.

ENTRIES WILL BE MADE IN COLUMNS 14 THROUGH 27