| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Department of Environmental Sciences University of California–Riverside 2217 Geology Building Riverside, CA 92521-0424
john.letey{at}ucr.edu
Dear Editor:
The soil quality concept has stimulated more dialogue and controversy within the soil science community than any issue that I can recall. Issues which create debate can have a positive impact, if the participants in the discussion conduct themselves in a professional manner without creating personal antagonisms. Some soil physicists may recall years ago the controversy between Dr. Phil Low and Dr. Doral Kemper. I specifically remember one session at the ASA-CSSA-SSSA annual meetings where each vigorously presented and defended their point of view. A graduate student in attendance told me that he was amazed to hear the heated debate and yet see the two leave the meeting and have lunch together as if they were the best of friends, which indeed they were.
A symposium related to soil quality was held at the 1999 annual meetings of the Tri-Societies in Salt Lake City, UT. Five papers from that symposium were published in a special section of the January–February 2002 issue of Agronomy Journal. Two other papers presented at that symposium have been published in different journals.
Susan S. Andrews and Thomas B. Moorman wrote an introduction to the five symposium papers published in Agronomy Journal (Andrews and Moorman, 2002). Included in their introduction was a one-paragraph synopsis of each of the five papers. Reference to the two papers published in other journals was limited to three sentences for the paper by Veldkamp et al. (2001) and two sentences for the paper by Sojka and Upchurch (1999). My letter is motivated not by the length, but by the following two sentences chosen to refer to the Sojka and Upchurch paper: "Sojka and Upchurch (1999) offered a critique of soil quality efforts, including the thought that soil quality efforts attempt to compare all soils to a single (often midwestern) standard. Their views were substantially challenged by the rest of the papers presented at the meeting."
Sojka and Upchurch did state that the soil characteristics considered to contribute to the high level of soil quality by proponents of the concept tend to be associated with mollisols, which are most commonly located in the midwestern states. However, less than 20% of the paper was devoted to this topic, and it may have been among the least significant points made by the authors.
The second sentence that states that the views presented by Sojka and Upchurch were "substantially challenged" by the rest of the papers is the one that greatly disturbs me. First, it is not factually correct. The word challenge is defined as engaging in contest or calling into question. The symposium was not organized to promote a debate between the proponents and skeptics of the soil quality concept. Nor did I hear in the oral presentations or written papers by the other authors anyone specifically calling into question any of the points raised by Sojka and Upchurch. Second, this statement has the implied intent to degrade the validity of the contents of the Sojka and Upchurch paper. The symposium, by design, invited six speakers who accept the soil quality concept and one who calls the concept into question. To report under any fashion that the six had different positions than the one is grossly misleading.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not criticizing the decision on whom to invite. The symposium was not organized with the goal of having a balanced debate on the merits and demerits of the soil quality concept. Therefore, it was inappropriate to report on one paper as if that was the format for the symposium.
The debate on the soil quality concept can have either positive or negative impacts on the soil science profession. It will be positive if all participants in the debate, regardless of their position on the issue, conduct themselves in a professional, objective manner. Our profession is soil science; thus, it is imperative that discussions be based on scientific principles. The profession of soil science includes the whole spectrum of developing basic scientific principles to applying these scientific principles to the management of soil resources.
Received 19 Apr. 2002
REFERENCES
,bb USDA-ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory 2150 Pammel Drive Ames, IA 50011
Received for publication April 22, 2002.
Dear Editor:
We served as guest editors for the group of symposium papers published in the January–February 2002 issue of Agronomy Journal. The papers were part of a symposium sponsored by SSSA Division S-3 entitled, "Soil Quality as an Indicator of Sustainable Land Management: Demonstrated Successes and Continued Needs," held at the 1999 ASA-CSSA-SSSA annual meetings in Salt Lake City, UT. Our introduction to these papers (Andrews and Moorman, 2002) has generated criticism from Dr. John Letey of the University of California, Riverside, primarily for our treatment of one of the papers presented at the symposium but published elsewhere (Sojka and Upchurch, 1999).
As stated in our symposium introduction, "The goals of the symposium were to highlight results from research and extension projects where successful applications of soil quality concepts have been made and to elicit suggestions for further work to expand the role of soil quality in increasing the sustainability of agriculture." Initially, the symposium organizers (D.E. Stott, T.B. Moorman, S.S. Andrews, and M.E. Liebig) did not invite Dr. Sojka and Dr. Upchurch to participate. In fact, the Sojka–Upchurch article was published in Soil Science Society of America Journal well in advance of the symposium. However, Dr. Sojka and Dr. Upchurch petitioned the Division officers, asserting their strong desire to present a dissenting viewpoint toward the concept of soil quality. While the organizers did not feel the Sojka–Upchurch paper fit with the symposium theme, at the request of the Division officers, they granted permission for it to be presented. This critique of soil quality concepts was in opposition to the assumptions of the other papers, and that is what we intended to convey in our introduction to the published papers.
We would like to take this opportunity to respond to Dr. Letey's criticisms of our introduction. Dr. Letey seems to have two main grievances about our description. The first is a disagreement about what point in the Sojka–Upchurch paper should be highlighted. The second, and most strenuously argued, is an objection to our use of the word challenged in the sentence referring to Sojka and Upchurch's paper, "Their views were substantially challenged by the rest of the papers presented at the meeting."
During the editorial process, we contacted Dr. Sojka and Dr. Upchurch, and they agreed to our suggestion that their previously published article be cited in the introduction to the symposium papers. However, because their paper was not a part of this group of papers published in Agronomy Journal, it seemed appropriate to give their article less emphasis in the introduction. This was also the case for one other article, also published elsewhere (Veldkamp et al., 2001). In the interest of brevity, we mentioned only one of the major points of the Sojka–Upchurch article, specifically their argument that soil quality efforts had a regional or Mollisol-centric bias. There was no particular reason why this one point was singled out, except perhaps that it was a criticism we had heard elsewhere and thought it might be of interest to our readers. Dr. Letey stated that our phrase referring to this point only covered approximately 20% of the paper. While intended as a criticism of our effort, we feel that treating 20% of a paper's content with one phrase is very good coverage.
Dr. Letey is particularly critical of our statement that the Sojka–Upchurch viewpoint was challenged. Despite his assertions, we believe that the readers of both the Sojka–Upchurch paper and the symposium papers will find that they are not in agreement on many aspects and most certainly not in agreement with the philosophy or approach to soil quality. Further, during the discussion period at the symposium, more directed exchanges took place, primarily between Dr. Upchurch and Dr. Sojka and audience members (some of whom were paper coauthors). We did not state that the Sojka–Upchurch paper was overturned, disproved, or discredited, only challenged. In fact, the Sojka–Upchurch paper challenges earlier reports describing the soil quality concept (e.g., Karlen et al., 1997; Larson and Pierce, 1991). It is certainly possible to challenge a viewpoint without resorting to a formal, legalistic, point-by-point process. Indeed, challenge is the fuel of science.
Dr. Letey's letter acknowledges the controversy surrounding the concept and measurement of soil quality. While we agree with Dr. Letey that debate in science is constructive, we do not wish to argue the merits of the Sojka–Upchurch paper here. For those interested in such a debate, several of their points are discussed by Karlen et al. (2001). We understand a rebuttal to that paper is also forthcoming from Dr. Sojka and Dr. Upchurch.
Finally, Dr. Letey's letter implies that our introduction was somehow unprofessional by his references in both the introductory and concluding paragraphs, calling for "participants...to conduct themselves in a professional manner without creating personal antagonisms." We do not believe that our efforts were unprofessional. We certainly did not intend to create any personal antagonisms. More specifically, it was not our intent to unfairly denigrate the Sojka and Upchurch editorial (1999). If anything in our introduction is seen in that light by a majority of readers, we do apologize. We appreciate this opportunity to more fully elaborate on the intentions of our symposium and its introduction.
Received 22 Apr. 2002
NOTES
REFERENCES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| The SCI Journals | Crop Science | Vadose Zone Journal | |||
| Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education |
Soil Science Society of America Journal | ||||
| Journal of Plant Registrations | Journal of Environmental Quality |
The Plant Genome | |||
