The basic three-component classification system of soils of the world was published by V.M. Fridland in 1982, and its profile-genetic component was taken as a basis for the classification of soils of Russia (1997– 2004–2008). Unlike the former systems, in that of Fridland the priority is given to soil properties, and this conceptual background is transferred into the new Russian system. The substantive-genetic principles of both systems are implemented in diagnostic horizons and genetic properties; both systems have similar hierarchy of taxa, nomenclature, keys. Changes introduced in the classification of soils of Russia derive either of proposals forwarded in the course of its application, or of information accumulated. They concern the improvement of definitions and introduction of new diagnostic elements; however, the main principles are preserved in the existing and forthcoming versions.
New definitions of “soil carbon sequestration” and “soil carbon deposition” on a quantitative basis taking into account the period of the complete turnover of accumulated organic matter and its distribution over the soil profile are formulated. The carbon protection capacity of soils in the European part of Russia was determined according to Hassink (1997) and Six et al. (2002) based on data of the fine fractions content and the mineralogical composition of soils. The carbon saturation degree of soils and their carbon sequestration potential were calculated according to Meyer et al. (2017) and Wiesmeier et al. (2014). Gray forest and chestnut soils were classified as poorly saturated with organic carbon, meadow slitized and floodplain meadow soils were moderately saturated, and chernozems was saturated. It has been shown that the carbon sequestration potential of gray forest soil is about 30 t C ha-1, chestnut soil does not exceed 25 t C ha-1, meadow soil is 15–20 t C ha-1, and chernozem is less than 5 t C ha-1. Critical remarks to the 4 ppm initiativewere given.
The most common inaccuracies and errors in the application of statistical methods found in Russian publications on soil science are considered. When designating random variables and distribution parameters in Greek letters, it is necessary to designate those that refer to general populations, and Latin letters – to sampling ones. A detailed description of the experiment and what the replications relate to allows you to draw correct conclusions from the study. It is necessary to avoid pseudoreplication when results at closely located sampling points are considered as characteristics of soil variability over large distances. Expanding the list of descriptive statistics will allow you to use a specific study in meta-analysis. Calculating the confidence interval for the average using the Student's test at different significance levels expands the scope of possible values of the average, but this approach is justified only if the indicator does not differ too much from the normal distribution. When testing statistical hypotheses, it is necessary to pay attention not only to the level of significance, but also to the power of the criterion. The normality distribution hypothesis can be tested using various criteria. The success of applying the criterion depends not only on the validity of the null hypothesis (a truly normal distribution), but also on other reasons: on the sample size and on the alternatives for which the criterion tests the hypothesis. Any statement about the type of relationship between features based on the correlation coefficient (Pearson or Spearman) is meaningless without specifying the number of replicates, since it is the number of replicates that determines the significance of the difference between the correlation coefficient and zero. It is proposed that authors and reviewers pay closer attention to such errors.
ISSN 2312-4202 (Online)