Abstract
In recent decades, anthropogenic soils have become so ubiquitous that for some authors they should be taken as the “golden spike” signaling the start of the Anthropocene. Despite their prominence, leading soil taxonomies have resisted calls to recognize them as a proper kind of soil. Such omission has importantly limited the ways in which soil practitioners can account and deal with the sociopolitical aspects embedded in soil formation. Approaching the issue from a sociomaterial perspective, this paper studies the effects of such omission on the work of soil scientists working in northern Chile. By contrasting their usage of the USDA/NRCS soil typology with the realities found in the field, the work of strategic unknowing that such typologies achieve becomes evident. To challenge such situation, the paper concludes exploring the notion of emergent taxonomies, classifications that are sensitive to local configurations of materials, living beings and power out which soils emerge.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Under the label of Anthrosols, defining them as “soils that have been modified profoundly through human activities, such as addition of organic materials or household wastes, irrigation and cultivation” (FAO 2006, p. 71).
Over the last decades, mineral extraction has reached massive proportions again due to the high value of copper in international markets, a reactivation that has also left behind a considerable inheritance of anthropogenic transformations in the local soils, mainly in the form of heavy metals pollution.
As done, for example, by several indigenous categorizations of soil already in existence.
Abbreviations
- ICOMANTH:
-
International Committee on Anthropogenic Soils
- USDA:
-
United States Department of Agriculture
- FAO:
-
Food and Agriculture Organization
References
Anderson, W., and V. Adams. 2008. Pramoedya’s chickens: Postcolonial studies of technoscience. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Bowker, G., and S.L. Star. 2000. Sorting things out; Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bozkurt, D., R. Rondanelli, R. Garreaud, and A. Arriagada. 2016. Impact of Warmer Eastern Tropical Pacific SST on the March 2015 Atacama floods. Monthly Weather Review 144 (11): 4441–4460. https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0041.1.
Bull, A.T., J.A. Asenjo, M. Goodfellow, and B. Gómez-Silva. 2016. The Atacama Desert: Technical resources and the growing importance of novel microbial diversity. Annual Review of Microbiology 70 (1): 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-102215-095236.
Callejas, R., A. Wieczorek, and C. Kusch. 2004. La raíz del problema del bajo potencial productivo de los parrones de uva de mesa está en la raíz. CEVID Extensión 1 (2): 1–12.
Capra, G.F., A. Ganga, E. Grilli, S. Vacca, and A. Buondonno. 2015. A review on anthropogenic soils from a worldwide perspective. Journal of Soils and Sediments 15 (7): 1602–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1110-x.
Casanova, M. 2013. Historia de la educación en suelos en chile, una visión desde la Universidad de Chile. Valdivia, Chile: Simposio nacional de ciencia del suelo.
Casanova, M., O. Salazar, O. Seguel, and W. Luzio. 2013. The soils of Chile. New York: Springer.
Castro, C.P., M.V. Soto, R. Fernandez, M. Märker, and G. Rodolfi. 2009. Impacto en la geodinámica actual del valle de Nantoco, cuenca del río Copiapó, asociado a la reconversión productiva. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande 42: 81–99.
Centeno, M.A., and P. Silva. 1998. The politics of expertise in Latin America. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Certini, G., and R. Scalengue. 2011. Anthropogenic soils are the golden spikes for the Anthropocene. The Holocene 21 (8): 1269–1274.
Clark, B., and J.B. Foster. 2009. Ecological imperialism and the global metabolic rift: Unequal exchange and the guano/nitrates trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715209105144.
Connon, S.A., E.D. Lester, H.S. Shafaat, D.C. Obenhuber, and A. Ponce. 2007. Bacterial diversity in hyperarid Atacama Desert soils. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JG000311.
Crist, E. 2013. On the poverty of our nomenclature. Environmental Humanities 3: 129–147.
da Costa Marques, I. 2014. Ontological politics and Latin American local knowledges. In Beyond imported magic, ed. E. Medina, I.C. Marques, and C. Holmes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
de Laet, M. 2000. Patents, travel, space: Ethnographic encounters with objects in transit. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18: 149–168.
Ditzler, C.A., and R.J. Ahrens. 2006. Development of soil taxonomy in the United States of America. Eurasian Soil Science 39 (2): 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229306020049.
Engel-Di Mauro, S. 2014. Ecology, soils, and the left: An eco-social approach. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
FAO. 2006. World reference base for soil resources 2006. FAO.
Galbraith, J. 2012. Rationale for proposed changes to soil taxonomy concerning the International Committee for Anthropogenic soils. Soil Horizons 53 (2): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2136/sh2012-53-2-lgc.
Haraway, D. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–599.
Hartemink, A. 2016. Chapter two—The definition of soil since the early 1800s. In Advances in Agronomy, ed. D. Sparks, 73–126. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press.
ICOMANTH. 1995. Circular letter 1. National Soil Survey Center USDA.
ICOMANTH. 1997. Circular letter 2. National Soil Survey Center USDA.
Jorquera-Jaramillo, C. 2008. Agricultura y flora nativa en la Región de Atacama: ¿Es posible producir y conservar? In Libro rojo de la flora nativa y de los sitios prioritarios para su conservación: Región de Atacama, ed. F.A. Squeo, G. Arancio, and J.R. Gutiérrez, 305–322. La Serena, Chile: Ediciones Universidad de La Serena.
Kimble, J.M., R.J. Ahrens, and R.B. Bryant. 1998. Classification, correlation, and management of Antbropogenic soils, proceedings. National Soil Survey Center: USDA-NRCS.
Krzywoszynska, A. 2020. Nonhuman labor and the making of resources: Making soils a resource through microbial labor. Environmental Humanities 12 (1): 227–249.
Krzywoszynska, A., and G. Marchesi. 2020. Towards a relational materiality of soils. Introduction. Environmental Humanities 12 (1): 190–204.
Leguédois, S., and G, Séré, A. Auclerc, J. Cortet, H. Huot, S. Ouvrard, F. Watteau, C. Schwartz, and J. L. Morel. . 2016. Modelling pedogenesis of Technosols. Geoderma 262: 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.008.
Luzio, W., and M. Casanova, eds. 2006. Avances en el conocimiento de los suelos de Chile. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Universitaria.
Lyons, K. 2014. Soil science, development, and the “elusive nature” of Colombia’s Amazonian plains. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 19 (2): 212–236.
McGoey, L. 2012. Strategic unknowns: Towards a sociology of ignorance. Economy and Society 41 (1): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637330.
Moore, J. 2015. Capitalism in the web of life: Ecology and the accumulation of capital. London: Verso.
Morgan, M. 2010. Travelling facts. In How well do facts travel?, ed. P. Howlett and M. Morgan, 3–39. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Niemeyer, H., M. Cervellino, and G. Castillo. 1998. Culturas prehistóricas de Copiapó. Copiapó, Chile: Museo Regional de Atacama.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2014. Encountering bioinfrastructure: Ecological struggles and the sciences of soil. Social Epistemology 28 (1): 26–40.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2015. Making time for soil: Technoscientific futurity and the pace of care. Social Studies of Science 45 (5): 691–716.
Quesada, F. 2018. Desidia estatal y diplomacia filantrópica: El programa agrícola de la Fundación Rockefeller en Chile, 1940–1970. In Filantropía, ciencia y universidad: Nuevos aportes y análisis sociohistóricos sobre la diplomacia académica en América Latina, ed. J.J. Morales, 185–219. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones de la Universidad Católica Silva Henríquez.
Richter, D.D. 2020. Game changer in soil science. The Anthropocene in soil science and pedology. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 183 (1): 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201900320.
Roberts, R.C., and C. Diaz. 1959. Los grandes grupos de suelos de Chile, 7–36. XIX y XX: Agricultura Técnica.
Rodriguez Medina, L. 2013. Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. London, UK: Routledge.
Salazar, J.F., C. Granjou, M. Kearnes, A. Krzywoszynska, and M. Tironi. 2020. Thinking with soils: Material politics and social theory. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Selcer, P. 2015. Fabricating unity: The FAO-UNESCO soil map of the world. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 40: 174–201.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. United States Department of Agriculture.
Utrilla, S., and J. Veliz. 2010. Desarrollo de la viticultura y servicios para la producción en el valle de Copiapó (Chile). Revista de Geografia Norte Grande 46: 67–84.
Vessel, A.J. 1947. Soil association areas of Argentina and Chile. Soil Science Society of America Journal. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1947.036159950011000C0087x.
Warkentin, B.P. 2006. Footprints in the soil: People and ideas in soil history. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Waterton, C., R. Ellis, and B. Wynne. 2017. Barcoding nature: Shifting cultures of taxonomy in an age of biodiversity loss. London, UK: Routledge.
Acknowledgements
The authors are extremely grateful for the thoughtful comments and suggestions provided by Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro on an earlier draft of the paper. They were fundamental for reshaping our paper in its current form.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ureta, S., Otaegui, A. Seeing copiapósols: anthropogenic soils, strategic unknowing, and emergent taxonomies in northern Chile. Agric Hum Values 38, 881–892 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10191-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10191-4