University of California

Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources

[Link]

Publication 8335 / September 2008

A Revised Storie Index for Use

with Digital Soils Information
Anthony Toby O’Geen, Cooperative Extension Soil Resource Specialist, Department of Land,
Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Susan B. Southard, USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Davis; and Randal J. Southard, Professor of Soil Science,
Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis

The Storie Index is a widely known and accepted method of rating soils for land use and productivity in
California. This soil-based land classification system has been used in California for over 50 years. Storie
ratings can be found in published soil surveys throughout California. The latest version of the Storie Index was
published in 1978 (Storie 1978). Traditionally, Storie Index ratings have been hand generated by soil survey staff
and collaborators. These ratings can be highly subjective because no single person has generated Storie ratings
for the entire state, and because of the inherent biases associated with the design of the classification system.
We have developed a revised version of the Storie Index that generates ratings digitally from the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Soil Information System (NASIS). This revised Storie Index is
generated from a wide range of soil profile and landscape characteristics similar to those in the Storie 1978.
Since 2005, the NRCS has published Storie Index ratings generated by our revised Storie Index method,
which will reduce the subjectivity associated with this form of land classification. The revised model is well
correlated with statewide trends in hand-generated Storie ratings (O’Geen and Southard 2005). The purpose of
this publication is to document our approach in converting Storie 1978 into the revised Storie Index modeled
in NASIS. As such, this publication will serve as an official source of metadata for soil survey users, USDA
NRCS technical service providers, and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS).

Background
The Storie Index is a semiquantitative method of rating soils used mainly for irrigated agriculture based on
crop productivity data collected from major California soils in the 1920s and 1930s (Storie 1932; Reganold and
Singer 1979). The Storie Index assesses the productivity of a soil from the following four characteristics: Factor
A, the degree of soil profile development; Factor B, surface texture; Factor C, slope; and Factor X, other soil
and landscape conditions including the subfactors drainage, alkalinity, fertility, acidity, erosion, and microrelief.
A score ranging from 0 to 100% is determined for each factor, and the scores are then multiplied together to
generate an index rating (Storie 1978).
One shortcoming of hand-generated Storie ratings is that the scoring options for a particular factor or
subfactor have broad and somewhat arbitrary ranges, which creates a great potential for subjectivity among
scientists (O’Geen and Southard 2005). Our goal was to develop a model in NASIS to rapidly generate Storie
ratings without inherent scoring discrepancies associated with hand-generated ratings.
Storie Index rating = [(Factor A/100) × (Factor B/100) × (Factor C/100) × (Factor X/100)] × 100
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 2

Factor A: Soil Profile Group fertility status and acidity scores range from 100 to
Factor A is a rating of the character of the soil profile 60 and 95 to 80%, respectively (Storie 1978).
based on the degree of soil development. Soils are
placed in “profile groups” based on landform type Revised Storie Index
and genetic horizon development. Soil development
is defined as the presence of Bt horizons or cemented Model Development
layers. Bt horizons are subsurface layers that have an In our NASIS-based Storie Index, interpretation
increase in clay relative to the overlaying horizons. criteria were modeled based on soil properties
The increase is a result of the translocation of clay by traditionally incorporated into the hand-generated
percolating water from overlaying soil horizons. Storie Index (1978). The most closely related NASIS
data elements that pertained to the Storie 1978
For alluvial soils, the score is progressively
criteria were used. Our model uses discrete and
decreased with increasing degree of soil development,
fuzzy logic functions to obtain more precise scores
as indicated by the presence of Bt horizons and/or
for the factors associated with the index. Many of
the presence of root restrictive layers. For example,
these criteria were incorporated in our model, and
deep, homogeneous alluvial soils are rated 100%,
other factors were modified to adapt the index to
whereas soils with Bt horizons on older landscapes
a relational database. Adaptations that changed the
are rated lower. Soils with abrupt textural changes
Storie 1978 model are discussed in the applicable
(claypan), duripan, or petrocalcic horizons
sections below.
(hardpans) are rated lower still. For soils derived
from bedrock, scoring is based on depth to a lithic The USDA NRCS developed NASIS, a
(hard rock) or paralithic (soft rock) contact and the comprehensive software tool, to manage soil survey
degree of soil development in horizons overlying data in a relational database. The software supports
these layers (Storie 1932, 1978). both soil mapping and the dissemination of soil
survey information. An interpretation generator
Factor B: Surface Texture in NASIS allows custom interpretations to be
Factor B is based on surface texture. Loamy soils developed that can be applied to soils within a map
receive the highest ratings, and clay-rich and sandy unit. The interpretation output either can have
soils receive lower ratings. Rock fragment content is discrete, “crisp” limits (i.e., Boolean statements
used to modify the scores, which range from 100 to “true” or “false”) or can reflect the concept of
10%. The rating for Factor B can vary as much as 30% fractional truths (fuzzy membership) documenting
for a specific textural class depending on the volume the continuum among truth values between
of coarse fragments present (Storie 1932, 1978). “completely true” and “completely false.” Fuzzy logic
concepts have been found to be very pertinent to
Factor C: Slope the distribution of soil properties on the landscape
Factor C is based on steepness of slope. Nearly level and to resulting soil interpretations (Cox 1999).
to gently sloping conditions (0 to 8% slope) receive A system of interpretation generation using fuzzy
high scores, which range from 100 to 85%. Moderate logic was included within the database structure
to strongly sloping conditions (9 to 30% slopes) have during NASIS development in order to develop
scores ranging from 95 to 70%; slopes greater than more realistic soil interpretations. Our model uses
30% receive lower scores, ranging from 50 to 5% fuzzy rule sets to more accurately score Factors C
(Storie 1978). Users choose a score in a somewhat and X. Discrete numerical scores in combination
subjective manner based on these slope classes. with fuzzy logic functions were used for Factors A
Factor X: Drainage, Alkalinity, Fertility, and B. The structural organization of the NASIS
Acidity, Erosion, and Microrelief Storie model is summarized in figure 1. Gelisols,
Factor X focuses on dynamic properties, soil Histosols, Spodosols, Oxisols, and Andisols were
and landscape conditions that require special not rated because these soils were not addressed in
management considerations. Characteristics Storie 1978.
considered are drainage class, alkalinity, nutrient Factor A: Soil Profile Group
status, degree of acidity, wind and water erosion, and The number of soil profile groups for Factor A was
microrelief. Scoring for each characteristic in Factor changed from nine in Storie 1978 to a total of four
X is subjective. For example, drainage, erosion, and (see fig. 1). The Storie 1978 profile groups classify
microrelief scores range from 100 to 10%, while
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 3
Figure 1. Outline of the Storie Index applied to NASIS.

Start Fans, terraces, Groups I-III Groups IV Groups V

and flood plains Soil Orders: Entisols,
Soil with Soil with
Vertisols, Aridisols,
abrupt clay cemented layers:
Alfisols, Mollisols,
increase: “Pale” Petrocalcic Duripan
Ultisols, Inceptisols

Factor A
Landform
Soil profile group Scores determined by effective soil depth using fuzzy rule
(see figure 2 and table 1)

Groups VII-IX
Uplands Soil orders not rated:
Soil depth:
Fuzzy rule - Histosols, Gelisols, Spodosols,
“more is better” Oxisols, and Andisols
X

Factor B Crisp limits for surface Fuzzy rule - “less is better”

Surface texture textural class scores for surface coarse fragments
(see table 2) (see figure 3)

Factor C Fuzzy rule -

“less is better”
Slope
Slope 0-100%
(see figure 4)
X

Factor X Hydrology and

Physical properties X Chemistry and fertility
Dynamic properties

Growing season Flooding - EC - SAR - pH -

fuzzy rule Erosion - Drainage -
wetness - “less fuzzy rule fuzzy rule fuzzy rule
“less is better” crisp limits crisp limits
is better” “less is better” “less is better” “optimum”
(see figure 7 (see table 4) (see table 3)
(see figure 6) (see figure 5b) (see figure 5b) (see figure 5a)
and table 5)

soils based on their degree of development and the Groups I to III of Storie 1978 were combined
nature of the parent material. Our model differs from because they have a similar scoring range and reflect
that approach by combining profile groups where the subtle differences in soil development. These soils,
scoring range among groups was similar. Interpretive which are found on alluvial deposits, are scored based
criteria implied in Storie Profile Group Factor A on the depth to root-restricting layers such as shallow
relied on the current taxonomic placement (USDA phases, consolidated material, gravel lenses, and
NRCS 1999) of the soil in NASIS. Thus, in some stratified layers with texture contrasts. The scoring
instances, out-of-date classifications needed to be differences are identical in Groups I and II of Storie
considered (table 1). Variations on the profile group 1978 and are only slightly lower in Group III. For
fuzzy rating curves (slope and shape) that modify the these reasons they were combined in our model. The
effective rooting depth were devised to best match soils of Groups I to III were identified through their
the original scoring in Storie 1978 (figs. 2A–2D). classification. In general, all Entisols, Inceptisols,
The first step in the modeling process was to Vertisols, Aridisols, Alfisols, Mollisols, and Ultisols
separate soils derived from bedrock (Groups VI to without an abrupt increase in clay with depth or a
IX) from those forming in alluvium (Groups I to V). cemented layer were included. A “more is better”
Landform type, a data field stored in NASIS, was used fuzzy rating was applied to these profiles in reference
for this initial classification. to depth to a restrictive layer. The curve reflects an
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 4

Table 1. Factor A, the designation of soil profile groups* through taxonomic data stored in NASIS

Storie 1978 Revised Taxonomic units queried Concept notes and

profile profile query rules
group group

I 1 Suborders: Fluvents, Aquents, Psamments, Orthents, Xererts, Torrerts, Usterts, Uderts Soils of recent alluvial deposits.
Query rules: Must not have
Great groups: Haplaquolls, Aquisalids, Calciaquerts, Dystraquerts, Epiaquerts
restrictive horizons and cannot
Endoaquerts, Natraquerts, Salaquerts
be on hillslopes or mountains.
Subgroups: Calcic Haplosalids, Gypsic Haplosalids, Typic Haplosalids

II 1 Suborders: Arents, Cambids Young soils on alluvial

deposits. Query rules: Cannot
Great groups: Haploxerolls, Haplustolls, Hapludolls, Vermustolls, Calciustolls,
be on hillslopes or mountains.
Haprendolls, Calciudolls, Vermudolls, Calciaquolls, Calcigypsids, Haplogypsids,
Outdated taxa included if updates
Haplocalcids, Sulfaquepts, Vermaquepts, Endoaquepts, Epiaquepts, Humaquepts,
were not performed in NASIS.
Sulfudepts, Eutrudepts, Dystrudepts, Calciustepts, Dystrustepts, Haplustepts,
Presence of abrupt textural
Calcixerepts, Haploxerepts
change included for stratified
Outdated taxa: Xerumbrepts and Xerochrepts soils and gravelly subsoils.

III 1 Great groups: Argigypsids, Natrigypsids, Natrargids, Gypsiargids, Calciargids, Moderately well-developed soils
Haplargids, Vermaqualfs, Epiaqualfs, Endoaqualfs, Glossaqualfs, Kandiaqualfs, formed in older alluvial deposits.
Natraqualfs, Hapudalfs, Kandiudalfs, Kanhapludalfs, Natrudalfs, Haplustalfs, Rhodustalfs, Query rules: Cannot be on
Natrustalfs,Natrixeralfs, Rhodoxeralfs, Haploxeralfs, Argialbolls, Natralbolls, Natraquolls, hillslopes or mountains. Presence
Argiaquolls, Natrudolls, Argiudolls, Natrustolls, Argiustolls, Natrixerolls, Argixerolls, of abrupt textural change
Kandiaquults, Kanhaplaquults, Umbraquults, Endoaquults, Epiaquults, Kandihumults, included for stratified soils and
Kanhaplohumults, Haplohumults, Kandiudults, Kanhapludults, Hapludults, Rhodudults, gravelly subsoils.
Kandiustults, Kanhapustults, Rhodustults, Haplustults, Haploxerults; also includes all
“pale” great groups and Albaqualfs and Albaquults that do not have an abrupt clay
increase with depth, but may have a thick argillic

IV 2 Great groups: All “pale” great groups of Aridisols, Mollisols and Alfisols, and Strongly developed soils formed
Albaqualfs and Albaquults that also have abrupt clay increase with depth in old alluvial deposits. Query
rules: Cannot be on hillslopes or
mountains.

V 3 Suborder: Durids Soils with hardpans formed

in old alluvial deposits. Query
Great groups: Petro, Dur, Fragi, Petra, Plinth
rules: Cannot be on hillslopes
Subgroups: Duric Haplosalids, Petrogypsic Haplosalids or mountains. Fuzzy rule depth
to restrictive horizon used to
Other: Calciudolls that have a petrocalcic horizon
generate score.

VI 2 Not included Group VI was dropped because

of its similarity to Group IV.

VII-IX 4 All colluvial and residual soils formed on mountains and hillslopes Groups VII to IX were combined
based on soil depth in Storie
1978 to bedrock or consolidated
material. Soils on upland areas.
Fuzzy rule depth to lithic or
paralithic contact used to
generate score.

Note: *Landform type, a field stored in NASIS, was first used to separate alluvial soils (Groups I to V) from upland soils (Groups VI to IX). Soil Taxonomy (USDA NRCS 1999) was used
to place the soil in one of four new groups. Histosols (peat soils), Gelisols (soils with permafrost), Oxisols (highly weathered tropical soils), Andisols (volcanic soils), and Spodosols (cool
humid forest soils) were not rated.
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 5

Figure 2. Fuzzy logic rating functions “more is better” to define the effective soil depth in Factor A, soil profile group. A: A rating curve for
Profile Groups I–III. B: A rating curve for Profile Group IV describing the depth to an abrupt texture change. C: A rating curve for Profile
Group V depth to a cemented pan. D: A rating curve for Profile Groups VII–IX describing the depth to bedrock.

100 A 100 B

75 75
Score

Score
50 50

25 25

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Effective Rooting Depth (cm) Depth to Abrupt Texture Change (cm)

100 100
C D

75 75
Score

Score
50 50

25 25

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Depth to Cemented Pan (cm) Depth to Bedrock (cm)

optimal effective rooting depth where soil thicknesses on the exact depth (the representative value for depth
that exceed 100 centimeters received a maximum score in NASIS) to the restrictive horizon (see fig. 2B).
of 100 (see table 1 and fig. 2A). Scores were reduced This results in a much lower Factor A rating for the
based on depth to root-restrictive layers mentioned Palexeralf (~35) based on the thickness of soil above
above, which are flagged in NASIS. the clay-rich layer.
The original concept of Profile Group IV in The original concept of Group V was
Storie 1978 was maintained in our model. Soils in this maintained in our model. Soils in this group are
group are found on older plains and terraces and have found on older fans and terraces and have dense,
dense, clay-rich subsoils that restrict the movement cemented subsoils that restrict the movement
of water and roots. Soils in this group were identified of water and roots. All soils with the formative
in NASIS based on Soil Taxonomy (USDA NRCS elements Duri, Petro, Fragi, Petra, and Plinth that
1999). All soils with the formative element “pale” appear at the great group level were included. In
at the great group level were included. In addition, addition, all Durids classified at the suborder level
Albaqualfs and Albaquults were included. The upper and Duric or Petrogypsic at the subgroup level were
limit of the scoring range for Profile Group IV in included. The upper limit of the scoring range for
Storie 1978 was initially assigned, then modified by Profile Group V in Storie 1978 was initially assigned.
effective soil depth. For example, a Palexeralf (a soil A fuzzy logic rule “more is better,” in reference to
with a claypan) with depth to a claypan of less than 1 depth to the cemented pan, was then used to revise
foot would initially receive a score of 85. A fuzzy logic the upper limit of the score based on the exact depth
rule “more is better” in reference to depth to claypan (the representative value for depth in NASIS) to the
was used to revise the upper limit of the score based restrictive horizon (see fig. 2C).
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 6

Formative elements of restrictive horizons are

Table 2. “Crisp” rating scores for Factor B, surface horizon textural class not used at the great group level in Soil Taxonomy
(1999) where the upper boundary of the layer is
Surface textural class Rating
greater than 1 meter below the surface. In such cases,
very fine sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, silt, silt loam 100 the depth to these layers is populated in NASIS as a
component restriction in the database. A “flag” was
loamy very fine sand, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, placed in the model so that when the component
95
calcareous silty clay loam, clay loam
restriction attribute is populated the soil is placed in
coarse sandy loam, loamy fine sand, noncalcareous silty
90 its appropriate profile group and scored accordingly.
clay loam, clay loam
Group VI in Storie 1978 was dropped because
loamy sand, very fine sand 80 of its similarity in concept and scoring to that of
Group IV.
fine sand, loamy coarse sand, sandy clay 65
Groups VII to IX in Storie 1978 were
combined because they have a similar scoring range
sand, silty clay 60
based on rooting depth and because the lithology
clay 50
of bedrock is not always populated in NASIS. This
group reflects soils with residuum and colluvium as
coarse sand 30 the parent material. The fuzzy logic rule “more is
better,” in reference to depth to lithic or paralithic
contact, was used to modify the score based on the
Figure 3. “Less is better” fuzzy rating curve for Factor B, surface rock rooting depth (see table 1 and fig. 2D).
fragment content. Straight line segments represent three classes of rock
fragment volume percent populated in NASIS: 0215, 15235 and $ 35. Factor B: Surface Texture
Crisp values were assigned for surface horizon
100
textural classes according to Storie 1978 (table 2).
The following textures were not listed in Storie 1978:
75
very fine sandy loam, sandy clay, loamy coarse sand,
loamy fine sand, loamy very fine sand, and silt.
Score

50 These missing textural classes were assigned ratings

in our model (see table 2). At the present time, the
25 NASIS model does not rank organic horizons.
All textural class ratings were modified based
0 on rock fragment content using the general fuzzy
0 20 40 60 80 100 logic rule “less is better” (fig. 3). The slope of line
Surface Rock Fragment >2mm (volume %) segments differed based on three coarse fragment
volume classes: less than 15%, 15 to 35%, and greater
Figure 4. “Less is better” fuzzy rating curve for Factor C, slope. Most soil than or equal to 35%. The fuzzy score for rock
scientists express slope gradient as a percent, the difference in elevation fragment content was then used to weight the surface
between two points as a percentage of the distance between those soil textural class score for Factor B. For example, a
points. Slopes of 100% are equivalent to a 45° slope angle.
silt loam with 5% rock fragments received a score of
100 100%, while a very gravelly silt loam with 40% rock
fragments received a score of approximately 60%,
75
that is, it was weighted proportionally to the volume
of coarse fragments present.
Score

50 Factor C: Slope
The scoring threshold values for slope classes
25 established in Storie 1978 were used to append the
fuzzy logic rule “less is better” to produce a unique
0 score for any representative value of slope stored in
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 NASIS (fig. 4). This function reduced the subjectivity
Slope (%) associated with choosing a score from the range of
scores within each factor. For example, Storie 1978
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 7

Factor C (slope) has slope categories with scores that

Figure 5A. “Optimal” fuzzy rating curve for Factor X, pH, in the range from 100% (“nearly level”) to 5% (“very steep”).
surface layer. Optimal values are between pH 5.5 and 8.5. Only
Figure 4 is an example of the fuzzy logic function
extremes in pH resulted in lower scores.
used to assign a unique score for the representative
slope value of a soil map unit stored in NASIS.
100
Factor X: Dynamic Properties
75 Data elements stored in NASIS that pertain to Factor
X (renamed “Dynamic Properties” in our model)
were combined into two groups: chemical and
Score

50
fertility properties (Xcf ); and hydrologic and physical
conditions (Xhp).
25
Soil chemical and fertility limitations were
established for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). Hydrologic and
pH physical conditions were assessed using drainage
class, flooding frequency, flooding duration during
Figure 5B. “Optimal: less is better” fuzzy rating curve for Factor X,
the growing season, saturated conditions during
surface soil sodium adsorption ratio. Scores become lower when the growing season, and erosion class. The Factor
SAR values exceed 7. X score was calculated as the product of the lowest
score in each subfactor group (Xcf and Xhp). Thus,
100 in our model, only the two most limiting dynamic
properties are used to calculate Factor X.
75 Xcf 3 Xhp 5 Factor X

where:
Score

50
Xcf is the lowest chemical and fertility subfactor score
25
Xhp is the lowest hydrologic and physical
condition subfactor score
0
0 25 50 75 100
The chemical conditions of the revised Factor X
SAR
differ slightly from Storie 1978, which used somewhat
arbitrary classes for alkalinity, fertility level, and
Figure 5C. “Optimal: less is better” fuzzy rating curve for Factor X, acidity. In order to obtain more quantitative indices
surface soil electrical conductivity (EC). Scores become lower when for chemical conditions in soil, thresholds in toxicity
EC values exceed 1.0.
or osmotic effects were established for electrical
conductivity (EC) and pH to reflect conditions that
100 adversely affect plant growth, as well as for sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR) to reflect conditions that
75 affect soil dispersion and water movement. Soils
receive ratings of 100% until suboptimal levels are
encountered. Fuzzy rule sets were implemented in
Score

50
NASIS to model the magnitude of the impairment.
25 For example, an optimal curve was used to score pH
through a trapezoidal pH optimal curve reflecting
extremes in alkalinity and acidity. Scores of 100% were
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 given to pH values ranging from 5.5 to 8.5 (fig. 5a). A
EC ds m-1 “less is better” curve was used to score SAR and EC.
Scores begin to decrease with SAR values that exceed
7. Soil Taxonomy (1999) uses SAR greater than or equal
to 13 to indicate Na-affected soils, but other research
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 8

has shown that soil water movement can be affected

Table 3. Subfactor scoring for Factor X, drainage class by Na dispersion at SAR as low as 5 (Shainberg et al.
Drainage class Score 1981). Scores begin to decrease when EC is greater
than 1 and then decrease sharply when the threshold
excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained 85
for saline soils (EC $ 4 dSm-1) is surpassed (Regional
well drained 100 Salinity Laboratory Staff 1954) (figs. 5B and 5C).
Crisp scores were assigned to certain soil
moderately well drained 90
physical properties because many are interpretations
somewhat poorly drained 70 reported as classes rather than measured continuous
poorly drained and very poorly drained 50 variables. Scores for drainage class and erosion class
were derived using crisp values (tables 3 and 4).
Scores for a particular erosion class were higher for
Table 4. Subfactor scores for Factor X, erosion class uplands because slope is a component of the erosion
class. Also, because slope was already considered
Erosion class Lowland scores Upland scores
in Factor C, these scores were adjusted to avoid
0 100 100 penalizing the site twice for the same condition.
1 80 95 Uplands versus lowlands were identified in NASIS
2 60 85 based on landform type and scored separately.
3 40 75 Saturated soils, flooding frequency, and flood
4 20 65 duration adversely affect plant growth when present
Note: Erosion ratings were different for uplands versus lowlands because slope is
during growing season. The length of the growing
a dominant variable impacting erosion class ratings in uplands. season was determined from the soil temperature
regime. Soils with cryic, pergelic, or isofrigid
temperature regimes were given the shortest growing
season, July and August. Soils with frigid or mesic
temperature regimes were given a growing a season
Figure 6. “Optimal: more is better” fuzzy rating curve for Factor X,
depth to saturation during the growing season. from May to September, while thermic temperature
regimes were given a growing season from March to
October. Isomesic and hyperthermic regimes were
100 given growing seasons that extended 11 months
of the year, from February through December.
75 Isothermic and isohyperthermic temperature
regimes had year-round growing seasons.
The minimum depth to saturated conditions
Score

50
encountered during the growing season was derived
from the fuzzy logic curve “more is better” (fig. 6).
25
Flooding (duration and frequency) was also assessed
according to these defined growing seasons.
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 Soil survey interpretations of flooding
Depth to Saturation (cm) frequency class and flooding duration class
were used to describe the impact of flood events
that occur during the growing season. Flooding
frequency is an estimate of the number of flood
events that occur in a month. Flooding duration is
the length of time flood waters reside on a particular
site. Scores were established for flooding duration
and frequency classes that are reported in NASIS
(table 5). The scores for a particular flooding
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 9

duration class and flooding frequency class were

Table 5. Subfactor scores for Factor X, flooding frequency* and duration then multiplied to get a flooding frequency and
during the growing season duration factor for the growing season. A linear
Flooding Flooding relationship was used to devise a score for this
Score Score
frequency class duration class subfactor (fig. 7).
none 100 none 100
very rare 100 extremely brief 100 Advantages of the Modeled
rare 90 very brief 100 Storie Index Approach
occasional 85 brief 95 The revised Storie Index represents a significant
frequent 70 long 85 improvement on the 1978 classification system.
very frequent 60 very long 75 This NASIS-derived index is a rapid, unbiased,
and accurate technique for generating potential
Note: Flooding frequency and duration classes are defined in the National Soil Survey
Handbook (USDA NRCS 2007). land productivity ratings for soil survey areas. It is
capable of generating hundreds of Storie ratings in
seconds for SSURGO II datasets.
Figure 7. Linear rating curve for flooding interaction, which was calculated The NASIS model is a data-driven tool that
using the flooding frequency and flooding duration class scores from table 5 as
reduces the subjectivity of the hand-generated Storie
follows: flooding interaction 5 (frequency class/100) 3 (duration class/100).
Index and improves the reliability of these ratings,
100 which may guide land use policy for the future.
Our model deviated from Storie 1978 because
80 of the way some soil and landscape attributes
are stored in NASIS. Changes were also made to
60
improve the objectivity of scoring. For Factor A,
Score

40
profile groups were condensed from nine in Storie
1978 to four because the range in scores was similar
20 in some groups (Profile Groups I to III and VII to
IX). We also eliminated Profile Group VI in Storie
0 1978 because of its similarity to Group IV. Multiple
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
changes were made for Factor X, which we call the
Flooding Interaction
“Dynamic Factor.” Instead of using alkali conditions
as described in Storie 1978, our model used EC and
SAR values to document saline, sodic, and saline-
sodic conditions. An assessment of nutrient status
was not attempted in our model because fertility
can be a very dynamic property in agricultural
settings, depending on fertilization practices and
other variables. Flooding frequency and duration of
saturation during the growing season were added to
Factor X because of their importance in assessing
land capability. Microrelief was not used in our
model because it is often not populated in NASIS
(especially in older surveys) and because land
leveling has altered most agricultural land that once
contained microrelief.
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 10

This digital soil classification scheme was for Factor X could be considered to identify nutrient-
designed with the intent to be modified and improved. limiting conditions associated with soils derived from
The revised model could be modified in many serpentinite or other ultramafic rock.
ways. For example, we developed arbitrary fuzzy Future changes to the revised model can be
rating curves for Factor A based on the scoring range easily accommodated in NASIS. NASIS has been
from Storie 1978. As a result, the shape of the lines updated to include the revised Storie Index for all
and slopes are not similar among profile groups, soil survey areas in California that have SSURGO II
with no clear reason as to why they vary. A possible data. The 1978 Storie ratings, interpreted manually,
future modification would be to develop a more will also be preserved. All future soil surveys
quantitative index to describe the rating of profile will have a Storie Index generated only through
groups in Factor A based on changes in texture within the revised, NASIS-modeled Storie Index. This
the effective rooting zone. In addition, Histosols, information is stored in the USDA NRCS Soil Data
Gelisols, Spodosols, Oxisols, and Andisols could be Mart ([Link] and can
included in Factor A. Factor B could be modified also be retrieved from the USDA NRCS Web Soil
to lower the scores of soils having rock fragment Survey ([Link] or the
content greater than 50%. Similarly, Factor C could UC Davis California Soil Resource Lab’s Online Soil
be changed so that slopes greater than 45% are scored Survey ([Link]
even lower. Including the magnesic mineralogy class

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Professor Michael J. Singer for his technical assistance, and Dave Smith, California State
Soil Scientist, for his support.

REFERENCES
Cox, E. 1999. The fuzzy systems handbook. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press.
O’Geen, A. T., and S. B. Southard. 2005. A revised Storie Index modeled in NASIS. Soil Survey Horizons
46(3): 98–109.
Reganold, J. P., and M. J. Singer. 1979. Defining prime farmland by three land classification systems. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 34:172–176.
Regional Salinity Laboratory (U.S.). 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA
Agriculture Handbook No. 60. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; USDA ARS Web site,
[Link]
Shainberg, I., J. D. Rhodes, and R. J. Prather. 1981. Effect of low electrolyte concentration on clay dispersion
and hydraulic conductivity of a sodic soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 45:273–277.
Storie, R. 1932. An index for rating the agricultural values of soils. Bulletin 556. Berkeley: California
Agricultural Experiment Station.
———. 1978. Storie index soil rating. Oakland: University of California Division of Agricultural Sciences
Special Publication 3203.
USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service). 1999. Soil
taxonomy. 2nd ed. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 436. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
———. 2007. National soil survey handbook. Title 430-VI. USDA Web site,
[Link]
A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information ANR Publication 8335 11

For Further Information

To order or obtain ANR publications and other products, visit the ANR Communication Services online catalog
at [Link] or phone 1-800-994-8849. You can also place orders by mail or FAX, or request a
printed catalog of our products from

University of California includes membership, application for membership,

Agriculture and Natural Resources performance of service, application for service, or
Communication Services obligation for service in the uniformed services) in
6701 San Pablo Avenue, 2nd Floor any of its programs or activities.
Oakland, California 94608-1239
University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation
Telephone 1-800-994-8849
against any person in any of its programs or activities
510-642-2431
for making a complaint of discrimination or sexual
FAX 510-643-5470
harassment or for using or participating in the
E-mail: danrcs@[Link]
investigation or resolution process of any such
©2008 The Regents of the University of California complaint.
Agriculture and Natural Resources
University policy is intended to be consistent with the
All rights reserved.
provisions of applicable State and Federal laws.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination
in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or
policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
Equal Opportunity Director, University of California,
recording, or otherwise, without the written
Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin
permission of the publisher and the authors.
Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 987-0096.
Publication 8335 For information about ordering this publication,
ISBN-13: 978-1-60107-561-1 telephone 1-800-994-8849. For assistance in
downloading this publication, telephone
Page 1 photo by A.T. O’Green.
530-754-3927.
The University of California prohibits discrimination
An electronic copy of this publication can be found at
or harassment of any person on the basis of race,
the ANR Communication Services catalog Web site,
color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity,
[Link]
pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical
conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth),
physical or mental disability, medical condition
This publication has been anonymously
(cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry,
peer reviewed for technical accuracy by University of
marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizenship, or
California scientists and other qualified professionals.
service in the uniformed services (as defined by the
This review process was managed by the ANR
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Associate Editor for Land, Air, and Water Sciences.
Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services
xm-pr-9/08-SB/RW