Land Use Capability Handbook NZ
Land Use Capability Handbook NZ
Land Use Capability Handbook NZ
updating and producing the Land Use Capability Survey Handbook 3rd Edition:
- Ian Lynn (Landcare Research)
- Andrew Manderson (AgResearch)
- Mike Page (GNS Science)
- Garth Harmsworth (Landcare Research)
- Garth Eyles (formerly Hawke’s Bay Regional Council)
- Grant Douglas (AgResearch)
- Alec Mackay (AgResearch)
- Peter Newsome (Landcare Research)
PUBLISHERS: AgResearch Ltd, Hamilton; Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd, Lincoln;
Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd, Lower Hutt.
DISCLAIMER: All use of or reliance on the information in this 3rd edition of the Land Use
Capability Survey Handbook (the “Handbook”) and/or any accompanying information is at
the sole risk of the user. To the fullest extent permissible by law, the authors of the Handbook
and their respective science organisations (AgResearch Ltd, Landcare Research New Zealand
Ltd and Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd), are not responsible or liable in
any way in relation to any use of or reliance on this Handbook and/or any accompanying
information.
The contents of this Handbook and any accompanying information are provided without
warranties regarding correctness, accuracy, reliability, or otherwise in any respect, either ex-
press or implied. To the fullest extent permissible by law, the authors of the Handbook and
their respective science organisations (AgResearch Ltd, Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd
and Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd) disclaim all warranties, representations
or guarantees, express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of merchantability,
fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, quality or performance.
© AgResearch Ltd, Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd and Institute of Geological and Nu-
clear Sciences Ltd 2009. All rights reserved worldwide. No part of this publication may be
copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of AgResearch Ltd, Landcare Research New Zealand
Ltd and Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE: Lynn IH, Manderson AK, Page MJ, Harmsworth GR, Ey-
les GO, Douglas GB, Mackay AD, Newsome PJF 2009. Land Use Capability Survey Hand-
book – a New Zealand handbook for the classification of land 3rd ed. Hamilton, AgResearch;
Lincoln, Landcare Research; Lower Hutt, GNS Science. 163p.
ISBN 978-0-477-10091-5
Page 2
Preface
This edition of the handbook remains faithful to the concepts documented in the
second edition. However, a systematic review of each component of the classification
has been undertaken by a team of scientists, some involved with the preparation of the
New Zealand Land Resource Inventory, a country-wide database prepared between
1975 and 1998. This database provided national Land Use Capability assessment
standards. A panel of regional council land management advisors experienced in Land
Use Capability assessments has participated in the process through workshops and
reviews. The combination of science and application has ensured the classification
system remains operationally based, contains more quantitative rigour, and as a
consequence has ensured the system will remain relevant well into the future.
Garth Eyles
Page 3
CONTENTS
PREFACE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 7
1. BASIS OF THE LUC CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................................ 8
1.1 Categories of the LUC Classification ........................................................................................ 8
1.1.1 Land Use Capability Class ..................................................................................................... 9
1.1.2 Land Use Capability Subclass ............................................................................................. 10
1.1.3 Land Use Capability Unit .................................................................................................... 10
1.1.4 Land Use Capability Suite ................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Scale of mapping and classification ....................................................................................... 11
2. INVENTORY OF PHYSICAL FACTORS ......................................................................................... 12
2.1 Rock type .............................................................................................................................. 14
2.1.1 Assessing rock type ............................................................................................................ 16
2.2 Soil ............................................................................................................................... ........ 17
2.2.1 Published soil information .................................................................................................. 17
2.2.2 Soil classification and naming conventions ........................................................................ 18
2.2.3 Assessing unmapped soils .................................................................................................. 19
2.2.4 Recording soil codes ........................................................................................................... 20
2.3 Slope ............................................................................................................................... ...... 21
2.4 Erosion ............................................................................................................................... ... 22
2.4.1 Erosion types ...................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.2 Erosion symbol prefixes ...................................................................................................... 24
2.4.3 Erosion severity for SURFACE EROSION .............................................................................. 24
2.4.4 Erosion severity for MASS MOVEMENT EROSION ............................................................... 28
2.4.5 Erosion severity for FLUVIAL EROSION ............................................................................... 35
2.4.6 Severity for DEPOSITION .................................................................................................... 40
2.4.7 Additional Information ....................................................................................................... 42
2.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................ 45
2.6 Climate ............................................................................................................................... ... 47
3. THE LAND USE CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION ............................................................................. 48
3.1 Land Use Capability Classification definitions ....................................................................... 49
3.1.1 Land Use Capability Class ................................................................................................... 49
3.2 Description of Land Use Capability Classes 1 to 8 ................................................................. 51
3.2.1 LUC Class 1 ......................................................................................................................... 51
3.2.2 LUC Class 2 ......................................................................................................................... 53
3.2.3 LUC Class 3 ......................................................................................................................... 56
3.2.4 LUC Class 4 ......................................................................................................................... 58
3.2.5 LUC Class 5 ......................................................................................................................... 62
3.2.6 LUC Class 6 ......................................................................................................................... 66
3.2.7 LUC Class 7 ......................................................................................................................... 70
3.2.8 LUC Class 8 ......................................................................................................................... 73
3.2.9 Classification checklist ........................................................................................................ 76
3.3 Description of Land Use Capability Subclasses ...................................................................... 76
3.3.1 Erodibility limitation ........................................................................................................... 76
3.3.2 Wetness limitation ............................................................................................................. 78
3.3.3 Soil limitation ..................................................................................................................... 80
Page 4
Contents
3.3.4 Climate limitation............................................................................................................... 82
3.3.5 Discussion on subclasses .................................................................................................... 84
3.4 Description of Land Use Capability Units .............................................................................. 87
3.5 Description of Land Use Capability Suites ............................................................................. 88
3.6 Explanatory notes ................................................................................................................. 89
3.6.1 Cultivation for cropping – ‘Arable Use’ ............................................................................... 89
4. SURVEY GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................ 90
4.1 Guidelines for farm LRI/LUC surveys ..................................................................................... 90
4.1.1 Step 1: Project start ............................................................................................................ 90
4.1.2 Step 2: Preparation ............................................................................................................ 92
4.1.3 Step 3: Field survey............................................................................................................. 95
4.1.4 Step 4: Office work ............................................................................................................. 96
4.1.5 Step 5: Farm applications ................................................................................................... 98
4.2 Guidelines for extensive LRI/LUC surveys ............................................................................. 99
4.2.1 Preliminary investigation ................................................................................................... 99
4.2.2 Inventory and mapping (survey) ....................................................................................... 100
4.2.3 Synthesis (write‐up).......................................................................................................... 102
4.2.4 Implementation / Evaluation ........................................................................................... 103
4.3 Translation from inventory to Land Use Capability ............................................................. 104
4.3.1 Using an existing regional classification ........................................................................... 104
4.3.2 If no regional classification is available ............................................................................ 110
4.4 Modifying regional LUC Units for farm surveys ................................................................... 112
4.4.1 Splitting regional LUC Units for management .................................................................. 112
4.4.2 Deconstructing regional LUC Units ................................................................................... 112
4.5 Regional LUC correlations ................................................................................................... 113
4.5.1 North and South correlations ........................................................................................... 113
4.5.2 Compatibility with regional administration boundaries ................................................... 113
4.6 Productivity indices ............................................................................................................. 114
4.6.1 Stock carrying capacity indices ......................................................................................... 114
4.6.2 Pinus radiata site index .................................................................................................... 115
5. APPLICATION EXAMPLES ....................................................................................................... 117
5.1 Regional planning for targeted land use change ................................................................. 117
5.2 LUC mapping for planning at the catchment level .............................................................. 118
5.3 Farm planning ..................................................................................................................... 121
5.3.1 Farm plan example for flat to undulating terrain ............................................................. 121
5.3.2 Farm plan example for soft‐rock hill country .................................................................... 124
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 132
PHOTO CREDITS ......................................................................................................................................... 132
INDEX OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PLATES ................................................................................................... 133
APPENDIX 1: SLOPE CLASSIFICATIONS ...................................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX 2: EROSION TYPE DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................. 138
APPENDIX 3: NZLRI VEGETATION DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................................................... 142
APPENDIX 4: AREAS OF LUC IN NEW ZEALAND ......................................................................................... 147
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 148
FURTHER READING .................................................................................................................................... 152
GLOSSARY OF TERMS................................................................................................................................. 153
Page 5
Page 6
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
This handbook introduces the reader to the methods and standards of the Land Use
Capability (LUC) system. This system has been used in New Zealand to help
achieve sustainable land development and management on individual farms, in
whole catchments, and at the district, region, and the national level since 1952.
The LUC system has two key components. Firstly, Land Resource Inventory
(LRI) is compiled as an assessment of physical factors considered to be critical for
long-term land use and management. Secondly, the inventory is used for LUC
Classification, whereby land is categorised into eight classes according to its long-
term capability to sustain one or more productive uses.
National and international experience has shown that the classification of land
according to its capability for long-term production, based on its physical
limitations and site-specific management needs, provides the most reliable basis on
which to promote sustainable land management.
The Handbook is divided into five sections. Section 1 provides a concise overview
of the LUC Classification. Section 2 outlines the standards and methods for
preparing LRI, including significant updates for the five key factors of rock type,
soil, slope, erosion and vegetation cover. How to apply the LUC Classification is
detailed in Section 3, along with improved discussion on LUC classes, subclasses,
units and suites. Existing practitioners should take careful note of the revised LUC
class definitions. Section 4 covers survey procedures, while the final section
provides farm, district and regional examples of LUC applications, to help
demonstrate the practicality and utility of the system.
The importance of robust and objective evaluation of New Zealand’s land
resources in planning and the promotion of sustainable land management can be
emphasised in two important ways. Firstly, the value of New Zealand’s annual
agricultural and wood exports in 2007 totalled $13.45 billion and $2.25 billion
respectively (NZETS 2007). To maintain and increase this productivity requires
sustainable land management, the primary objective of the LUC system. Secondly,
land management requires an assessment technique that will provide planners,
policy developers, and regulatory teams with confidence that their land use and
management decisions are based on a transparent robust assessment and good
science, and one that is able to withstand close scrutiny through the legal system.
Plate 1: (opposite) Example distribution of Land Resource Inventory and Land Use
Capability units on the landscape – lower mid-Awatere Valley, Marlborough (IHL). See
page 132 for photo credits.
Page 7
1. BASIS OF THE LUC CLASSIFICATION
The Land Use Capability (LUC) Classification is defined as a systematic
arrangement of different kinds of land according to those properties that determine
its capacity for long-term sustained production. Capability is used in the sense of
suitability for productive use or uses after taking into account the physical
limitations of the land.
Productive capacity depends largely on the physical qualities of the land, soil and
the environment. These physical qualities are frequently far from ideal.
Differences between ideal and actual may be regarded as limitations imposed by
the physical qualities of the soil, and the environment. These limitations affect
productivity, the number and complexity of corrective practices needed, and the
intensity and manner of land use. Limitations include susceptibility to erosion,
steepness of slope, susceptibility to flooding, liability to wetness or drought,
salinity, depth of soil, soil texture, structure and nutrient supply and climate.
Assessment of land for long-term sustained production is based on an
interpretation of the physical information in a Land Resource Inventory (LRI),
which is compiled from a field assessment of rock types, soils, landform and
slopes, erosion types and severities, and vegetation cover. Land Resource
Inventory is supplemented with information on climate, flood risk, erosion history
and the effects of past practices.
Page 8
Section 1: BASIS
Figure 2: Increasing limitations to use and decreasing versatility of use from LUC Class 1
to LUC Class 8 (modified from SCRCC 1974). † Includes vegetable cropping.
LUC Classes 1 to 4 are suitable for arable cropping (including vegetable cropping),
horticultural (including vineyards and berry fields), pastoral grazing, tree crop or
production forestry use. Classes 5 to 7 are not suitable for arable cropping but are
suitable for pastoral grazing, tree crop or production forestry use, and in some
cases vineyards and berry fields. The limitations to use reach a maximum with
LUC Class 8. Class 8 land is unsuitable for grazing or production forestry, and is
best managed for catchment protection and/or conservation or biodiversity.
Page 9
1.1.2 Land Use Capability Subclass
The LUC Subclass is a subcategory of the LUC Class through which the main kind
of physical limitation or hazard to use is identified. Four limitations are
recognised:
‘e’ erodibility – where susceptibility to erosion is the dominant limitation.
‘w’ wetness – where a high water table, slow internal drainage, and/or flooding
constitutes the dominant limitation.
‘s’ soil – where the dominant limitation is within the rooting zone. This can be due
to shallow soil profiles, subsurface pans, stoniness, rock outcrops, low soil
water holding capacity, low fertility (where this is difficult to correct), salinity
or toxicity.
‘c’ climate – where the climate is the dominant limitation. This can be summer
drought, excessive rainfall, unseasonal or frequent frost and/or snow, and
exposure to strong winds or salt spray.
* The NZLRI (NWASCO 1975-79, 1979; NWASCA 1986a, b) is a spatial database and a
series of map worksheets that describes Land Resource Inventory and Land Use
Capability for New Zealand at regional scales (1:50,000 and 1:63,360).
Page 10
Section 1: BASIS
Table 1: Suggested mapping scales for LRI survey and LUC classification (after
Manderson & Palmer 2006).
Smallest area Corresponding scale* Common applications
of interest
10 m2 1:500 Horticulture, viticulture, localised riparian studies
0.1 ha 1:5,000 Horticulture, viticulture, arable, intensive pastoral
0.4 ha 1:10,000 Arable, pastoral
1 ha 1:15,000 Pastoral, catchment studies
5 ha 1: 35,000 Extensive pastoral, catchment studies, forestry surveys
10 ha 1:50,000 District and regional studies
* See Table 18 (Page 100) for scales common to large and extensive surveys.
Detailed scales are less suitable for regional mapping projects that often involve
extensive areas. In such cases a 1:50,000 scale is often more appropriate. This is
equivalent to a 10 ha ‘smallest area’, which is sufficient to capture major soils and
landform types.
Scale is also important when using LRI and LUC map information in Geographic
Information Systems (GIS). Such systems can readily rescale the information
beyond its original scale of collection. Significantly enlarging the scale can
produce unreliable and misleading results, or result in information that is at best
nonsense (Hewitt & Lilburne 2003; Manderson & Palmer 2006).
As a general rule, LRI and LUC information should not be significantly enlarged
beyond the scale at which it was originally collected.
Page 11
2. INVENTORY OF PHYSICAL FACTORS
An understanding of the physical nature of the landscape is a requirement for
sustainable land use and water management. However, no single parameter can be
used in isolation to adequately describe the limitations and potentials of land.
The LUC system uses Land Resource Inventory (LRI) as a basis for assessing a
minimum of five primary physical factors considered to be critical for long-term
sustainable land use. The five factors include:
1. Rock type
2. Soil
3. Slope angle
4. Erosion type and severity
5. Vegetation cover
These physical factors vary in their relative importance in different areas, but all
have some influence, either individually or in combination, on long-term land use
potential. By using these factors, together with an understanding of the climate
and the experience gained from past land use, the capability of the land for
permanent and sustained production can be assessed.
The five factors are mapped simultaneously within the limitations of scale using a
homogeneous map unit method (Eyles 1977). A new map unit is drawn whenever
one of the primary physical factors alters significantly, creating a series of
interlocking homogeneous areas. A certain level of variability is present within
every map unit. The ‘art’ of this form of appraisal lies in judging the degree of
variability that is acceptable. In making this judgement, the impact of this
variability on management and outcomes should be considered. For some
applications, especially when mapping at farm scales, additional factors like
aspect, elevation, and distance to watercourse may also be relevant and would be
recorded where appropriate.
Traditionally, LRI is recorded as a code or formula, together with the LUC
classification (Figure 3 and Plate 1).
Figure 3: (opposite) Coded Land Resource Inventory recorded as a ‘formula’, and the
accompanying Land Use Capability code (adapted from NWASCO 1979).
Page 12
Section 2: INVENTORY
Page 13
2.1 Rock type
Rock type has a major influence on slope, soil stability and natural fertility in New
Zealand’s hill and mountain lands. Cover deposits such as tephra and loess also
influence soil fertility and erosion susceptibility where they occur.
A rock type classification based on erosion susceptibility and physical
characteristics that are relevant to soil conservation and land use planning was
developed for the NZ Land Resource Inventory (Lynn & Crippen 1991), and
provides the standard for this handbook. The classification has four objectives:
1. To group rock types that have similar erosion susceptibilities and characteristics.
2. To concentrate on those rock types that directly influence land surface
morphology, and therefore land use.
3. To distinguish rock types that can be recognised and mapped by soil conservators,
land managers and earth scientists, with limited formal geological training.
4. To provide information on rock types that can be readily understood and applied
by planners and land managers.
Because of these objectives, the definition and use of some terms do not strictly
conform to standard geological usage. For example, because many different tephra
formations and their component members were considered to have similar erosion
characteristics, these were grouped into a manageable number of rock types. At
detailed mapping scales the component members may be mapped separately.
The NZLRI rock type classification was developed from separate North and South
Island classifications (Crippen & Eyles 1985; Lynn 1985) used in first edition
NZLRI mapping. This was later correlated into one classification for second
edition mapping (Table 2). Lynn & Crippen (1991) outline the standards and
provide detailed definitions for each rock type category.
Plate 2: Limestone rock type exhibiting prominent dip and scarp slopes, Weka Pass, North
Canterbury (IHL).
Page 14
Section 2: INVENTORY
Table 2: Rock type symbols, names and prefixes used in the NZLRI rock type classification.
Igneous rocks
1. Extremely weak to very weak igneous rocks
Ng Ngauruhoe tephra Kt Kaharoa and Taupo ashes
Rm Rotomahana mud Mo Ashes older than Taupo ash
Ta Tarawera tephra La Lahar deposits
Sc Scoria Vu Extremely weak altered volcanics
Tp Taupo and Kaharoa breccia and Ft Quaternary breccias older than Taupo
pumiceous alluvium breccia
Lp Pumiceous lapilli
2. Weak to extremely strong igneous rocks
Vo Lavas and welded ignimbrites In Ancient volcanics
Vb Indurated volcanic breccias Gn Plutonics
Tb Indurated fine-grained pyroclastics Um Ultramafics
Sedimentary rocks
1. Very loose to compact (very soft to stiff) sedimentary rocks
Pt Peat Cl Coarse slope deposits
Lo Loess Gl Glacial till
Wb Windblown sand Uf Unconsolidated clays and silts
Af Fine alluvium Us Unconsolidated sands and gravels
Gr Alluvial gravels
2. Very compact (very stiff) to weak sedimentary rocks
Mm Massive mudstone Sb Bedded sandstone
Mb Bedded mudstone Cw Weakly consolidated conglomerate
Mf Frittered mudstone Mx Sheared mixed lithologies
Me Bentonitic mudstone Ac Crushed argillite association of rocks
Sm Massive sandstone
3. Moderately strong to extremely strong sedimentary rocks
Ar Argillite Cg Conglomerate and breccia
Si Indurated sandstone Li Limestone
Gw Greywacke association of rocks
Metamorphic rocks
Sx Semi-schist Gs Gneiss
Sy Schist Ma Marble
Prefixes
p Rock type is present only in patches, or is of localised significance (e.g. pAf = patchy fine alluvium). Used for
alluvium, tephra and loess when coverage is between 20% to 75% of map polygon area (<20% is not
recorded; >75% is recorded as totally covered).
w Significant degree and depth of weathering such that the rock’s physical characteristics are notably different
from its unweathered characteristics (wGw = weathered greywacke).
c The rock type is crushed and sheared (e.g. cGw = crushed and sheared greywacke).
Combining symbols
/ Top rock overlying one base rock (e.g. Lo/Sm = loess over massive sandstone). The top rock is recorded
first, and a maximum of two symbols can be used in a single code.
+ Two or more rock types present (e.g. Af+Pt = fine alluvium and peat). The dominant rock type is recorded
first, and a maximum of two symbols can be used in a single code.
* a) Top rock overlying two base rocks. Used in conjunction with the ‘/’ symbol (e.g. Lo/Mb*Sb = loess
overlying both banded mudstone and sandstone).
b) Two top rocks overlying one base rock e.g. Af*Lo/Gr = fine alluvium and loess over alluvial gravels.
Page 15
2.1.1 Assessing rock type
Knowledge of the rock types and geology of the study area should firstly be gained
from available geological maps and the NZLRI. Stereoscopic interpretation of
aerial photographs can be used to tentatively relate landform and landscape
processes to the geology. These should be checked and complemented by field
observation. For farm-level mapping, rock types should always be identified in the
field.
The main sources of published rock type information include geological maps and
the NZLRI. Geological maps have been produced by the Institute of Geological
and Nuclear Sciences (www.gns.cri.nz), and its predecessor, the NZ Geological
Survey, in particular the Geological Map of New Zealand series, at various scales
(Table 3). Most are based on special classification systems (e.g. by geological age,
stratification, formations), and need to be interpreted into rock types.
The NZLRI database and published worksheets record rock type at scales of
1:50,000 and 1:63,360. These can be directly applicable to new LRI mapping at an
equivalent scale, or as a reference for rock types that are likely to be encountered
during more detailed survey.
Page 16
Section 2: INVENTORY
2.2 Soil
The soil factor is one of the more difficult inventory factors to assess and source
information. Much of New Zealand’s published soil information is patchy and
varies in age, scale and quality. Detailed surveys are generally restricted to the
productive lowlands (1:10,000 to 1:63,360 scales), while only reconnaissance maps
and general information are available for much of the hill and high country.
The ability to identify, describe and map soils can therefore be an important skill in
LRI assessment.
Page 17
2.2.2 Soil classification and naming conventions
New Zealand soil information is classified in terms of the old NZ Genetic
Classification (Taylor & Pohlen 1962, 1968) or the more recent NZ Soil
Classification (Hewitt 1998). General correlations are provided in Table 5.
Soil maps may also use the ‘regional soil series’ approach to grouping soils, where
the Series describes a local soil (e.g. Manawatu soils), the Soil Type differentiates
the soil by textural class (e.g. Manawatu fine sandy loam), and the Phase indicates
a distinctive characteristic like landscape position, wetness, depth, or stoniness
(e.g. Manawatu fine sandy loam, mottled phase).
Series and soil type names tend to find common usage amongst farmers and farm
advisors, possibly because they represent local and easy to recognise references.
However, the approach is not uniform throughout NZ, and should therefore be used
with caution. Officially the ‘regional soil series’ approach is now limited to two
components – Series and Phases – whereby the phase includes the textural class.
Page 18
Section 2: INVENTORY
Series and phases may be superseded by a new soil mapping initiative, S-map,
described as a revitalised effort in soil survey and soil database development
(Lilburne et al. 2004, 2006; Hewitt et al. 2006). S-map aims to produce a
consistent national soils database with a common national legend. The legend
seeks to rationalise the many existing soil series into ‘Families’ and ‘Siblings’.
Page 19
2.2.4 Recording soil codes
In recognition of past, present and emerging soil naming systems, three alternative
methods are recommended for recording the soil factor in LRI code.
1. Use codes from an existing published source, such as a local soil map
(Figure 4).
2. Use the NZ Soil Classification, ideally classifying soils down to the most
detailed soilform category (Figure 5).
3. Use S-map families and siblings when they become available (Figure 6).
It should also be noted that some surveyors use their own coding systems while in
the field, but later translate their codes for reporting purposes. This can be quicker
as much of the referencing and correlation work can be done in the office.
Where no soil exists, or where there is significant bare rock or stone pavement
present, the symbol BR or +BR is recorded. This may also include an estimate of
bare rock cover (e.g. BR2 indicates that there is a cover of 20% bare rock in the
map unit).
Page 20
Section 2: INVENTORY
2.3 Slope
Slope angle is measured from the horizontal in degrees, and the dominant slope
within the map unit area is recorded as one of the following seven slope groups
(Table 6).
/ Slopes which are borderline between two slope groupings are recorded in the form D/E, i.e. most slopes
are 20–21 degrees.
‘ A dash to the top right of a slope symbol indicates the slopes are dissected. For example A′ indicates
that the land is flat to gently undulating but is dissected by narrow entrenched gullies or drainage lines.
+ - + –
or Superscripts and are optional symbols to indicate to which end of the slope group the slope actually
lies. For example, the symbol F– indicates that the measured slope is closer to 26°, while F+ would
indicate that the slope is closer to 35°.
In the field the dominant slopes are measured by hand-held Abney level or
clinometer, or estimated by eye. Slope angles can be calculated from a Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) where one of suitable accuracy and precision is available.
A discussion of the commonly recognised critical slopes for specified activities is
given in Appendix 1.
Page 21
2.4 Erosion
Present and potential erosion are significant factors for land management and the
environmental and economic sustainability of large tracts of New Zealand’s
landscape. Decisions about land use and management are often influenced by the
assessment of erosion, and therefore it is important that the method of assessment
is consistent and objective. The definitions of erosion types and erosion severity
guidelines presented in this edition of the Handbook provide criteria to increase the
objectivity and consistency of the assessment procedure.
The classification of erosion types follows closely that outlined in the 1st edition
LUC Handbook (SCRCC 1969), which in turn was derived from Campbell (1951).
Definitions of erosion types have been adapted from the NZLRI Erosion
Classification (Eyles 1985). Both the classification and definitions are based on
over 50 years of LUC survey and farm plan mapping, and have been developed to
meet the needs of the NZ soil conservation community.
The erosion classification is descriptive and incorporates form and process, rather
than a geotechnical, process-based classification. The term landslide, although
widely used internationally by the geotechnical and scientific communities, is not
used in this classification. It is a generic term that includes a wide range of failure
processes, materials, sizes, and rates of movement. All of the mass movement
erosion types in this classification are forms of landslide.
Table 7: Erosion types and symbols (for definitions see Appendix 2).
Category Erosion types Symbol Optional prefixes (examples)
Rock fall Rf
Debris avalanche Da
Debris flow Df
Tunnel gully T
Streambank Sb
4. Deposition Deposition D
Page 22
Section 2: INVENTORY
Many factors need to be considered in assessing erosion severity, and these have
been listed in order of importance for each erosion type. A new development has
been the inclusion of areal extent guidelines in the assessment of mass-movement
and fluvial erosion severity (Table 8). Estimates of areal extent provide a
preliminary assessment of severity that can be finalized after considering the other
listed factors. However, even with these guidelines, the judgement and experience
of assessors are still important components in the assessment of erosion severity.
Erosion severity rankings follow the six-part ranking system originally set out in
the LUC Survey Handbook and subsequently in Eyles (1985). Assessments of
present erosion are made by observing erosion in the field and/or interpreting
stereo-pairs of aerial photographs. Erosion is defined as ‘present’ where erosion
surfaces are still bare of vegetation. Revegetated erosion scars, while not included
in the assessment of present erosion, can indicate erosion potential.
Present erosion is assessed for each polygon/map unit, while potential erosion is
assessed for each LUC unit. In many cases potential erosion helps to decide Land
Use Capability. The assessment criteria used for present erosion are also used to
assess potential erosion, but for potential erosion consideration is also given to
predominant land use, and the magnitude and frequency of erosion-causing events.
For a comprehensive review of various erosion assessment techniques used in New
Zealand since 1945, see Lambrechtsen & Hicks (2001). The distribution and
severity of present soil erosion as mapped in the NZLRI is summarised by Eyles
(1983).
A separate erosion severity is assessed for each erosion type identified within each
polygon/map unit. For example, the erosion code 2Ss 1G 1Sh would read as
moderate soil slip, slight gully and slight sheet erosion.
Page 23
2.4.2 Erosion symbol prefixes
Prefixes can be used to more fully describe the type of erosion (Table 7), or to
include supplementary information relevant to a specific project. For example,
erosion that has an off-site impact by delivering sediment and nutrients directly to
watercourses can be identified by a prefix ‘r’ for riparian (e.g. rSs indicates
riparian soil slip, while rEf indicates riparian earthflow).
Prefixes can also be used to denote whether soil slip, earthflow, slump and gully
erosion is shallow (s) or deep (d). It should be noted that the ‘earth slip’ erosion
type used in previous editions has been superseded by deep soil slip erosion (dSs).
See Appendix 2 for more details.
If required, information such as shape, location or cause (e.g. tracking, earthworks)
of features may also be recorded in this way. Examples are given under Additional
information (Section 2.4.7).
Table 8: Guidelines for relating area eroded to erosion severity for each erosion type.
Table modified from Fletcher et al. (1994), Jessen et al. (1999), and Page et al. (2005).
Page 24
Section 2: INVENTORY
* Estimates of % reach and lateral erosion are made by assessing both banks. Where the proportion
of lateral bank erosion and proportion of reach eroded do not match a severity category in the above
guidelines, the proportion of lateral bank erosion is used to select the severity category, e.g. lateral
bank erosion of >2 m and up to 3 m with >5−10% of reach eroded is classed as severe.
Page 25
2.4.3.2 Additional considerations for WIND EROSION
Assessment of present erosion severity should also take into account:
x The assessed rate of soil profile loss (if known).
x Indicators of erosion such as exposure of tree roots, build-up of soil behind
vegetative barriers and fresh deposition down-wind.
x Soil properties (structure, texture, etc.).
x The percentage of the area with bare rock resistant to erosion.
x Likelihood of stabilisation if soil conservation measures are implemented and/or
success of existing measures.
Plate 5: Active wind erosion of cultivated soil, Strath Taieri Basin, Central Otago (LCR).
Plate 6: Wind-eroded topsoil from a winter feed crop deposited up to 70 cm deep along a
fenceline, Maniototo Basin, Central Otago (LCR).
Page 26
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 7: Extreme scree erosion on LUC Class 8, Whale Stream, Waitaki Basin (IHL).
Plate 8: Scree erosion in the Harper-Avoca catchment, mid-Canterbury. Note the pattern
and colour of surface weathering indicating relative activity, the ‘armouring’ with coarse
debris at the base, and that little if any sediment is reaching the stream channel (LCR).
Page 27
2.4.4 Erosion severity for MASS MOVEMENT EROSION
Mass movement erosion comprises soil slip, debris avalanche, debris flow, rock
fall, earthflow and slump. For these erosion types the erosion severity ranking is
based on a combination of factors (listed below for each erosion type), together
with the areal extent of bare ground (Table 8). Other less common erosion types
are not included in this classification, but may be recorded where appropriate.
Plate 9: Very severe soil slip erosion in weakly consolidated sandstone hill country,
Pohangina, Manawatu (IGNS).
Page 28
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 10: Shallow soil slip on massive mudstone hill country. Note the shallow scar and
the debris tail sliding into the creek (AKM).
Plate 11: Moderately severe, deep soil- slip erosion (previously designated as earthslip).
Note the deep scar and the high volume of debris (GH).
Page 29
2.4.4.2 Additional considerations for DEBRIS AVALANCHE
Assessment of present erosion severity should take into account:
x Areal extent. x Physical and chemical properties
x The size of erosion scars. of the regolith and bedrock.
x The volume of material removed. x Likelihood of stabilisation if soil
x Fluvial characteristics of debris conservation measures are
avalanche channels. implemented and/or success of
existing measures.
x Slope of the debris avalanche walls.
Page 30
Section 2: INVENTORY
Page 31
Plate 14: Earthflow on Onerahi Chaos breccia, Tauhoa Road, Warkworth, Northland (TC).
Plate 15: Severe earthflow erosion on mudstone, Totangi Road, Gisborne (NT).
Page 32
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 16: Slump erosion, Dannevirke (NT). Note the rotation across the back-wall. Some
flow characteristics have developed after the initial slump failure.
Plate 17: Deep-seated slump erosion in soft mudstone hill country, Rangitikei. Note the
deep soil slip (earth slip) also evident at the front of the slump (PN).
Page 33
Plate 18: Large slump off the Maraetotara ridge, Hawkes Bay. Note the backward
rotation of blocks and the wetland. Many years of plantings, retirement and pond drainage
have not stabilised the slump (GOE).
Plate 19: Large slump in the Whangaehu catchment. Also note the surrounding soil slip
erosion (IGNS).
Page 34
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 20: Very severe rill erosion, Esk Valley, Hawkes Bay (MJP).
Plate 21: Extreme rill erosion and severe sheet erosion, Moutere Hills, Nelson (LCR).
Page 35
2.4.5.2 Additional considerations for GULLY EROSION
Assessment of present erosion severity should take into account:
x Size of feature(s) (area and depth). x Active erosion of gully walls (e.g.
x Size of contributing area above gully. amount of revegetation).
x Presence of tension cracks. x Likelihood of stabilisation if soil
x Physical and chemical properties of the conservation measures are
rock and regolith. implemented and/or success of
existing measures.
x Fluvial characteristics of gully channels.
x Slope of gully walls.
Plate 22: Tarndale Gully, Waipaoa catchment, Gisborne. Extreme gully erosion was
initiated in 1915 and the gully area had grown to at least 20 ha when last measured (NT).
Page 36
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 24: Severe gully erosion in mudstone hill country, Gisborne. Note the attempt to
limit further enlargement by sparsely planting the upper reaches (GDC).
Plate 25: Characteristic vertical- sided gully system in Taupo breccia (Tp), Poronui
Station, Bay of Plenty (GOE).
Page 37
2.4.5.3 Additional considerations for TUNNEL GULLY EROSION
Assessment of present erosion severity should
take into account:
x Areal extent.
x Length, width and depth of tunnel gullies.
x Degree of roof collapse.
x Slope angle.
x Physical and chemical properties of the soil
and regolith (e.g. slaking and dispersive
characteristics).
x Size of contributing area above tunnel
gullies.
x Likelihood of stabilisation if soil
conservation and other control measures are
implemented (e.g. recontouring) and/or
success of existing measures.
Plate 26: Extreme tunnel gully,
Wither Hills, Marlborough (LCR).
Plate 27: Moderate tunnel gully erosion on LUC Class 6e, Hawkes Bay (LCR).
Page 38
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 29: Severe streambank erosion of fine-grained alluvial soils overlying weathered
alluvial valley fill gravels of the Sherry catchment in the Nelson region (TDC).
Page 39
Plate 30: Streambank protection provided by a dense tree root network of poplar and willow
species and large rock riprap in the Pigeon Creek catchment (TDC).
Page 40
Section 2: INVENTORY
Plate 31: Coarse gravel debris deposited in a small active channel of the Eden Valley
Stream within the Moutere Gravels in the Nelson region (TDC).
Plate 32: Deposition of fine sediment on river terraces and flats, Gisborne (NT).
Page 41
Plate 33: Extreme deposition of fine silts to a depth of one metre after flooding associated
with Cyclone Bola, Gisborne (GH).
Table 9: Guidelines for recording the extent of soil profile loss, especially on sheet and
wind eroded areas (SCRCC 1974).
Symbol Description
Page 42
Section 2: INVENTORY
Where these symbols are used they should be placed after the areal severity
symbols with a bar, e.g. 3/4Sh, – erosion severity 3 (20–40% bare ground) / soil
loss 4 (25–75%) subsoil lost, erosion type – Sh (sheet erosion).
2.4.7.2 Tracks
Farm and forestry tracks can be a significant ‘point source’ of water, sediment and
nutrient input to watercourses through a combination of bare surfaces, high stock
and vehicle use, and runoff/discharge that is often diverted into watercourses at
numerous stream crossings. Poor maintenance of tracks and crossings can also add
to inputs.
Track erosion – Tr (usually a combination of sheet and rill erosion) can be
recorded as a prefix to the erosion type symbol. Table 10 gives guidelines for
assessing severity of track erosion.
Page 43
Table 11: NZLRI vegetation cover classification, vegetation class symbols and names.
Grass
gI Improved pasture gW Snow tussock grassland
gS Semi-improved pasture gR Red tussock grassland
gT Short tussock grassland gD Sand dune vegetation
Crops
cC Cereals (wheat, oats, etc.) cR Short rotation forage & fodder crops
cM Maize cS Subtropical fruit
cP Pip and stone fruit cK Kiwifruit
cG Grapes and berry fruit cV Vegetables, nurseries
Scrub
sM Manuka, kanuka sW Sweet brier
sC Cassinia sA Matagouri
sD Dracophyllum sV Mangrove
sF Fern sL Lupin
sS Subalpine scrub sH Heath
sX Mixed indigenous scrub sO Coastal scrub
sB Broom sE Exotic scrub
sG Gorse sT Mixed indigenous scrub with tree fern
sK Blackberry
Forest
fC Coastal forest fU Beech forest, undifferentiated
fK Kauri forest fD Podocarp–broadleaved–beech forest
fP Podocarp forest fR Exotic broadleaved forest
fB Broadleaved forest fF Exotic conifer forest
fO Lowland podocarp– fI Highland podocarp–broadleaved forest
broadleaved forest
fW Lowland beech forest fN Kanuka forest (trees >6 m tall)
fG Highland beech forest
Herbaceous
hW Wetland vegetation hP Pakihi vegetation
hR Rushes, sedges hM Semi-arid herbaceous vegetation
hA Alpine and subalpine hH Hieracium
herbfield/fellfield vegetation
hS Saline vegetation
Unvegetated (bare)
uV Unvegetated land
Other symbols
Placed before class:
c Cutover
s Stunted
e Erosion-control trees
n Naturalised exotic trees
Placed after class:
* Scattered
Page 44
Section 2: INVENTORY
2.5 Vegetation
Vegetation cover is mapped using a national classification adapted from that used
in the 1st edition LUC Survey Handbook, and NZLRI mapping (Hunter &
Blaschke 1986). Symbols have been changed from the earlier versions to better
relate to the vegetation classes (Page 1987).
The classification contains 52 vegetation classes (each NZLRI vegetation class is
described in Appendix 3) arranged into five major groups: grass, crop, scrub,
forest, and herbaceous (Table 11). Four prefixes are used to further describe
specific forest classes.
Where possible a map polygon should contain a single vegetation class. However,
due to scale and the patterns of vegetation distribution, this is often not possible,
and up to four vegetation classes can be recorded in a map polygon. The
distribution of vegetation is recorded as either ‘clumped’ or ‘scattered’.
Clumped refers to discrete areas of continuous cover, and scattered to
discontinuous cover. Scattered vegetation is denoted by an asterisk after the class
symbol, which indicates it is scattered throughout the preceding non-scattered
vegetation class. For example, gIsM* is improved pasture with scattered manuka,
and gIsM*sG* is improved pasture with scattered manuka and scattered gorse.
Clumped vegetation has no additional symbol, e.g. gIsM.
Plate 34: In principle, a new polygon is mapped when there is a significant change in
vegetation cover. In practice, this is balanced with considerations regarding scale, use of
the ‘scattered’ suffix (*), and an estimate of percent coverage (RG).
Page 45
For clumped vegetation, where more than a single class is recorded, the area of the
polygon occupied by each class is estimated to the nearest 10% and recorded by a
subscript in the code, e.g. gI7sM3 records a 70% cover of improved pasture and a
30% cover of manuka scrub. There is no percentage cover given for scattered
vegetation – the area being included within the area of the vegetation through
which it is scattered.
Stunted vegetation is represented by the symbol ‘s’ before the class symbol, e.g.
sfE is stunted exotic conifer forest, usually recorded in coastal buffer zones.
Erosion control trees are represented by the symbol ‘e’ before the class symbol,
e.g. efR is exotic broadleaved trees planted for erosion control. Naturalised
exotic conifer trees are represented by the symbol ‘n’ before the class symbol, e.g.
nfF is exotic conifers, usually self-seeded and growing wild, usually without any
form of silvicultural management, and where trees represent a range of ages.
The approximate correlation of the NZLRI vegetation classes to the pasture classes
used in the Overseer® nutrient budgets model (AgResearch 2006) is shown in
Table 12.
Table 12: Approximate correlation of the NZLRI vegetation classes to the pasture classes
used in Overseer®.
NZLRI vegetation classes Overseer ® pasture classes
1
Short-rotation forage and fodder crops (cR) Recently cultivated
2
Improved pasture (gI) Highly developed
3
Developed
4
Semi-improved pasture (gU), Developing
4
Short tussock grassland (gT), Developing/Under-developed
Semi-arid herbaceous vegetation (hM) & Hieracium (hH)
4
Snow tussock grassland (gW), Developing/Under-developed
Red tussock grassland (gR),
Semi-arid herbaceous vegetation (hM),
Hieracium (hH)
Page 46
Section 2: INVENTORY
2.6 Climate
An understanding of climate and its effects on land use and flooding are important
factors in determining a site’s long-term land use potential. The main sources of
climatic information are the publications, maps, records and databases of the New
Zealand Meteorological Service (NZMS undated), National Institute of Water and
Atmospheric Research (NIWA), regional councils and local records. Mean annual
temperature, mean minimum temperature of the coldest month, mean annual solar
radiation, winter solar radiation, October vapour pressure, annual water deficit and
monthly water balance ratio are national climate layers incorporated in Land
Environments of New Zealand (Leathwick et al. 2003a, 2003b). Comprehensive
climatic records are kept for many farm properties and the farmers are a good
source of local climatic information.
Page 47
3. THE LAND USE CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION
The Land Use Capability (LUC) Classification has three levels (Figure 7). Firstly,
an inventory polygon is categorised into one of eight LUC Classes according to its
general capacity for sustained production. This can be thought of as a rating of
‘best’ to ‘worst’ land for common productive uses.
Secondly, each class can be further categorised using one of four LUC Subclasses
based on the dominant limitation. Expressed as a question, what is the single most
important factor that is currently limiting sustainable production within the map
polygon? Four limitations are used (erodibility, wetness, soil and climate), but it is
important to recognise that some limitations cannot be assigned to certain LUC
classes (see Section 3.3).
Figure 7: The three hierarchical levels of the Land Use Capability Classification.
Page 48
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Figure 8: Increasing limitations to use and decreasing versatility of use from LUC
Class 1 to LUC Class 8.
New Zealand has only a limited area of high capability classed land (Figure 9),
totalling 6.6 million hectares and representing 25% of NZ’s total land area. Just
under half is classified as LUC Class 6 and 7 (13.2 M ha or 49% of land area), and
a sizeable 5.8 M ha has no agricultural value as Class 8 land (22% of NZ).
Under-representation of LUC Class 5 (0.2 M ha or 0.8% of land area) can be
attributed both to previous classification criteria, and to NZ’s landscape character
(limited LUC Class 5 land relative to other LUC classes). Classification criteria
have been broadened in this edition of the Handbook (see Section 3.2.4).
The total area of each LUC Class in hectares for both the North and South Islands
is tabulated in greater detail as Appendix 4.
Page 49
Figure 9: The distribution of LUC Classes in New Zealand as recorded in the NZLRI.
Approximately 790 thousand hectares are unclassed (Stewart Island, rivers, towns, quarries,
lakes and estuaries).
Page 50
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 35: Market gardening on LUC Class 1 land (1w) at Marshlands, Canterbury (LCR).
Page 51
Plate 36: LUC Class 1 land (1s) under intensive use in the Riwaka Valley (Nelson) on
deep Typic Fluvial Recent Riwaka soils (6e in the background and 7e in the immediate
foreground) (IHL).
Plate 37: Process tomatoes on LUC Class 1 land (1s) with Manawatu silt loam soils,
Palmerston North (MJP).
Page 52
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 38: LUC Class 1 (1c) under horticulture in Southern Hawkes Bay, on Twyford soils
(KN).
Plate 39: Cropping on Class 2 land with Pukekohe soils (2e). Sheet and rill erosion is
evident in the foreground (LCR).
Page 53
Most Class 2 land is flat or undulating (0-70). When cultivated there may be a
slight susceptibility to wind erosion, and sheet and rill erosion on slopes of 3-7
degrees. Slight streambank erosion may be apparent around waterways.
Unfavourable soil characteristics include loamy sand and clay-textured soils.
Class 2 land is more widespread than Class 1 (Figure 9). Soils are derived mainly
from alluvium and recent loess, although some in the North Island have developed
on fine-textured, andesitic and basaltic ash. Class 2 land normally occurs below
400 m (South Island) or 500 m (North Island), and where annual rainfall is
between 800 and 2000 mm in the North Island or <1500 mm in the South Island.
Common uses include dairy pasture, high performance sheep or beef, and there are
extensive areas used for cropping.
Plate 40: Bean cropping on Class 2 land with Pakowhai soils (2w), Hawkes Bay (LCR).
Plate 41: Class 2 land with Temuka soils (2w) being used to grow garlic at Riverlands,
Blenheim. Note the tunnel-gullied Wither Hills in background (LUC 6e and 7e) (IHL).
Page 54
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 42: Viticulture on LUC Class 2 land with Wairau soils (2s) in the Wairau Valley,
Marlborough (IHL).
Plate 43: Intensive horticulture and neighbouring pastoralism on LUC Class 2 land (2s)
near Kerikeri, Northland. Kerikeri soils on flat to undulating slopes (GH).
Page 55
Plate 44: Cultivated Class 2 land with Kiwitea silt loam (2c) near Shannon, Horowhenua
(MJP).
Page 56
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
(South Island) or 750 m (North Island), and where annual rainfall is between 800
and 2500 mm in the North Island or below 2400 mm in the South Island.
Plate 45: Grain harvesting on rolling Class 3 land with Timaru soils formed from loess
(3e). Timaru, Canterbury (SNZL).
Plate 46: Viticulture on Class 3 land with well-drained Rapaura soils (3s) on undulating
channel and stony gravel-bar topography in the Wairau Valley, Marlborough (IHL).
Page 57
Plate 47: Class 3 land (3c) mapped on the gently sloping floor of Kaituna Valley,
Marlborough. LUC 7e foothills in the background (IHL).
Class 4 land ranges from flat to strongly rolling (0-20°) country. When cultivated
there may be a severe susceptibility to wind erosion, and to sheet, rill and gully
erosion. Class 4 land also occurs on very shallow (<20 cm) and/or stony or very
stony flats and terraces with low water holding capacities. Waterway areas may
Page 58
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 48: Pastoral use of Class 4 land in the loess downlands of North Otago. LUC 4e is
classed for the rolling to strongly rolling cultivated slopes and LUC 4w for the poorly
drained valley floor. Moderately steep to steep LUC 6e in the middle ground, with the
Kakanui Ranges in the background (IHL).
Page 59
Plate 49: Cultivated Class 4 land (4e) associated with shallow loess in the Waitaki Valley,
South Canterbury. LUC 6e in the background (IHL).
Plate 50: Contour cultivation on loess Class 4 land (4e) in the southern Hawkes Bay
(MSR).
Page 60
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 51: Wet Class 4 land on Hauraki clay soils (4w). Note the ‘hump and hollow’
drainage. Hauraki Plains, Waikato (MRJ).
Plate 52: Class 4 with stony Ruapuna soils (4s) of the Canterbury Plains. Predominantly
used for pasture grazing, with occasional cereal and short-rotation fodder cropping (IHL).
Page 61
Plate 53: High rainfall Class 4 land (4c) located in the upper Taramakau catchment
(6,400 mm/yr rainfall), West Coast (IHL).
Page 62
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
The definition was widened in New Zealand to include non-arable sloping land
which although cultivable in some instances, had virtually no erosion hazard under
grazing or forestry use (SCRCC 1974). This additional land was of two kinds:
1. Land that is cultivable for development (pasture or forestry) or for pasture
renewal.
2. Land that is too steep for cultivation, but is stable, fertile and capable of
high production.
Under this definition (SCRCC 1974; NWASCO 1979), only 0.1M ha was mapped
in the North Island and just over 0.1M ha in the South Island (0.8% of the country
– see Figure 9). This land was confined to very stable hill country, localised areas
of bouldery river flats and fans, karst and some basaltic landscapes.
In this H andbook, the Class 5 definition has been expanded to include non-arable
land with a slight sheet, and/or soil slip, and/or rill, and/or tunnel gully erosion
limitation, or hazard under permanent vegetation cover. Previously this highly
productive land with a slight erosion limitation under permanent vegetation would
have been mapped as Class 6 land.
Plate 54: Example of LUC 5 land (5e) previously classed as LUC 6 (6e), north of
Waipawa in the Hawkes Bay. Strongly rolling downlands with Te Aute soils. Cultivation
for pasture renewal masks the results of past erosion, but there is evidence of past activity
on the mid-slope and in the background (NF).
Page 63
Plate 55: Class 5 land with a wetness limitation that makes it unsuitable for arable uses
even after drainage (5w) (MJP).
Plate 56: Class 5 land in the Waikato, where topography is easy and soils are productive,
but the presence of limestone outcrops and boulders create a severe soil limitation for
cropping (5s) (GOE).
Page 64
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 57: Intensive grazing and dairying use of bouldery Class 5 land (5s) on the Hapuka
Fan, Kaikoura (IHL).
Plate 58: Class 5 land with a climate limitation (5c) associated with low seasonal rainfall
(830 mm) and fertile yet droughty Matapiro soils (dense subsoils reduce plant-available
water storage), Puketapu, Hawkes Bay (MJP).
Page 65
3.2.6 LUC Class 6
Class 6 land is not suitable for arable use, and has slight to moderate physical
limitations and hazards under a perennial vegetative cover. Suitable uses include
grazed pasture, tree crops and/or forestry, and in some cases vineyards. Erosion is
commonly the dominant limitation, but it is readily controlled by appropriate soil
conservation and pasture management. Common limitations include:
x Moderate erosion hazard under x Excessive wetness.
perennial vegetation. x Frequent flooding.
x Steep and very steep slopes (>26°). x Low moisture holding capacity.
x Very stony (35–70%) or very shallow x Moderate to strong salinity.
(<20 cm) soils. x Moderate climatic limitations.
Plate 59: LUC class 6e with mixed grazing and production forestry land use on the
foothills surrounding Whangapoua Harbour, Coromandel Peninsula (CJP).
Page 66
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 60: Class 6 hill country, North Canterbury. Background landscape is formed from
indurated greywacke (6e), with the easier slopes being cultivated from previously oversown
and topdressed short tussock grassland with matagouri scrub. The foreground is soft
sandstone partially mantled with loess (6e), with a degree of soil slip evident (IHL).
Plate 61: Class 6 land in the Waikato (6e), with minor soil slip erosion (MRJ).
Page 67
Plate 62: LUC Class 6 land on steep to very steep slopes with moderate soil slip and sheet
erosion on volcanic loams developed from Franklin Basalt (6e), Waikato (SW).
Plate 63: Limestone Class 6 land characteristic of the Puketoi Ranges, Tararua.
Elevation and exposure convey a dominant climate limitation (6c) (LCR).
Page 68
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 64: Classes 6, 4 and 3 on estuarine soils and reclaimed land, Kaipara Flats,
Northland. The slightly saline Takahiwai and gley Kaipara soils are classified as 3w and
4w where drained, and 6w for the undrained soils nearest the estuary (GH).
Plate 65: Stone-picked and rolled Class 6 land with stony Takapau soils (6s), Southern
Hawkes Bay. Significant topsoil stones and gravels still remain, and these soils have low
soil-water storage capacities making them particularly prone to droughtiness (KN).
Plate 66: Moderately steep Class 6 hill country (6s) near Tikokino, Hawkes Bay. Gwavas
and Mangatahi soils formed from patches of loess over gravels and unconsolidated sands.
Note the brown drier areas where loess is no longer prevalent (KN).
Page 69
3.2.7 LUC Class 7
Class 7 land is unsuitable for arable use, and has severe physical limitations or
hazards under perennial vegetation. Consequently it is high-risk land requiring
active management to achieve sustainable production. It can be suited to grazing
provided intensive soil conservation measures and practices are in place, and in
many cases it is more suitable for forestry.
The limitations of LUC Class 7 are of a similar nature to those affecting LUC class
6, but are more severe and its versatility is significantly less. The most common
limitations that may occur include:
x Severe erosion hazard or severe effects x Very shallow (<20 cm) or stony
of past erosion. (35–70%) soils.
x Very steep slopes, including land >35°. x Very erodible rock types.
x Very low moisture holding capacity. x Low natural fertility difficult to
x Very frequent damaging flooding. correct (e.g. Al toxicity).
x Extreme wetness of soils. x Strong salinity.
x Severe climatic limitations.
Because of the relationships between climate, topography, and soils, more than one
of these limiting features is usually present.
The 5.7 M ha of Class 7 land is widely distributed throughout New Zealand. The
majority is steep and very steep hill or mountain country where adverse climate,
steep slopes, and low soil fertility combine to give a high risk of erosion and low
productivity.
Significant areas of the erodible soft rock hill country in the North Island have
high-fertility parent material coupled with a high potential for soil slip, slump,
earthflow, and gully erosion. Despite a high present or potential stock carrying
capacity this land is classed as LUC 7 due to the severe erosion hazard. Class 7 is
also extensive in the South Island high
country where climate and low fertility
severely limits productive potential. Class 7
is also mapped on steep low-elevation slopes
where loess overlying a range of rock types
has a high susceptibility to sheet, wind and
tunnel gully erosion when the vegetative
cover is depleted.
Page 70
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 68: Typical 'hard' dry and cold inter-montane Class 7 steeplands on greywacke
rocks with moderate to severe sheet erosion and slight gully erosion (7e), Awatere Valley,
Marlborough. High altitude Class 8e land in the background (IHL).
Plate 69: Very severe soil slip erosion on LUC Class 7 (7e) hill country after Cyclone
Bola (1988). Devil's Elbow, Northern Hawke's Bay (MJP).
Page 71
Plate 70: Class 7 land with acidic and infertile Okarito silt-mantled Perch-gley Podzol
soils on the Craigieburn Pakihi, Grey Valley. In this location soils represent the dominant
limitation (7s) (SNZL).
Plate 71: Foreground. Flat Class 7 land with a wetness limitation for pasture and
forestry (7w) at the head of Lake Brunner, Westland (LCR).
Page 72
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 72: Rolling Class 8 land (8s) with coarse gravels and boulders from alluvial gold-
dredge tailings (all fine material has been removed), Taramakau River, West Coast (IHL).
Plate 73: Flat to undulating Class 8 land (8c) with scab weed and subalpine vegetation,
on the summit of the Old Man Range, Otago (1,600 m above sea level) (IHL).
Page 73
Plate 74: A range of Class 8e in middle and background, with debris cones and valley fill
of Class 7e, Freds Stream, Ben Ohau Range, Waitaki Basin (IHL).
Plate 75: Class 8 mountain land (8e). Looking south-east at the south-facing slopes of
Mukamuka Stream, Orongorongo catchment, Wellington (NT).
Page 74
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 76: Very steep (>350) Class 8 greywacke slopes with moderate scree and gully
erosion (8e), Mount Hector, Tararua Ranges, Wellington (MJP).
Plate 77: Coastal Class 8 land on the dunes and storm beach deposits (8s) between
Baring Head and Turakirae Head, Wellington coast (MJP).
Page 75
3.2.9 Classification checklist
Generalised class guideline criteria are provided as a quick reference for assigning
or checking classifications at the LUC class level (Table 13). Users should refer to
the full class descriptions (Sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.8) if the criteria are too generalised
(e.g. borderline classifications).
Arable land (LUC Classes 1–4) is susceptible to wind, sheet, and rill erosion when
cultivated. The degree of erosion risk is a complex function involving the
following characteristics:
x Slope – steepness, length, and aspect.
x Rock type – cohesiveness, mineralogy (e.g. clay type) and consolidation.
x Soil – texture, aggregate size and stability, permeability and prior soil-
moisture conditions.
x Weather – rainfall intensity and duration, wind strength and direction.
The timing of cultivation to minimise the exposure of bared soil, and the retention
of a coarse tilth and rough soil surface of strong stable aggregates, reduces the risk
of wind erosion. Direct drilling, minimal tillage and no-till techniques to establish
crops and pastures can also significantly reduce the erosion susceptibility and risk.
On non-arable land (LUC Classes 5–8) the factors that determine erosion type,
severity and susceptibility, include rock type characteristics (competence, joint,
fracture, and bedding plane patterning), the location of fault and crush zones,
regolith and soil characteristics, elevation, vegetation cover history, and climatic
factors.
Page 76
Table 13: Summary of generalised LUC class guideline criteria.
Soil stoniness, Elevation & annual rainfall
LUC Physical Soil texture & Erosion severity ranges*
Arable suitability Slope depth & Salinity
Class limitations drainage & erosion types
workability South Is. North Is.
Arable land
1 Minimal limitations Suitable for a wide range 0- <7° Deep, >90 cm, easily Fine textured, silt loam, Minimal erosion risk Nil <200m <350m
for arable use. of crops. worked & resilient. fine sandy loams, well (negligible W, Sh 650–1500mm 650–1500mm
drained. under cultivation)
2 Slight limitations for Suitable for many crops. 0- ≤ 7° Moderately deep 45– Wide range, loamy sand Slight erosion risk Very <400m <500m
arable use. 90 cm, slightly & clay textures are less under cultivation, weak to <1500mm 800–2000mm
difficult to work. favourable, well to W, Sh, R. weak
imperfectly drained.
3 Moderate limitations Restricted range of 0- ≤ 15° Shallow 20–45 cm Wide range, clay loam, Slight to moderate Weak <650m <750m
for arable use. Soil crops, intensity of &/or stony (5-35% in & sandy loam textures erosion risk under <2400mm 800–2500mm
conservation cultivation is limited. upper 20 cm), often are less favourable, well cultivation, W, Sh,
measures required. difficult to work. to imperfectly drained. R.
4 Severe limitations for Occasional cropping but 0- ≤ 20° Very shallow <20 Clay, loamy sand, sand, Severe erosion risk Moderate <800m <1000m
arable use. Intensive reduced range of crops cm) &/or stony or & very stony textures under cultivation, <3000mm 800–3000mm
soil conservation and intensity of very stony (35-70% are less favourable; well W, Sh, R, G.
measures required. cultivation. in upper 20 cm), to poorly drained.
often difficult to work.
a
* Regional variations occur. Southland, b Marlborough, c Wellington, d Gisborne.
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Page 77
3.3.2 Wetness limitation
‘w’ wetness – where either a high water table, slow internal drainage, and/or
frequent flooding or ponding, from streams or coastal waters, represent
the major limitation or hazard to use by limiting plant growth through a
lack of soil aeration.
Table 14: Relationship between the wetness subclass and depth to hydromorphic features,
water table depth, and the presence of standing water (adapted from Lynn 1996).
LUC subclass 1w 2w 3w 4w 5w 6w 7w 8w
>90 cm
<45 cm
<45 cm
<30 cm
<30 cm
45–90
45–90
45 cm
Depth to hydromorphic*
<30–
cm
cm
feature (cm)
High WT, limited
Moderately high
Moderately high
Seasonally high
WT at or within
standing water
standing water
standing water
standing water
Not applicable
30 cm limited,
WT for 0.5 yr
WT for 0.5 yr
water table†
Extensive
Page 78
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Table 15: The relationship between LUC classes with a ‘w’ limitation and inundation and
effects of floodwaters (adapted from Fletcher et al. 1994). Specific criteria vary regionally.
Days of
LUC
Description continuous
subclass
inundation
1w Not applicable
2w Inundation lasting 1–2 days, not more frequently than once in 2 years. 1
Yield of sensitive crops is affected but survival is not.
3w Inundation lasting 1–2 days on average once per year; or lasting 2-3 1-2
days once every 2 years. Some crops do not survive. Others have
reduced yield.
4w Inundation lasting 2–4 days on average once per year. Cropping of 2-4
annual ground crops is marginal, tree crop yields are reduced.
5w Inundation lasting 4–8 days on average once per year, or 1-4 days on 4-8
average 2–3 times a year. All ground crops are killed and tree crops
have reduced yield. Flood-sensitive pasture may be affected.
6w Inundation lasting 8–15 days on average once per year, or 4-8 days on 8-15
average 3–4 times a year. Pasture yields are reduced but do not need
resowing. Some trees are killed.
7w Inundation lasting more than 15 days (often > 20 days) on average once 15-30
per year, or lasting 8–15 days on average more than once per year.
Pasture needs resowing and pastoral farming is marginal.
8w Inundation lasting more than 15 days on average once per year. Pasture >30
cannot be maintained.
Plate 78: Fluctuating water table that is at the surface during winter, but drops below
90 cm in summer. Mottles appear at 50 cm depth, making this 3w land (AKM).
Page 79
3.3.3 Soil limitation
Land with a soil limitation is widespread in New Zealand (Figure 11), particularly
in the pumice lands, areas of stony terraces and plains, and where soils are notably
coarse or shallow, or have a pan impeding root development. Stoniness, pans and
soil texture are three of the most important characteristics.
Stoniness is assessed by the number and size of stones present in the soil profile
(Figure 10), the incidence of stones or boulders at the surface, and a consideration
of soil texture. For example, a coarse stony soil will usually have a greater soil
limitation relative to a stony soil with a finer texture fraction (e.g. see Plates 52, 67,
72 and 79). Also note that Figure 10 is a stylised depiction, and is provided as a
guide only.
Figure 10: A diagrammatic representation of the relationship between LUC class, soil
depth, and degree of stoniness (adapted from Noble 1985).
Page 80
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Plate 79: Moderate streambank erosion exposing stony Kopua soils in the Tararua
district. Gravels at 45 cm (LUC 3s) and an appreciable size and number of stones occur in
the profile and often at the surface (stone picking is common). Also note the slight
deposition (1D) of fine gravels from a previous flooding event (AKM).
Table 16: The relationship between arable LUC classes with an ‘s’ limitation and (a)
depth to subsurface pans, (b) typical fine earth textures.
LUC subclass 1s 2s 3s 4s
(a) Depth to
>90 cm 45–90 cm 20–45 cm <20 cm
subsurface pan
(b) Typical fine silt loam, silt loam, silt loam, silt loam,
earth soil textures loamy silt, loamy silt, loamy silt, loamy silt,
silt, silt, silt, silt,
sandy loam, sandy loam, sandy loam, sandy loam,
clay loam. clay loam, clay loam, clay loam,
sandy clay loam, sandy clay loam, sandy clay loam,
loamy clay. silty clay, silty clay,
loamy clay, loamy clay,
loamy sand, loamy sand,
sand, sand,
clay. clay.
Page 81
3.3.4 Climate limitation
‘c’ climate – where the climate is the major limitation or hazard to use.
Figure 11: Distribution of LUC subclasses in New Zealand (from the 1:50,000 NZLRI).
Page 82
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
number of days that have temperatures high enough for crop growth and
development) influence potential productivity, and therefore the degree of climatic
limitation.
For example, Cossens (1983b) demonstrated significant decreases in crop and
pasture performance with successive increases in altitude (e.g. productivity
declines of 90 and 45 kg DM/ha/yr per 100 m increase for pasture and oversown
tussock).
Given sufficient soil water, montane pastoral lands are environmentally suited to
forests. Although Pinus radiata is poorly represented above 600 m because of
frost-tenderness, growth rates for Douglas Fir, European Larch, Corsican Pine and
Ponderosa Pine in the moist western zone of the Canterbury high country are
among the highest recorded anywhere for the species (Ledgard & Belton 1985).
Reflecting these potentials and constraints, where other factors are non-limiting,
arable LUC Class 4 land is the highest class in the lower montane zone (<750 m),
and LUC Class 6 is the highest class in the upper montane zone (Table 17).
Table 17: Guidelines for LUC class according to altitudinal (temperature) limits
applicable in the central South Island (adapted from Lynn et al. 1987, and Hunter 1992).
Max Bio- Mean Selected Pasture Highest Potential primary productivity
altitude climatic temp. GDD* yield2 LUC
(m) zone (°C) >5°C1 kgDM/ha/yr class
Page 83
The midslope subalpine zone has its upper limit defined by the altitudinal limit of
trees and woody shrubs at about 1,300 m in the central South Island. Mean annual
temperatures are typically in the range 5.3 to 7.7°C. The growing season is
relatively short and production levels from exotic pasture species occupying
favourable sites is below 3,000 kg DM/ha/yr (Cossens 1983b; Floate et al., 1985).
Land use options for production are less diverse than for montane lands although
production forestry is likely to be feasible on accessible sites in the lower subalpine
zone. The highest possible LUC class in the subalpine zone is LUC 7 (Table 17).
The upper-slope alpine zone extends from the potential upper limit of indigenous
woody species to the gradational zone of sparse herbaceous vegetation, rock and
scree. Mean annual air temperatures are typically in the range of 3.9 to 5.2°C.
Climatic extremes and the very short growing season preclude the establishment of
known exotic plant species. Agricultural production is confined to low intensities
of extensive grazing in late summer and autumn. There is no significant potential
for production forestry. Reflecting these constraints, the highest possible LUC
class in the upper alpine and nival zones is LUC Class 8 (Table 17).
Bioclimatic zones decline from north to south. For example, the upper subalpine
limit, in humid, beech-forested areas is about 1,500 m in the Wairau Valley,
Marlborough (Latitude 42°S), 1,350 m in the Harper Valley, mid-Canterbury
(43°S) and 1,150 m in the lower Dart Valley, Otago (45° 45’S). Altitude-related
guidelines for LUC Class need to be adjusted to reflect this latitudinal trend.
Rainfall and associated soil water availability also influence land use capability. In
semi-arid areas of Central Otago and the Waitaki Basin, soil water levels remain
below wilting point for much of the potential growing season. Droughts impose
severe constraints on plant establishment and growth, and result in persistent
exposed bare ground which is vulnerable to degradation by wind erosion, and
during high-intensity storms. By contrast, in super-humid western areas the soils
are strongly leached and have high rates of erosion.
Although guidelines for rainfall are applied to arable LUC classes, in practice they
are generally over-ruled by the predominant temperature, erosion and soil
limitations on hill and steep lands.
Page 84
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
overcome by management and are therefore given precedence over climate in the
determination of subclasses. The dominant limitation or hazard determines which
of the subclasses ‘e’, ‘w’, or ‘s’ is used.
Subclass limitation ‘c’ is used where climate is the only limitation.
In practice several limitations may affect the map unit. It may therefore be
difficult to decide which should be the subclass, especially on non-arable land,
particularly where soil limitations and erosion risk are closely related. Where two
kinds of limitation are essentially equal, the limitations are given the following
priority, ‘e’, ‘w’, ‘s’, and ‘c’. That is, ‘e’ is given precedence over ‘w’ and ‘s’,
and w is given precedence over ‘s’, and so on (Figure 12).
e w s c
erodibility excessive rooting zone climate
wetness limitations
Figure 12: Subclass allocation priority when more than one kind of
limitation is considered equal.
Page 85
3.3.5.2 Physical limitations
‘Physical limitations’ refer to land characteristics which have an adverse effect on
the capability of land. These limitations can be permanent, removable, or
modifiable.
Permanent limitations cannot be removed. It is neither practical, nor economic,
nor technologically possible to remove the limitation. Examples include:
x Rock type attributes. x Slope angle.
x Adverse climate (e.g. frequency of x Soil attributes, such as plant rooting
extreme events). depth (presence of subsoil pans or
x Excess wetness even after drainage. other rooting impediments), texture,
structure, water holding capacity,
x Overflow from major river systems
type of clay minerals.
that cannot be controlled.
Removable limitations are those that can be removed, but removal is not easy and
often involves a sizeable investment in land development. Removal depends on
economics and the availability of appropriate technology, relative to the degree of
limitation. Examples include:
x Gravel and boulders on the land surface and brought to the surface by cultivation
(stone picking or piling).
x Soil wetness (drainage, water diversion, land reclamation).
x Flooding risk (through large community flood control schemes).
x Soil moisture deficit (through large irrigation schemes).
Page 86
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
For land where permanent irrigation has been installed (e.g. a centre pivot, border
dykes) the classification is made on the basis that the soil moisture limitation has
been permanently removed.
Where permanent drainage has been installed or is part of an approved scheme, the
classification is made on the degree of limitation that will exist after drainage.
Where major community-based flood control schemes designed with protection
levels to the 50–100 year return event are in place, the classification is made on the
basis that the flood risk has been removed.
The type and severity and/or effective removal of the above physical limitations
should be documented in the LUC unit descriptions.
Where works are beyond the ability of individual farmers and require a community
scheme the land is classified according to the nature of its present limitations. If in
time a large scheme such as irrigation becomes operative, the land can be
reclassified into a higher LUC class.
The classification of LUC is independent of such factors as location, distance from
markets, processing facilities, land ownership, or the skills of individual farmers.
Page 87
Regional LUC Units have been defined in the extended legends of the NZLRI
(Trustrum 1974; Page 1975, 1976, 1995; Walsh 1977; Prickett 1978; Steel 1979;
Noble 1979; Fletcher 1981; NWASCO 1983; Jessen 1984; Harmsworth 1996;
Lynn 1996; Jessen et al. 1999).
Page 88
Section 3: CLASSIFICATION
Page 89
4. SURVEY GUIDELINES
Previous sections have focused on criteria and standards for assessing Land
Resource Inventory (LRI), and for classifying Land Use Capability (LUC). This
section concentrates on the practical and fieldwork aspects of undertaking an LRI
survey and its subsequent refinement into an LUC classification.
The purpose is to outline recommended LRI and LUC procedures for producing
maps, databases, and extended legends to a consistently high standard. Use of
survey results is discussed more fully in the Applications section (Section 5).
Procedures can vary between surveyors, so guidelines are provided both for farm
surveys and for extensive surveys (district, regional, national). Practising
surveyors may tailor these guidelines based on their experience and individual
project requirements. Novices should adhere closely to the guidelines, ideally
under the mentoring of an experienced practitioner.
Page 90
Section 4: MAPPING
4. Office work
Start office work immediately after the survey. Delaying
- Map draughting/digitising
the write-up increases the risk of forgetting important
- Land Use Capability Classification
details, and may lessen confidence when seeking to
- Extended legend
clarify map unit boundaries and inventory descriptions.
One technique is to spend an hour at the end of the day
redrafting map units onto a clean base map, reviewing
notes, and expanding on inventory descriptions.
5. Applications
- Farm planning
- Nutrient management
- Etc.
Figure 13: Overview of recommended steps for undertaking farm-level LRI/LUC survey.
Core steps are highlighted in blue boxes, and each step is equally important as the next.
Page 91
4.1.2 Step 2: Preparation
Fieldwork can be physically tiring, constrained by time (particularly if travel
distances are long), and the degree of support available in the office will not be
available in the field (e.g. reference material, an experienced surveyor).
Preparation is important to ensure that the survey is organised, efficient, and
effective in terms of producing a quality result.
Page 92
Section 4: MAPPING
Info box 4:
Clinometers
(inclinometers)
Clinometers are tools
for measuring slope
angle. They can be
sourced from
suppliers of technical
instruments. Common Compass clinometer
clinometer (Geological or Brunton Home made
compass) clinometer
Page 93
4.1.2.5 Draft land units
Info box 5: Stereoscope
mapping Deciding where to draw a unit boundary in the field
A stereoscope is used to create can be difficult. Likewise, exactly where the line is
an illusion of landscape depth
from two overlapping aerial
drawn may be changed several times as a surveyor
photos. They are powerful moves around the landscape and sees the unit from
mapping tools if paired photos different locations and perspectives.
are available. Not everyone
can use a stereoscope.
Fieldwork can be assisted by preparing a preliminary
map of land units using remote techniques. Field
mapping then becomes an exercise of validating
boundaries and infilling LRI code.
A map of draft units is prepared by interpreting
aerial photos, images and maps. At its simplest,
Pocket stereoscope for
dominant landforms can be distinguished using
field use aerial photography, provided the photos have
sufficient landscape contrast and definition (e.g.
older black and white photos). High-resolution
satellite imagery can also be useful.
Some insight may be inferred from hill-shaded
digital elevation models, but at the time of writing
few models are available at a level of detail useful
Mirror stereoscope for for farm mapping. Similarly, automated landform
use in the office classification has potential but still requires
development for regular application.
Stereoscopic mapping is especially useful (Info box 5). A stereoscope creates an
illusion of terrain depth, which makes landforms very distinctive (exaggerated) and
easy to recognise. Similarly, digital photogrammetry allows for on-screen 3D
digitising, but high set-up costs generally limit use to larger survey projects (see
Section 4.2).
Page 94
Section 4: MAPPING
Page 95
Assess each inventory factor using the guidelines and criteria presented in this
Handbook (Section 2). Code may be recorded directly on the map, and auxiliary
notes taken in a notebook. If codes will not fit within the drawn unit, use a
numerical legend (1, 2, 3, 4…) and record the code in the notebook.
Page 96
Section 4: MAPPING
LUC class colours from the 2nd edition handbook with Map extract from a 1960s LUC
approximate system RGB values. survey.
Page 97
4.1.4.2 Land Use Capability Classification
How to interpret inventory into Land Use Capability is detailed in Section 4.3.
Briefly, the classification is applied by hierarchy (i.e. firstly allocate classes, then
subclasses, then lastly the LUC Unit) according to the criteria and standards set out
in this Handbook (Section 3).
It is important to note that farm LUC classifications are made using existing
regional LUC units where possible, or correlated with the regional equivalents to
produce two levels of classification (a farm and regional classification). Regional
classifications provide more information (e.g. production indices and special
management considerations by LUC Unit), and ensure that the LUC system is
applied consistently and uniformly throughout the country. The use of regional
classifications is discussed more fully in Section 4.3.1.
However, preparing a farm-particular classification is a useful exercise for novices,
and is generally a more intuitive and easy-to-understand ordering of information
for the end user (e.g. 6e1, 6e2, 6e3… conveys more immediate meaning than the
regional equivalent of 6e2, 6e4, 6e23…). Assign farm LUC units by ranking
subclass sets (e.g. all 3s land on a farm) according to relative capability and
management needs.
Page 98
Section 4: MAPPING
PRELIMINARY
4 Decide on a comple on date for
the survey, and design a programme
which takes this into account.
Page 99
Table 18: Guidelines to the selection of appropriate scales for extensive LRI/LUC surveys
(modified from McRae & Burnham 1981 and Jessen 1987).
District and
Scale level1 National Regional Farm
catchment
Page 100
Section 4: MAPPING
Page 101
Auditing invariably results in improvements to the draft data, and these are usually
made by returning to the compilation step. If problems uncovered by the audit
have their origins in an earlier step in the survey programme, then the programme
is re-entered at that step. Amendments are checked and approved by the principal
auditor before synthesis can begin.
LRI/LUC surveys do not normally entail detailed testing and sampling,
consequently the required field equipment is neither sophisticated nor too heavy to
carry in the field. However, more items are generally required relative to farm-
level LRI/LUC surveys (Table 19).
Table 19: Suggested checklist of items to include in a kit for extensive LRI/LUC surveys.
Documentation
x Aerial (ortho-) photographs on which the primary x Soil profile description guides e.g. Milne et al.
map units are delineated. 1995; Hewitt 1998.
x Base map (topomap or orthophotograph). x Munsell soil colour charts.
x LUC Handbook incorporating tables depicting x Waterproof notebook or PDA/Laptop.
classifications for rock type, erosion type and
severity, vegetation cover etc.
x Relevant geological and soil maps and
associated information.
Equipment
x Clipboard. x Measuring tape with clearly marked scale.
x Pencils (including a chinograph type), waterproof x Spade.
pen, eraser. x Soil auger.
x Pocket stereoscope. x Geological hammer.
x Digital camera. x Compass and clinometer, or combination
x GPS. compass with clinometer.
x Binoculars. x Plastic bags for soil and rock samples.
x Knife.
Page 102
Section 4: MAPPING
1 Resul ng survey outputs are 2 Undertake any 3 Evalua ng the impact and
used for planning and decision- audi ng requirements. effec veness of policy
making. For example, the dependent on the LUC
integra on of recommended assessment.
uses and management into a
regional or district plan.
IMPLEMENTATION
Page 103
4.3 Translation from inventory to Land Use Capability
When the physical inventory has been recorded, the next step is an interpretive
translation of these data into the LUC system, following the framework established
for the various LUC Classes, LUC Subclasses, and LUC Units (Section 3).
The initial primary classification according to the degree of physical limitations
establishes the LUC Class; the dominant kind of limitation is indicated by the LUC
Subclass; and then the LUC Unit is established.
Subclasses can be subdivided into LUC Units by grouping those inventory units
with a particular and unique set of inventory characteristics such as rock type,
slope, and landform, which require the same management.
This orientates the classification towards management and potential production.
Both facets of conservation – protection and production – have to be considered in
accordance with the concept of ‘use and risk’. Two methods are recommended:
1. Making classifications when regional classification descriptions are available.
2. Making classifications in the absence of quality regional classifications.
Page 104
Section 4: MAPPING
Some of the more recent bulletins also provide a clear ordering and simplification
of the classification process by using regional decision-tree pathways (e.g.
Harmsworth 1996; Lynn 1996; Jessen et al. 1999).
Figure 14: Land Use Capability regions and published bulletin availability. Dotted grey
lines represent administration boundaries of regional and unitary councils.
Page 105
Table 20: LUC Suites, Sub-suites and component LUC Units in the Northland Region
(Harmsworth 1996).
LUC Suite Sub-suite Component LUC Units
5. Greywacke terrain
- 4e7, 6e9, 6e10, 6e17, 6c1, 7e5, 7e6
Page 106
Section 4: MAPPING
Summary information sheets for each LUC Suite or specific LUC Unit can be
developed outlining the characteristic rock types, landforms, soils, erosion severity
and types, potential land uses and recommended soil conservation management
practices and techniques (Figure 15).
If to be planted in woodlots:
• Plant lower slopes where soil depth favours
tree growth and slope angle facilitates
silviculture.
• Avoid planting upper slopes and gullies -
these areas have low timber yield.
• Leave existing scrub along watercourses, or
allow to regenerate, so that it controls bank
erosion and traps silt.
• Use low-impact logging methods e.g. cable
Figure 1. Typical LUC unit 7e11. hauler or skyline, to minimise soil loss.
• Site tracks and landings away from
The dominant soils are Whangamomona watercourses to minimise sediment
steepland soil on silty sandstone and discharge and channel blockage by slash.
Moumahaki steepland soil on coarse sandstone.
Both these soils have low natural fertility. If already in scrub or bush:
Production potential • Leave indigenous vegetation – avoid
Under improved pasture 7e11 is capable of clearance for pasture or forestry.
growing between 4,300 and 5,000 kg dm/ha per • Control animal pests that damage canopy
annum, falling to 2,200-2,500 kg on steep (possums) or ground cover (goats, deer).
eroded slopes. The Pinus radiata site index is 25-
28m for the lower slopes. Upper slopes are
For further advice and assistance contact:
unsuitable for forestry.
The Land Management Section
The preferred land use option is scrub
Taranaki Regional Council
regeneration or bush retirement on the upper
Private Bag 713
slopes, and extensive grazing or forestry on the
Stratford
lower slopes.
Ph: 06 7657127
Figure 15: Example of an LUC unit information sheet used by Taranaki Regional Council.
Page 107
An alternative method of grouping LUC Units is through the use of a hierarchical
environmental framework, as used in the Marlborough regional classification
(Lynn 1996). Two decision tiers are used. Firstly, inventory units are allocated
into one of 33 LUC Suites according to environment, landform, rainfall zones,
soils and rock type characteristics (Figure 17). A more explicit decision-tree is
then used to allocate the LUC Unit within the suite structure.
For example, the inventory code below (Figure 16) falls within the L4 LUC Suite
according to the pathways of Figure 17. Once the suite has been identified, the
inventory unit can be further classified down to the LUC Unit level according to
limitations and management needs. For example:
x If soil depth is within 15–30 cm, then the classification would likely be 4s4 (severe
root zone limitations for cropping).
x If soil depth is between 30–45 cm (fewer rooting limitations) but strong north-
westerly winds make erosion a problem, then the classification would likely be 3e2
(root zone limitations are present but erosion is the dominant limitation for
cropping).
x If the soil depth is within 30–45 cm and the mapping unit was in a sheltered
location, then the classification may be 3s2 (a moderate rooting zone limitation for
cropping).
At the farm scale, LUC Units could be further differentiated by topsoil stoniness.
For example, a 3s2 unit may be further classified as 3s2a when topsoil stones are
<5%, and 3s2b when stones are >5%. See Section 4.4 for refining regional
classifications at detailed scales.
Figure 16: Inventory classified into the L4 suite of the Marlborough regional classification.
Page 108
Figure 17: Marlborough LUC suite classification structure (Lynn 1996).
Environment Landform Rainfall zone1 Other features2 Suite
Deep soils L 1
Low
Shallow soils L 2
Well and moderately well drained
D e ep so i ls L 3
Moderate
Flat to gently sloping Shallow soils L 4
terraces, floodplains and
0 Lo w Alluvial soils L 5
fans (0-7 ) Non-saline
Low-lying drainage impeded Modera te Alluvial soils L 6
S a li n e Lo w t o mo de r ate S a l i n e g l e y r e c e n t s o il s L 7
Lowlands C oasta l sa ndf l ats a nd d un es Lo w to mode rate Yellow-brown sand soils L 8
On loess L 9
Low
O n ca lca re ou s o r b as al ti c ro ck L 10
Moderately sloping land
0 On lo ess L11
mainly downland (7-20 )
Moderate On indurated rocks L12
On ca lca re o us o r b a sal tic ro ck L13
On loess overlying weakly indurated rocks L14
Low On strongly indurated rocks L15
On calcareous or basaltic rock L16
0
Hills and steeplands (>20 ) On weakly indurated rocks L17
Moderate On strongly indurated rocks L18
On ca l ca r eo u s or b asa lt ic rock L19
Hi g h On strongly indurated rocks L20
Low Shallow soils H 1
Flat to gently sloping D eep soils H 2
terraces, outwash plains, Moderate
0 Shallow soils H 3
floodplains and fans (0-7 )
Moderate Alluvial soils H 4
Moderately sloping land (7- Lo w Or ga n ic soi ls H 5
0
20 ) moraine and fans M o d er a t e Al l u vi u m a n d co l lu vi u m H 6
E x p o s e d u p l a n ds > 95 0 a sl M od e r a t e t o h i g h Alluvium and co llu vium H 7
C o l l u v i u m o n s t r o n g l y i n d u r a t e d r oc k s H 8
High country Low
On strongly indurated rocks H 9
0
On basaltic rocks H10
Hills and steeplands (>20 ) Moderate
Section 4: MAPPING
1 2
Rainfall zones: LOW = <800 mm, MODERATE = >800 mm to <1600 mm, HIGH = >1600 mm Soil depth: DEEP = >45 cm, SHALLOW = <45 cm
Page 109
4.3.2 If no regional classification is available
Regional classifications may not be available because the appropriate publication
cannot be sourced, or a regional classification has not been prepared. For example,
the only regional legend in the South Island is for Marlborough, the balance being
covered by a single island-wide legend.
Table 21: Selecting LUC units for the soils depicted in Table 22 using the hierarchical
structure of the NZLRI Marlborough Regional extended legend (Figure 17).
1 1 2
mLUC Suite mLUC Units Soil set
L1 2e1, 2e2 93a
L4 3e2, 3s2, 4s4, 5s2 27, 27a
L12 4e5 41aH
L18 6e8, 7e7 41aH, 41a
L20 6e18, 7e18 prt 65
H2 4c1, 4e8, 4e9 99
H3 4s9, 4s10, 5s3, 6s2, 7s3, 8s1 prt 99, prt 52
H6 6c2, 6e20 prt 52
H10 6e17, 7e22, 7e24, 8e9 57a
H11 7e25, 8c1, 8e11, 8e13 57
H12 8e16 prt 65
H13 7e25, 8c1, 8e12, 8e13 58
1 2
Lowercase ‘m’ = Marlborough Codes from NZ Soil Bureau (1968)
Page 110
Section 4: MAPPING
Table 22: An example of ‘setting’ modal LUC standards using soil sets (New Zealand Soil
Bureau, 1968) representative of the South Island eastern mountain lands.
Representative soil Example map unit inventories Modal LUC Modification criteria
sets [soil code] class and
subclass
Page 111
4.4 Modifying regional LUC Units for farm surveys
Regional LUC Units are occasionally too generalised for application at detailed
farm scales. Either the regional units lack sufficient detail, or the unique
component parts of these units may be individually mapped and even reclassified.
Regional LUC Units may be split at the farm scale for management reasons, or for
a more specific classification of existing units.
Page 112
Section 4: MAPPING
Page 113
4.6 Productivity indices
Regional productivity indices were created for LUC Units as part of the NZLRI
mapping project. Indices include three levels of stock carrying capacity for
pastoral use, and a Pinus radiata site index for forestry.
NZLRI stock carrying capacities only apply to ‘typical sheep and beef farming
systems’. They do not apply to dairying or cropping systems (LRG, 1981).
Table 23:Potential stock carrying capacity rankings (significant regional variations occur).
Page 114
Section 4: MAPPING
Page 115
Figure 18: Works plan template for the Gisborne East Coast sustainable hill country programme.
Page 116
(Please mark on this map and link
back to this legend where appropriate)
Establishment boundaries
Overlay 3A areas
already treated
Proposed thinning or
tree harvesting
Key
Overlay 3A targeted land
Produced by the Gisborne District SUSTAINABLE HILL COUNTRY WORKS PLAN Land parcels
Council. Contains Crown Copyright Farm name: Scale = 1:10,000 (A3 map size)
Address:
data sourced from LINZ. Ortho- 390 195 0 390 Legal roads
photography from Terralink Ltd. Other information: Metres
Section 5: APPLICATIONS
5. APPLICATION EXAMPLES
Potential applications of the LUC system are wide and varied. Several examples
are presented in this section to illustrate how the analysis of physical factors can be
used in the systematic planning of land use, and the design and implementation of
targeted management (particularly soil conservation measures).
The examples are deliberately varied in order to convey the flexibility of the
system and differences in the form of presentation which caters for differing
physical conditions. Examples have been prepared using 2nd edition Handbook
standards, so LUC Classes are described using Roman rather than Arabic
numerals.
Page 117
5.2 LUC mapping for planning at the catchment level
Catchments are natural units of resource management. However, most resource
management decisions are made within the farm unit. Catchment control schemes
seek to integrate and coordinate resource management across many neighbouring
farms within a given catchment of interest. This is considered to have far greater
cumulative benefit in terms of flood and erosion control (and more recently water
quality management), relative to treating individual farms in isolation.
Catchment control schemes were established under the Soil Conservation and
Rivers Control Act (1941). The first schemes started in the late 1950s, gradually
increasing to 121 Schemes covering two million hectares in 1985. Many have
since ceased, and only a small number continue to operate under regional council
administration.
Greater Wellington Regional Council maintains six catchment control schemes in
Wairarapa. Each aims to protect community assets from soil erosion and flooding.
Catchment rating classifications provide contribution from the community, which
is matched ‘in kind’ by the Council. Decisions regarding fund allocation and
works priority are made by a community Scheme Advisory Committee.
One example is the Maungaraki Catchment Control Scheme located east of
Gladstone. This is a relatively small scheme, involving 12 farms covering 6,500
ha. The catchment is predominantly steepland-mudstone country prone to
moderate and severe gully, earthflow and soil slip erosion, and road access is
particularly vulnerable to storm damage.
LUC mapping has been undertaken for most of the catchment on a cumulative
farm-by-farm basis (Figure 19), and property conservation plans have been
prepared for each farm. Aggregated works indicate the scale of land use change
that can be achieved using a catchment approach (Figure 20 and Table 25).
Table 25: Integrated protection of erosion-prone land under the Maungaraki Catchment
Control Scheme, 2008.
Page 118
Section 5: APPLICATIONS
Figure 19: LUC classes for the Maungaraki Catchment Control Scheme.
Page 119
Figure 20: Maungaraki Catchment integrated works programme for 2008.
Page 120
Section 5: APPLICATIONS
Two farm plan examples are provided. The first represents the application of
LRI/LUC mapping and farm planning in a higher capability landscape, while the
second represents a more traditional soft-rock hill country application.
Page 121
Figure 21: LUC mapping at the farm scale on flat to undulating terrain.
Page 122
Section 5: APPLICATIONS
Page 123
5.3.2 Farm plan example for soft-rock hill country
This example depicts the detailed physical inventory and Land Use Capability
(Figure 23) for a typical Wanganui soft-rock hill country property with derivative
current and potential pasture production (Figure 24) and recommended works
programme (Figure 25). Below is an extract from the extended legend that
accompanies the farm LUC classification (provided courtesy of LandVision Ltd
and Horizons Regional Council).
Erosion
Area Rock Vege-
LUC Soil Slope
(ha) type tation Actual Potential
Page 124
Section 5: APPLICATIONS
In regard to the following maps, note the detailed recording of the full physical
land resource inventory and cameo descriptions of the LUC units (from Fletcher
1987). The current production estimates are derived from stocking rates and
distributed according to LUC units adjusted to relative yield. Potential production
estimates are derived from stock carrying capacities reported in the NZLRI
regional legend (Fletcher 1987) with variable utilisation rates adjusted according to
LUC and soil fertility levels.
Landuse
Strengths Limitations Conditions of use
suitability
Currently planted in Wetness limitation Intensive Care with heavy cattle during
redwoods even after drainage pastoral wet periods to prevent
Reasonable natural Easily pugged with farming with pugging damage
fertility heavy cattle drainage. Care with machinery at
Generally summer safe Streambank erosion Afforestation harvest time to reduce
Good shelter potential structural degradation.
Flooding (once every
five years)
Access & location
Slip debris from above
Reasonable soil Prone to moderate Intensive Use zero or conservation
physical properties sheet and rill erosion pastoral tillage techniques for pasture
Responds well to under cultivation farming. renewal
fertiliser applications Shelter Maintain soil fertility levels
Good contour & Care with heavy cattle during
position wet periods to minimise
Reasonable access pugging and treading
Some good natural damage
shelter for livestock Shelter & shade for livestock
Free draining Moderate potential for Pastoral Space planted trees over
Loess derived soils soil slip erosion under farming with erosion prone parts of the
more naturally fertile pasture and slight conservation slope
sheet and tunnel gully plantings. Maintain soil fertility to
erosion enhance sward
Cool winter
temperatures limit
pasture growth
Page 125
Figure 24: Detailed inventory and Land Use Capability map for a typical Wanganui soft-
rock hill country property.
Page 126
Section 5: APPLICATIONS
Page 127
Figure 25: Current and potential pasture production estimates derived from LUC unit
stocking capacities, and adjusted for relative yield, utilisation and soil fertility levels.
Page 128
Page 129
Figure 26: Recommended conservation works for a typical Wanganui soft-rock hill country
property.
Page 130
Page 131
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The first edition of the Handbook was prepared at the request of the New Zealand
Association of Soil Conservators [now known as the New Zealand Association of Resource
Management], the New Zealand Catchment Authorities Association, and the Soil
Conservation and Rivers Control Council by DA Campbell, GA Dunbar, M King and JW
Ramsay and published in 1969. This, however, underwent considerable revision, extension,
and editing by CS Harris, G Howard, and RC Prickett, assisted by many soil conservators,
resulting in the second edition published in 1971, and reprinted in 1974.
A systematic review and updating of this Handbook has been undertaken prior to
publication of this third edition. It was undertaken by a team of scientists, some of whom
were involved with the preparation of the New Zealand Land Resource Inventory, and a
panel of regional council representatives. Funding was provided by the Foundation for
Research, Science and Technology under the Envirolink Tools programme. Printing was
funded by Envirolink, the New Zealand Association of Resource Management (NZARM),
and the New Zealand Society of Soil Science (NZSSS).
The regional council champions for the project were GO Eyles (Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council) and JK Roygard (Horizons, Manawatu). The project science team consisted of GB
Douglas (Project Manager), GR Harmsworth, IH Lynn (Compilation Editor), AD Mackay,
A Manderson (Publication Editor), PFJ Newsome, and MJ Page. The regional council land
management team comprised A Burton, D Cameron, B Cathcart, G Cooper, T Crippen, J
Cuff, G Eyles, P Fantham, D Hicks, J Loveridge, N Ngapo, D Shearman, S Stokes, M Todd,
and R Van de Weteringh. Grateful thanks are given to these people for their contributions.
Special thanks are given to Christine Bezar of Landcare Research for final text edits.
M Jessen, a highly regarded member of the land resource mapping fraternity, was killed in a
road cycle race in January 2006. His contributions to the many developments in the LUC
mapping system incorporated into this edition of the Handbook are acknowledged.
PHOTO CREDITS
AKM Andrew Manderson MT Malcolm Todd
CJP Chris Phillips MSR M Redpath
GH Garth Harmsworth NF Neil Faulknor
IGNS Institute of Geological and NT Noel Trustrum
Nuclear Sciences PN Peter Newsome
GOE Garth Eyles RG Ross Gray
IHL Ian Lynn SNZL Soils in the NZ Landscape
KN Kathy Noble (Molloy, 1998)
LCR Landcare Research SW Steven Walsh
LV Landvision (Lachie Grant and TC Terry Crippen
Sarah Dudin) TDC Tasman District Council
MJP Mike Page TRC Taranaki Regional Council
MRJ Murray Jessen
Page 132
INDEX OF TABLES, FIGURES AND PLATES
List of figures
Figure 1: Components of the Land Use Capability Classification................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Increasing limitations to use and decreasing versatility of use from LUC Class 1 to LUC Class 8
(modified from SCRCC 1974). † Includes vegetable cropping. .................................................................. 9
Figure 3: (opposite) Coded Land Resource Inventory recorded as a ‘formula’, and the accompanying Land
Use Capability code (adapted from NWASCO 1979)................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: Soil code from an existing soil map. In this case the Cl represents the Clutha soil series as used in
Beecroft et al. (1991). .................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 5: Soil code from the NZ Soil Classification. The code translates to a Weathered Fluvial Recent,
(deep) stoneless, silty, moderate permeability soil. ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: Soil code from S-map. Waim_9 refers to the 9th Sibling of the Waimakariri Family of soils. ............. 20
Figure 7: The three hierarchical levels of the Land Use Capability Classification. ................................................... 48
Figure 8: Increasing limitations to use and decreasing versatility of use from LUC Class 1 to LUC Class 8. .......... 49
Figure 9: The distribution of LUC Classes in New Zealand as recorded in the NZLRI. Approximately 790
thousand hectares are unclassed (Stewart Island, rivers, towns, quarries, lakes and estuaries).................. 50
Figure 10: A diagrammatic representation of the relationship between LUC class, soil depth, and degree of
stoniness (adapted from Noble 1985). ......................................................................................................... 80
Figure 11: Distribution of LUC subclasses in New Zealand (from the 1:50,000 NZLRI). .......................................... 82
Figure 12: Subclass allocation priority when more than one kind of limitation is considered equal. .......................... 85
Figure 13: Overview of recommended steps for undertaking farm-level LRI/LUC survey. Core steps are
highlighted in blue boxes, and each step is equally important as the next. ................................................. 91
Figure 14: Land Use Capability regions and published bulletin availability. Dotted grey lines represent
administration boundaries of regional and unitary councils...................................................................... 105
Figure 15: Example of an LUC unit information sheet used by Taranaki Regional Council..................................... 107
Figure 16: Inventory classified into the L4 suite of the Marlborough regional classification. ................................... 108
Figure 17: Marlborough LUC suite classification structure (Lynn 1996). ................................................................. 109
Figure 18: Works plan template for the Gisborne East Coast sustainable hill country programme........................... 116
Figure 19: LUC classes for the Maungaraki Catchment Control Scheme. ................................................................. 119
Figure 20: Maungaraki Catchment integrated works programme for 2008................................................................ 120
Figure 21: LUC mapping at the farm scale on flat to undulating terrain. ................................................................... 122
Figure 22: Proposed subdivision and recommended works. ....................................................................................... 123
Figure 23: Extended legend example (extract) for a farm LUC classification. .......................................................... 124
Figure 24: Detailed inventory and land use capability map for a typical Wanganui soft-rock hill country
property. ..................................................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 25: Current and potential pasture production estimates derived from LUC unit stocking capacities, and
adjusted for relative yield, utilisation and soil fertility levels. .................................................................. 128
Figure 26: Recommended conservation works for a typical Wanganui soft-rock hill country property. .................. 130
List of tables
Table 1: Suggested mapping scales for LRI survey and LUC classification (after Manderson & Palmer
2006). ........................................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Rock type symbols, names and prefixes used in the NZLRI rock type classification. ............................... 15
Table 3: Sources of rock type maps and information. ............................................................................................... 16
Table 4: Common soil information resources in New Zealand. ................................................................................ 17
Table 5: Correlation between NZ Genetic Classification and NZ Soil Classification (adapted from Molloy
1998). ........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 6: Slope groupings. .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Page 133
Table 7: Erosion types and symbols (for definitions see Appendix 2). ..................................................................... 22
Table 8: Guidelines for relating area eroded to erosion severity for each erosion type. ........................................... 24
Table 9: Guidelines for recording the extent of soil profile loss, especially on sheet and wind eroded areas
(SCRCC 1974). ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Table 10: Guidelines for recording the severity of track erosion. ............................................................................... 43
Table 11: NZLRI vegetation cover classification, vegetation class symbols and names. ........................................... 44
Table 12: Approximate correlation of the NZLRI vegetation classes to the pasture classes used in Overseer®. ....... 46
Table 13: Summary of generalised LUC class guideline criteria. ............................................................................... 77
Table 14: Relationship between the wetness subclass and depth to hydromorphic features, water table depth,
and the presence of standing water (adapted from Lynn 1996). ................................................................. 78
Table 15: The relationship between LUC classes with a ‘w’ limitation and inundation and effects of
floodwaters (adapted from Fletcher et al. 1994). Specific criteria vary regionally..................................... 79
Table 16: The relationship between arable LUC classes with an ‘s’ limitation and (a) depth to subsurface
pans, (b) typical fine earth textures............................................................................................................. 81
Table 17: Guidelines for LUC class according to altitudinal (temperature) limits applicable in the central
South Island (adapted from Lynn et al. 1987, and Hunter 1992). ............................................................... 83
Table 18: Guidelines to the selection of appropriate scales for extensive LRI/LUC surveys (modified from
McRae & Burnham 1981 and Jessen 1987). ............................................................................................. 100
Table 19: Suggested checklist of items to include in a kit for extensive LRI/LUC surveys. .................................... 102
Table 20: LUC Suites, Sub-suites and component LUC Units in the Northland Region (Harmsworth 1996). ........ 106
Table 21: Selecting LUC units for the soils depicted in Table 22 using the hierarchical structure of the
NZLRI Marlborough Regional extended legend (Figure 17).................................................................... 110
Table 22: An example of ‘setting’ modal LUC standards using soil sets (New Zealand Soil Bureau, 1968)
representative of the South Island eastern mountain lands........................................................................ 111
Table 23: Potential stock carrying capacity rankings (significant regional variations occur)................................... 114
Table 24: Site index rankings for Pinus radiata. ........................................................................................................ 115
Table 25: Integrated protection of erosion-prone land under the Maungaraki Catchment Control Scheme,
2008. ....................................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 26: Commonly recognised critical slopes for specified activities (modified from Bibby & Mackney
1969; McRae & Burnham 1981; MacDonald 1999; and Occupational Safety and Health Service
1999). ....................................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 27: Area in hectares of LUC Classes 1–8, estuaries, lakes, quarries, rivers and towns as mapped in the
North and South Islands during the national NZLRI survey, 1975–1999................................................. 147
List of plates
Plate 1: (opposite) Example distribution of Land Resource Inventory and Land Use Capability units on the
landscape – lower mid-Awatere Valley, Marlborough (IHL). See page 132 for photo credits. ................. 7
Plate 2: Limestone rock type exhibiting prominent dip and scarp slopes, Weka Pass, North Canterbury
(IHL). ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
Plate 3: The tephra mantle is a significant landscape-forming component in the Central North Island
(SNZL). ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
Plate 4: Result of extreme sheet and wind erosion, Raglan Range, Marlborough (LCR). ....................................... 25
Plate 5: Active wind erosion of cultivated soil, Strath Taieri Basin, Central Otago (LCR). ................................... 26
Plate 6: Wind-eroded topsoil from a winter feed crop deposited up to 70 cm deep along a fenceline,
Maniototo Basin, Central Otago (LCR)....................................................................................................... 26
Plate 7: Extreme scree erosion on LUC Class 8, Whale Stream, Waitaki Basin (IHL). .......................................... 27
Plate 8: Scree erosion in the Harper-Avoca catchment, mid-Canterbury. Note the pattern and colour of
surface weathering indicating relative activity, the ‘armouring’ with coarse debris at the base, and
that little if any sediment is reaching the stream channel (LCR). ............................................................... 27
Plate 9: Very severe soil slip erosion in weakly consolidated sandstone hill country, Pohangina, Manawatu
(IGNS).......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Page 134
Plate 10: Shallow soil slip on massive mudstone hill country. Note the shallow scar and the debris tail
sliding into the creek (AKM). ...................................................................................................................... 29
Plate 11: Moderately sever, deep soi- slip erosion (previously designated as earthslip). Note the deep scar
and the high volume of debris (GH). ........................................................................................................... 29
Plate 12: Very severe debris avalanche erosion in Fiordland (IGNS). ....................................................................... 30
Plate 13: Severe earthflow on crushed argillite LUC 7e country (MJP). ................................................................... 31
Plate 14: Earthflow on Onerahi Chaos breccia, Tauhoa Road, Warkworth, Northland (TC). ................................... 32
Plate 15: Severe earthflow erosion on mudstone, Totangi Road, Gisborne (NT). ..................................................... 32
Plate 16: Slump erosion, Dannevirke (NT). Note the rotation across the back-wall. Some flow
characteristics have developed after the initial slump failure...................................................................... 33
Plate 17: Deep-seated slump erosion in soft mudstone hill country, Rangitikei. Note the deep soil slip
(earth slip) also evident at the front of the slump (PN). .............................................................................. 33
Plate 18: Large slump off the Maraetotara ridge, Hawkes Bay. Note the backward rotation of blocks and
the wetland. Many years of plantings, retirement and pond drainage have not stabilised the slump
(GOE). ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
Plate 19: Large slump in the Whangaehu catchment. Also note the surrounding soil slip erosion (IGNS). ............ 34
Plate 20: Very severe rill erosion, Esk Valley, Hawkes Bay (MJP)........................................................................... 35
Plate 21: Extreme rill erosion and severe sheet erosion, Moutere Hills, Nelson (LCR). .......................................... 35
Plate 22: Tarndale Gully, Waipaoa catchment, Gisborne. Extreme gully erosion was initiated in 1915 and
the gully area had grown to at least 20 ha when last measured (NT). ......................................................... 36
Plate 23: Localised gully erosion in unconsolidated sands. Caused by ineffective management of a water
overflow (MT). ............................................................................................................................................ 36
Plate 24: Severe gully erosion in mudstone hill country, Gisborne. Note the attempt to limit further
enlargement by sparsely planting the upper reaches (GDC). ...................................................................... 37
Plate 25: Characteristic vertical- sided gully system in Taupo breccia (Tp), Poronui Station, Bay of Plenty
(GOE). ......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Plate 26: Extreme tunnel gully, Wither Hills, Marlborough (LCR). .......................................................................... 38
Plate 27: Moderate tunnel gully erosion on LUC Class 6e, Hawkes Bay (LCR)....................................................... 38
Plate 28: Moderate streambank erosion south of Tinui, Wairarapa (MJP). ............................................................... 39
Plate 29: Severe streambank erosion of fine-grained alluvial soils overlying weathered alluvial valley fill
gravels of the Sherry catchment in the Nelson region (TDC). .................................................................... 39
Plate 30: Streambank protection provided by a dense tree root network of poplar and willow species and
large rock riprap in the Pigeon Creek catchment (TDC). ............................................................................ 40
Plate 31: Coarse gravel debris deposited in a small active channel of the Eden Valley Stream within the
Moutere Gravels in the Nelson region (TDC). ............................................................................................ 41
Plate 32: Deposition of fine sediment on river terraces and flats, Gisborne (NT). .................................................... 41
Plate 33: Extreme deposition of fine silts to a depth of one metre after flooding associated with Cyclone
Bola, Gisborne (GH). ................................................................................................................................... 42
Plate 34: In principle, a new polygon is mapped when there is a significant change in vegetation cover. In
practice, this is balanced with considerations regarding scale, use of the ‘scattered’ suffix (*), and
an estimate of percent coverage (RG). ........................................................................................................ 45
Plate 35: Market gardening on LUC Class 1 land (1w) at Marshlands, Canterbury (LCR). ..................................... 51
Plate 36: LUC Class 1 land (1s) under intensive use in the Riwaka Valley (Nelson) on deep Typic Fluvial
Recent Riwaka soils (6e in the background and 7e in the immediate foreground) (IHL). ......................... 52
Plate 37: Process tomatoes on LUC Class 1 land (1s) with Manawatu silt loam soils, Palmerston North
(MJP). ......................................................................................................................................................... 52
Plate 38: LUC Class 1 (1c) under horticulture in Southern Hawkes Bay, on Twyford soils (KN). .......................... 53
Plate 39: Cropping on Class 2 land with Pukekohe soils (2e). Sheet and rill erosion is evident in the
foreground (LCR). ....................................................................................................................................... 53
Plate 40: Bean cropping on Class 2 land with Pakowhai soils (2w), Hawkes Bay (LCR). ....................................... 54
Plate 41: Class 2 land with Temuka soils (2w) being used to grow garlic at Riverlands, Blenheim. Note the
tunnel-gullied Wither Hills in background (LUC 6e and 7e) (IHL). .......................................................... 54
Plate 42: Viticulture on LUC Class 2 land with Wairau soils (2s) in the Wairau Valley, Marlborough (IHL)......... 55
Plate 43: Intensive horticulture and neighbouring pastoralism on LUC Class 2 land (2s) near Kerikeri,
Northland. Kerikeri soils on flat to undulating slopes (GH). ..................................................................... 55
Page 135
Plate 44: Cultivated Class 2 land with Kiwitea silt loam (2c) near Shannon, Horowhenua (MJP). .......................... 56
Plate 45: Grain harvesting on rolling Class 3 land with Timaru soils formed from loess (3e). Timaru,
Canterbury (SNZL). ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Plate 46: Viticulture on Class 3 land with well-drained Rapaura soils (3s) on undulating channel and stony
gravel-bar topography in the Wairau Valley, Marlborough (IHL).............................................................. 57
Plate 47: Class 3 land (3c) mapped on the gently sloping floor of Kaituna Valley, Marlborough. LUC 7e
foothills in the background (IHL). ............................................................................................................... 58
Plate 48: Pastoral use of Class 4 land in the loess downlands of North Otago. LUC 4e is classed for the
rolling to strongly rolling cultivated slopes and LUC 4w for the poorly drained valley floor.
Moderately steep to steep LUC 6e in the middle ground, with the Kakanui Ranges in the
background (IHL). ....................................................................................................................................... 59
Plate 49: Cultivated Class 4 land (4e) associated with shallow loess in the Waitaki Valley, South
Canterbury. LUC 6e in the background (IHL). .......................................................................................... 60
Plate 50: Contour cultivation on loess Class 4 land (4e) in the southern Hawkes Bay (MSR).................................. 60
Plate 51: Wet Class 4 land on Hauraki clay soils (4w). Note the ‘hump and hollow’ drainage. Hauraki
Plains, Waikato (MRJ). ................................................................................................................................ 61
Plate 52: Class 4 with stony Ruapuna soils (4s) of the Canterbury Plains. Predominantly used for pasture
grazing, with occasional cereal and short-rotation fodder cropping (IHL). ................................................ 61
Plate 53: High rainfall Class 4 land (4c) located in the upper Taramakau catchment (6,400 mm/yr rainfall),
West Coast (IHL). ........................................................................................................................................ 62
Plate 54: Example of LUC 5 land (5e) previously classed as LUC 6 (6e), north of Waipawa in the Hawkes
Bay. Strongly rolling downlands with Te Aute soils. Cultivation for pasture renewal masks the
results of past erosion, but there is evidence of past activity on the mid-slope and in the
background (NF). ......................................................................................................................................... 63
Plate 55: Class 5 land with a wetness limitation that makes it unsuitable for arable uses even after drainage
(5w) (MJP). .................................................................................................................................................. 64
Plate 56: Class 5 land in the Waikato, where topography is easy and soils are productive, but the presence
of limestone outcrops and boulders create a severe soil limitation for cropping (5s) (GOE). .................... 64
Plate 57: Intensive grazing and dairying use of bouldery Class 5 land (5s) on the Hapuka Fan, Kaikoura
(IHL). ......................................................................................................................................................... 65
Plate 58: Class 5 land with a climate limitation (5c) associated with low seasonal rainfall (830 mm) and
fertile yet droughty Matapiro soils (dense subsoils reduce plant-available water storage),
Puketapu, Hawkes Bay (MJP). .................................................................................................................... 65
Plate 59: LUC class 6e with mixed grazing and production forestry land use on the foothills surrounding
Whangapoua Harbour, Coromandel Peninsula (CJP). ................................................................................ 66
Plate 60: Class 6 hill country, North Canterbury. Background landscape is formed from indurated
greywacke (6e), with the easier slopes being cultivated from previously oversown and topdressed
short tussock grassland with matagouri scrub. The foreground is soft sandstone partially mantled
with loess (6e), with a degree of soil slip evident (IHL). ............................................................................ 67
Plate 61: Class 6 land in the Waikato (6e), with minor soil slip erosion (MRJ). ....................................................... 67
Plate 62: LUC Class 6 land on steep to very steep slopes with moderate soil slip and sheet erosion on
volcanic loams developed from Franklin Basalt (6e), Waikato (SW)......................................................... 68
Plate 63: Limestone Class 6 land characteristic of the Puketoi Ranges, Tararua. Elevation and exposure
convey a dominant climate limitation (6c) (LCR)....................................................................................... 68
Plate 64: Classes 6, 4 and 3 on estuarine soils and reclaimed land, Kaipara Flats, Northland. The slightly
saline Takahiwai and gley Kaipara soils are classified as 3w and 4w where drained, and 6w for the
undrained soils nearest the estuary (GH). .................................................................................................... 69
Plate 65: Stone-picked and rolled Class 6 land with stony Takapau soils (6s), Southern Hawkes Bay.
Significant topsoil stones and gravels still remain, and these soils have low soil-water storage
capacities making them particularly prone to droughtiness (KN). .............................................................. 69
Plate 66: Moderately steep Class 6 hill country (6s) near Tikokino, Hawkes Bay. Gwavas and Mangatahi
soils formed from patches of loess over gravels and unconsolidated sands. Note the brown drier
areas where loess is no longer prevalent (KN). ........................................................................................... 69
Plate 67: Typical very shallow (<20 cm) and/or stony (35–70%) Class 7s type soil profile (very shallow and
droughty Lismore soils of the Canterbury Plains) (SNZL). ........................................................................ 70
Page 136
Plate 68: Typical 'hard' dry and cold inter-montane Class 7 steeplands on greywacke rocks with moderate to
severe sheet erosion and slight gully erosion (7e), Awatere Valley, Marlborough. High altitude
Class 8e land in the background (IHL). ....................................................................................................... 71
Plate 69: Very severe soil slip erosion on LUC Class 7 (7e) hill country after Cyclone Bola (1988). Devil's
Elbow, Northern Hawke's Bay (MJP). ....................................................................................................... 71
Plate 70: Class 7 land with acidic and infertile Okarito silt-mantled Perch-gley Podzol soils on the
Craigieburn Pakihi, Grey Valley. In this location soils represent the dominant limitation (7s)
(SNZL). ........................................................................................................................................................ 72
Plate 71: Foreground. Flat Class 7 land with a wetness limitation for pasture and forestry (7w) at the head
of Lake Brunner, Westland (LCR). ............................................................................................................. 72
Plate 72: Rolling Class 8 land (8s) with coarse gravels and boulders from alluvial gold-dredge tailings (all
fine material has been removed), Taramakau River, West Coast (IHL). .................................................... 73
Plate 73: Flat to undulating Class 8 land (8c) with scab weed and subalpine vegetation, on the summit of
the Old Man Range, Otago (1,600 m above sea level) (IHL). .................................................................... 73
Plate 74: A range of Class 8e in middle and background, with debris cones and valley fill of Class 7e, Freds
Stream, Ben Ohau Range, Waitaki Basin (IHL). ........................................................................................ 74
Plate 75: Class 8 mountain land (8e). Looking south-east at the south-facing slopes of Mukamuka Stream,
Orongorongo catchment, Wellington (NT). ................................................................................................ 74
Plate 76: Very steep (>350) Class 8 greywacke slopes with moderate scree and gully erosion (8e), Mount
Hector, Tararua Ranges, Wellington (MJP). ............................................................................................... 75
Plate 77: Coastal Class 8 land on the dunes and storm beach deposits (8s) between Baring Head and
Turakirae Head, Wellington coast (MJP). ................................................................................................... 75
Plate 78: Fluctuating water table that is at the surface during winter, but drops below 90cm in summer.
Mottles appear at 50 cm depth, making this 3w land (AKM). .................................................................... 79
Plate 79: Moderate streambank erosion exposing stony Kopua soils in the Tararua district. Gravels at 45
cm (LUC 3s) and an appreciable size and number of stones occur in the profile and often at the
surface (stone picking is common). Also note the slight deposition (1D) of fine gravels from a
previous flooding event (AKM). ................................................................................................................. 81
Plate 80: Rural neighbourhood watches can be particularly vigilant. A simple sign informs people why
there happens to be a strange vehicle parked on the side of the road (AKM)............................................. 95
Page 137
(Occupational Safety and Health Service 1999) and 26° (MacDonald 1999), while some specialised
self-levelling tracked machines can work on favourable slopes up to 30°. All machines must be
equipped with brakes capable of holding the machine and its load on any slope on which it is operated.
Some commonly recognised critical slopes for specified activities are given in Table 26.
Table 26: Commonly recognised critical slopes for specified activities (modified from Bibby
& Mackney 1969; McRae & Burnham 1981; MacDonald 1999; and Occupational Safety
and Health Service 1999).
Slope Slope group Activities
group (degrees)
A 0-3 Free ploughing and cultivation (10)
B 4-7 Soil erosion begins to be a problem (>30)
Some heavy agricultural machinery restricted (60)
Difficulties with weeders, precision seeders and some root crop harvesters (30–
70)
C 8-15 Additional front weights to compensate for drag and steering difficulties for
standard wheeled tractors (>110)
Limit of two-way ploughing (depending on field configuration) (120)
Limit of combine harvester operation (depending on field configuration) (150)
Restricted loading and off loading of trailers (150)
D 16–20 Restricted crop rotations, higher cultivation costs, longer periods in pasture
(>150)
Typical maximum limit for rubber-tyred skidders (180 - 200)
E 21-25 Difficult to plough, lime and fertilise, higher cultivation costs, normal rotations
impossible (>200)
Occasional tillage for pasture improvement (200 - 250)
F 26-35 Soil movement and the formation of cross-slope stock tracks
Typical maximum limit for tracked skidders (260)
Specialised self-levelling tracked harvesting machines (260 up to 300)
G >35
Surface erosion
SHEET – Sh (aka sheetwash)
Sheet erosion is the removal of surface particles by non-channelised overland flow of water. Areas
susceptible to sheet erosion include bare ground such as cultivated paddocks and tracks, areas of heavy
stock concentration, landslide scars and debris tails. It also occurs in the form of diffuse movement of
particles through an incomplete vegetated sward. Sheet erosion is caused by a combination of raindrop
impact which dislodges fine soil particles, and overland flow which transports them. Rills develop
where overland flow concentrates into channel flow with increased volume and velocity.
Factors that influence susceptibility to sheet erosion include: soil parent material, slope angle, slope
aspect, altitude (especially where freeze and thaw cycles and wind dislodge particles), drought
conditions, and overgrazing. Although sheet erosion may occur on a wide variety of terrains, it is most
common on seasonally dry hill country, cultivated slopes and in upland areas.
WIND – W
Page 138
Wind erosion is the detachment, and transportation by saltation (bouncing along the surface) and aerial
suspension, of fine-grained particles by wind action. Wind erosion rates depend on wind turbulence and
currents, particle-size and uniformity, moisture content of the material, surface roughness, and
vegetation cover. Loose, exposed particles begin to move once a critical wind velocity, set by the
surface properties, is exceeded. Further detachment is initiated by the impact of saltating particles on the
surface.
Wind erosion may occur on flat or sloping land. Where steep bare surfaces are affected by wind erosion,
sheet erosion also usually occurs. Wind erosion is the dominant erosion process on sand country,
increasing in severity towards the coast where there is little soil development, on recent volcanic soils
above ~600 m asl on the central plateau, and is widespread throughout low-rainfall areas especially
where soils are exposed to desiccating north-westerly winds.
SCREE – Sc (aka scree creep)
Scree erosion is the transport and accumulation of coarse, fragmented rock debris on slopes as a result
of physical weathering and gravititational movement. Scree erosion occurs where rock material is
indurated or hard, on steep slopes with shallow soils, and is common at higher altitudes where physical
weathering (freeze-thaw and frost heave) rates are high and add to fragmentation and downslope
movement.
Scree material may be angular as in the case of greywacke, and hard volcanic rocks, or rounded in the
case of gravels exposed in terrace scarps. Many screes are relatively stable (typically up to 35-36°),
long-lived features, and in some cases have developed in situ from disintegration of underlying bedrock
rather than from transport and accumulation of material from upslope. The presence of woody
vegetation and lichens, surface rock weathering discolouration, and weathering rinds on rock fragments
are indications of stability.
Page 139
shallow soil slips in pastoral hill country are <1 m deep and have a volume of between 150 and 500m³.
They are triggered by a variety of natural agents, most commonly intense and/or prolonged rainfall,
earthquakes, and undercutting of slopes by stream or wave action. Soil slips are also induced by human
activities, especially slope modifications for roads, tracks and buildings.
Slope, aspect and vegetation are important determinants of soil slip occurrence. They rarely occur on
slopes <8°, with the majority occurring on slopes >20°. Dependent upon rock type and rainfall intensity,
mean slope angles are between 28–35°. Many storm damage assessments (Eyles 1971; James 1973;
Crozier et al. 1980; Salter et al. 1983; Phillips 1988; Hancox & Wright 2005a, 2005b) show an aspect
preference for soil slipping that may be influenced by storm direction, or by previous erosion events.
Northerly aspects are often more severely affected and this may be because of a more extreme winter
wetting/summer drying cycle. Land use change, especially removal of woody vegetation, increases
susceptibility to soil slipping. Dependent on terrain type, densities under pasture are between 3 and 10
times that under either indigenous or exotic forest (Hicks 1991; Hicks et al. 1993; DeRose 1996; Page
& Trustrum 1997; Hancox & Wright 2005b).
The term earth slip was used in previous editions of the LUC Handbook to map slips with a failure
surface that is concave and >1 m deep. As they are not common (and difficult to recognise from aerial
photography) they have been included with soil slips in this classification. However, where necessary
they may be recorded using the prefix ‘d’. Such deeper failures are more likely to occur in
unconsolidated or deeply weathered materials.
DEBRIS AVALANCHE – Da
Debris avalanches are rapid slides or flows on long, usually very steep slopes exposing an extended,
narrow scar with a long run-out. The initial failure surface is small, the debris scouring a deep but
narrow scar down a significant length of the slope.
Debris avalanches occur on steep (>25°) forested slopes in both the North and South Islands, and on
steep, greywacke colluvial slopes, under a grassland cover in the South Island.
DEBRIS FLOW – Df
Debris flows are generally the consequence of landslides triggered by exceptionally heavy rainfall, and
consist of dense fluid mixtures of debris (rock, soil, vegetation) and water that enter a watercourse,
forming a channelised flow. They have high sediment concentrations, with a consistency like wet
concrete. They move rapidly down a stream channel (faster than the flow of water in the same channel),
adding further sediment scoured from along the channel, and are capable of transporting very large
boulders.
ROCK FALL – Rf
Rock fall is the more or less abrupt free fall, bouncing and rolling of masses of rock of any size from
very steep slopes or cliffs. The slopes are so steep that no significant protective mantle of rock waste
can accumulate, and mass movement can proceed as fast as weathering and disintegration of the rock
mass permits.
Rock falls are most common in steep mountainous terrain, along cliffed coastlines and deeply incised
gorges. Bedrock competence, joint, fracture, and bedding plane patterning, regional deformation trends
and the location of fault and crush zones largely determine the site and extent of rock falls. Rock falls
are often triggered by strong earthquake shaking, and less commonly by intense rainfall.
EARTHFLOW – Ef
Earthflow erosion is the slow movement of soil and associated regolith, usually along basal and
marginal shear planes, with internal deformation of the moving mass. Movement rates vary from <0.5
m/yr to > 25 m/yr. The original vegetated surface, although often still present, is hummocky and may
contain numerous tension cracks. The disrupted nature and high water content of the material impede
both surface and subsurface drainage and often result in the development of ponds. Earthflows may be
Page 140
shallow (< 1–2 m) to deep-seated (>1–2 m to tens of metres, and typically 3–5 m). Deep-seated
earthflows typically occur on slopes between 10 and 20° and can cover large areas of a hill slope
(hundreds of square metres), while shallow earthflows are more common on slopes >20°, and are
smaller in area.
Rates and depth of movement are influenced by rock type (usually mudstones and argillites), degree of
shearing and crushing, and proportion of associated plastic clays, slope, vegetation cover, and rainfall,
which in turn strongly influence pore water pressures. Movement rates within earthflows usually vary,
and are often most active where the toes are undercut by streams or roads, or where gullies have
developed. Earthflows may show seasonal variation in activity and may reactivate following years of
stability. They often commence or increase activity late in winter in response to periods of saturated
soil-water conditions.
Mudflow was an erosion type listed in the erosion classification in previous editions of the LUC Survey
Handbook. In Eyles (1985) mudflows are defined as ‘very rapid flows of predominantly fine-grained
materials which have high water content. Mudflows often recur in the same channels’. This definition is
similar to that of a debris flow, except for the fine-grained nature of the sediment. Because mudflows
have not been mapped during NZLRI or farm plan mapping, the term has not been included in this
classification.
SLUMP – Su
Slumps are deep-seated failures, usually of large blocks of rock and regolith. They involve rotational
slide movements along curved failure planes, resulting in a raised lower (toe) slope relative to the upper
part of the slope. This often results in the formation of ponds or lakelets at the head of a slump.
There may be strong structural controls on the occurrence of slumps, and most occur in bedded
mudstones and sandstones. They often occur in earthflow-prone terrain and earthflow/slump complexes
are common.
Fluvial erosion
RILL – R
Rills are closely spaced channels resulting from the uneven removal of surface soil by running water.
Rills are <60 cm deep and <30 cm wide. They are features that can be removed by cultivation using
normal farm equipment (Brice 1966). In certain circumstances rills may develop into gullies.
Rills occur most commonly on cultivated slopes where they usually incise to the base of the cultivated
layer. In general the potential for rilling increases with slope angle. Rills are only occasionally observed
on slopes with established pasture cover.
GULLY – G
Gullies are formed by the removal of soil, regolith or rock by fluvial incision. They are large, permanent
features, >60 cm deep and >30 cm wide. Initially they form through the channelised flow of water and
involve headward and sideward migration of the channel. Gullies may be linear or amphitheatre in
shape, depending on rock type, and usually only carry water during rainstorms. In some instances
gullies are formed by a complex process of mass movements, sheet erosion and debris flows in response
to oversteepening of gully side walls by channel incision. They may also form through the deepening
and coalescing of rills, small usually numerous features <60 cm deep and <30 cm wide, that usually
form on bare surfaces during rainstorms.
TUNNEL GULLY – T (aka pipe/shaft erosion, under-runners, tomos)
Tunnel gully erosion is initiated by the subsurface concentration and flow of water, resulting in
eluviation and scouring, and the formation of narrow conduits, tunnels or pipes. Soluble, dispersive or
low strength material is removed, ultimately resulting in collapses, visible either as holes in the land
Page 141
surface or as gullies when sufficient collapses coalesce to form continuous linear features (after Lynn &
Eyles 1984). Tunnel gullies form in a range of regoliths where subsurface water concentrates above a
relatively impervious layer.
Land susceptible to tunnel gully erosion includes loess-mantled (typically >50 cm thick) moderately
steep sandstone, mudstone, and weakly consolidated conglomerate hill country with Pallic Soils, on
colluvial footslopes, and where coarse thick tephra deposits overlie consolidated rock types.
STREAMBANK – Sb (aka bank erosion, channel erosion)
Streambank erosion refers to the removal of material from the bank of a stream or watercourse usually
during or following elevated stream flow. Headward extension of the stream channel and downcutting
of the streambed are often associated with lateral bank erosion but are not always recognised separately.
Mechanisms of failure include bed and bank scour, which removes support and leads to the toppling of
the bank. This generally occurs on the falling stage of a flood event, when the strength of the material
forming the bank is decreased, and the weight of the bank has been increased by uptake of water from
the river, and the support of the river has been removed. Water flowing along the bank may also shear
off blocks of material by hydraulic action. Lateral bank erosion typically removes 2–50 m of material.
DEPOSITION – D (aka siltation, sedimentation)
Deposition refers to sediment, (including vegetation) that has been eroded, transported, and
subsequently deposited by running water. The material may be deposited within channels, on flat
floodplains and terrace surfaces by overbanking of streams or rivers, or on fans, colluvial slopes or
floodplains and terraces during overland/ephemeral flow. Sediment particle size ranges from clay to
boulder. Although not an erosion process per se, deposition is a related process and the end product of
erosion. Debris tails of soil slips and other mass movements deposited on hillslopes are not mapped
separately from the scar (source area).
Page 142
gD Sand dune vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation, dominated by sand-binding grasses or other
herbaceous plants. Principal species are marram grass (exotic), and spinifex and pingao
(indigenous). Minor species include iceplant, shore convolvulus, sheep sorrel, catsear, haresfoot
trefoil, harestail and kikuyu.
CROPS
cC Cereal crops. Principally wheat, oats and barley, but also including ryecorn and millet. These
crops are commonly grown in districts with cooler, drier climates. This class includes crops grown
for grain production and green feed (except maize).
cM Maize. Maize, whether grown for grain production, sweet corn or green feed. Maize is grown in
areas with a warm moist climate and/or soil conditions.
cP Pip and stone fruit. Temperate tree fruit, principally apples, pears, plums, peaches, apricots. Nut
trees can also be mapped in this class.
cG Grapes and berryfruit. Grapes largely grown for wine production but also including table grapes.
Berryfruit includes all canefruit, currants, gooseberries, blueberries etc., but excludes strawberries.
cK Kiwifruit. Although a subtropical fruit, kiwifruit is grown far more extensively and over a wider
climatic range than other subtropical fruit.
cS Subtropical fruit. Subtropical fruit, apart from kiwifruit, and including citrus fruit. Includes fruit
grown on trees, bushes and vines, such as avocados, babacos, feijoas, tamarillos and passionfruit.
cR Short-rotation forage and fodder crops. Includes short-rotation forage crops which include annual
(Diploid and Tetraploid) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus
corniculatus) and forage herbs (chicory and plantain). Fodder crops include swedes, leaf and bulb
turnips, rape, choumoellier, kale, fodder beet and winter cereals grown for whole crop cereal silage.
Soil fertility would be in the optimum range (Olsen P 20–35) with annual production exceeding
>15,000 kgDM/ha in some cases.
cV Vegetables, nurseries. All fresh vegetables and those grown for processing, except sweet corn.
Includes crops such as peas and potatoes grown for seed. Also includes strawberries, tree, shrub
and flower nurseries.
SCRUB
sM Manuka, kanuka. Scrub and shrubland dominated by manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) or
kanuka (Kunzea ericoides). This class is used to record stages of manuka and kanuka growth from
juvenile open shrubland to closed mature stands. Kanuka stands >6m in height however are
mapped as broadleaved forest (fB).
sC Cassinia. Scrub and shrubland dominated by Cassinia spp. The class includes 4 or 5 species
which are collectively known as tauhinu, the two most common being C. fulvida and C.
leptophylla. Often, but not exclusively growing in areas with a coastal influence. Specifically
excluded from this class is C. vauvilliersii where it is a component of sub-alpine scrub.
sD Dracophyllum. Scrub and shrubland dominated by Dracophyllum spp. Typically 'frost flat'
vegetation, Dracophyllum is a low growing shrub and includes a number of species, especially
inaka and monoao. A variety of other shrubs and herbs may be part of the class including
gleichenia fern, red tussock and manuka. Dracophyllum spp. may occur as part of sub-alpine scrub
and are therefore included in that class.
sF Fern. Vegetation dominated by ferns, excluding tree ferns. A large number of fern species are
mapped in this class, principally bracken, ring fern, prickly shield fern, water fern and kiokio.
sS Subalpine scrub. Indigenous scrub communities occurring above the montane zone. These
communities range from monospecific to highly diverse, but typically form dense assemblages less
than 2.5m high. Characterised by species of the genera Olearia, Senecio, Coprosma, Hebe,
Phormium, Hoheria and Dracophyllum. In areas of indigenous forest it is confined to above the
Page 143
treeline but in deforested areas, e.g. eastern South Island, it may descend below the treeline into the
upper montane zone.
sX Mixed indigenous scrub. Scrub and shrubland comprising mixtures of indigenous species
occurring in the lowland and montane zones, and where manuka and kanuka are not prominent
components. Includes stable communities maintained in specialised habitats, e.g. steep, rocky
terrain, and dynamic successional assemblages, e.g. succession from induced grassland to forest.
Normally consists of a large number of species, but may also include vegetation consisting of one
or several species, e.g. mountain flax, bog pine.
sT Mixed indigenous scrub with tree ferns. Scrub and shrubland comprising mixtures of indigenous
species in which tree ferns are a significant component. Occurring in the lowland and montane
zones, especially in moist locations. Tree ferns are species of Cyathea and Dicksonia.
sB Broom. Scrub and shrubland dominated by exotic broom (Cytisus spp.). Common broom (C.
scoparius) is the most abundant species, but white broom and Montpellier broom which occupy
similar habitats are included within the class. Typically forms dense, monospecific stands.
sG Gorse. Scrub and shrubland dominated by gorse (Ulex europaeus). Typically forms dense,
monospecific stands and acts as a 'nurse species' through which other, usually indigenous, species
emerge.
sK Blackberry. Scrub dominated by blackberry (Rubus fruticosus). Blackberry normally forms
localised thickets in lowland, farmland and scrubland.
sW Sweet brier. Scrub and shrubland dominated by sweet brier (Rosa rubiginosa). Usually occurs in
short tussock grasslands in low to moderate rainfall montane basins of the South Island.
sA Matagouri. Scrub and shrubland dominated by matagouri (Discaria toumatou) and associated
small-leaved shrubs. Matagouri forms monospecific stands or occurs as shrubland with grass and
tussock. It is sometimes associated with other species including Corokia cotoneaster, Coprosma
propinqua, pohuehue, prostrate and small-leaved kowhai and native broom.
sV Mangroves. Coastal wetland vegetation characterised by mangroves (Avicennia resinifera).
Mangroves form a canopy of low trees which are reduced to shrubs toward the margin of their
habitat.
sL Lupins. Scrub and shrubland dominated by lupins, especially Lupinus arboreus which usually
occur on sand dunes, but may also occur in riverbeds or on adjacent stony terraces, and on recent
tephra. Often occurs in monospecific stands.
sH Heath. Scrub and shrubland dominated by exotic heath (Calluna spp. and Erica spp.). This class
is used to record heather in a grassland situation and in combination with Dracophyllum in montane
scrub.
sO Coastal scrub. Scrub and shrubland dominated by salt-tolerant plants. Typically low-growing,
divaricating shrubs, particularly Coprosma and Muehlenbeckia spp. Also includes flax. May
include lupins where these are not a dominant component. Occurs on both sand dune and hard rock
coastlines.
sE Exotic scrub. Scrub and shrubland characterised by exotic species other than those already
specified. Includes both monospecific and mixed communities. Species have a limited range
although they may be of regional importance, e.g. hakea, barberry, hawthorn.
FOREST
fC Coastal forest. Forest confined to coastal habitats and characterised by broadleaved species.
Species are largely confined to coastal habitats, but also include many trees and shrubs with a wider
distribution. Species include pohutukawa, ngaio, karaka, puriri, kohekohe, and nikau. Shrubs and
small trees include species of Coprosma, Myrsine, Pittosporum, and kawakawa.
fK Kauri forest. Forest characterised by kauri (Agathis australis). Most forests containing kauri have
been heavily logged and kauri is rarely a dominant canopy-forming tree. The class occurs in three
main situations.
Page 144
1. Limited areas of forest where only kauri is dominant in the canopy, either old, unlogged
stands, e.g. Waipoua, or as ricker stands. In both cases broadleaved species such as towai,
and rewarewa are confined to the understorey, as are regenerating podocarps.
2. Commonly in areas previously logged where remnant larger trees are now scattered to locally
frequent, often together with some regenerating kauri, within podocarp–broadleaved forest. In
this situation the forest should be identified as logged by the use of the symbol 'c' for cutover.
3. In areas where the forest has been heavily logged or burnt, kauri occurs as pole or ricker
stands in association with regenerating broadleaved shrubs and podocarps. The kauri is
emergent and of tree height. Kauri saplings below tree height are not recorded.
fP Podocarp forest. Forest with a canopy dominated by podocarp trees. Rimu, miro, totara, matai
and kahikatea are the common dominant podocarps. Broadleaved species are generally confined to
the understorey. Includes pole stands and mature forest. Normally mapped on flood plains and
terraces.
fB Broadleaved forest. Forest with a canopy dominated by broadleaved trees, excluding beech. Often
dominated by tawa, kamahi or rata but including many other species. Includes forest where
podocarps are naturally absent and where advanced regrowth has occurred after fire, gales,
landslides, volcanism etc. and can be regarded as forest, but where podocarps have not yet become
a significant element. Also includes podocarp–broadleaved forest from which podocarps have been
logged to such an extent that they are no longer a significant element in the forest canopy.
fO Lowland podocarp–broadleaved forest. Forest with emergent podocarps above a prominent
canopy of broadleaved species, and occurring below the altitudinal limit of rimu (Dacrydium
cupressinum) which is a common emergent. Podocarps in this class, in addition to rimu, include
matai, miro, totara, Hall's totara, kahikatea and tanekaha. Common broadleaved species include
kamahi, rata, tawa, taraire, pukatea, titoki, towai, tawari, hinau, rewarewa and maire. Much
lowland podocarp broadleaved forest has been logged (cut over).
fI Highland podocarp–broadleaved forest. Forest with prominent podocarps and a canopy of
broadleaved species, occurring above the altitudinal limit of rimu. Podocarps in this class include
Hall's totara, miro, pink pine, bog pine, mountain toatoa, kaikawaka. Common broadleaved species
include kamahi, mountain ribbonwood, broadleaf, southern rata, maire and Quintinia.
fD Podocarp-broadleaved beech forest. Forest with emergent podocarps above a prominent canopy of
broadleaved species and with irregular admixtures of lowland beech species. In some localities the
beech is restricted to ridges. Occurs below the altitudinal limit of rimu.
fW Lowland beech forest. Forest with a canopy dominated by beech (Nothofagus) species, principally
black, hard or red beech, and occurring below approximately 1,050 m a.s.l. in the North Island.
Silver beech may be present in some areas. The upper altitudinal range varies from 1,200 m a.s.l.
in the Raukumara Range to 700 m a.s.l. in the Tararua Range.
fG Highland beech forest. Forest with a canopy dominated by beech (Nothofagus) species, principally
silver and mountain beech, and occurring between approximately 1,050 m a.s.l. and the tree line in
the North Island. Minor species include red beech, broadleaf, bog pine, pink pine and subalpine
shrub species.
fU Beech forest, undifferentiated. Beech forest often comprising mixtures of lowland and highland
elements, at mid-altitudes, on long slopes in the montane and subalpine zones and on harsh lowland
sites.
fF Exotic conifer forest. Principally plantations of exotic softwoods, established and managed for
wood production. Normally close planted, but in the agro forestry situation may be open planted in
pasture. This class is also used to record soil conservation plantings (which are identified by the
prefix 'e', e.g. efF) and naturalised exotic trees (which are identified by the prefix 'n' e.g. nfF).
Pinus radiata is the major species, but others include Corsican pine, Pinus contorta, Douglas fir,
larch and cypress.
Page 145
fR Exotic broadleaved forest. Includes plantations of exotic hardwoods, established and managed for
wood production. This class is also used to record soil conservation plantings (principally poplars
and willows), which are identified by the prefix 'e', e.g. efR. Also included are naturalised exotic
trees (which are identified by the prefix 'n', e.g. nfR). Species include eucalypts, poplars, willows,
flame trees, wattles, Tasmanian blackwood, silver birch and black walnut. Normally close planted,
often in association with exotic conifers.
HERBACEOUS
hW Wetland vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation occurring in non-saline wetland habitats (swamps and
bogs) in which the water table is at or near the surface for most of the year. Swamps are typically
dominated by raupo, flax, niggerhead and kahikatea. Cabbage trees, manuka, and other shrubs may
also occur, especially on swamp fringes. Bogs are typically dominated by rushes, sedges (Baumea
spp., Juncus spp., wirerush) and sphagnum moss. Bogs may also include manuka and
Dracophyllum.
hR Rushes, sedges. Vegetation characterised by rushes and/or sedges. This class is normally mapped
in combination with pasture where drainage is impeded or on the margins of wetlands. Main
genera are Juncus, Carex, Scirpus and Baumea.
hA Alpine and subalpine herbfield/fellfield vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation, excluding grassland,
occurring in the subalpine and alpine zones. Includes species of Celmisia, Ranunculus, Astelia,
Aciphylla, Raoulia, Senecio, and sub-shrubs such as Dracophyllum pronum, lichens, and cushion
and bog vegetation.
hS Saline vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation occurring on saline, coastal wetlands. Salt tolerant
communities are dominated by low-growing, often turf-forming, creeping plants. The species
present are controlled by the degree of salinity and range from salt barley grass, Polypogon and
Puccinellia spp., plantain, Cotula coronopifolia, Selliera radicans and Chenopodium in areas of
low to moderate salinity, to Mimulus repens, Atriplex spp., and Sarcocornia quinqueflora in areas
of moderate to high salinity.
hP Pakihi vegetation. Herbaceous sedge/restiad/fern/moss vegetation, sometimes also including
scrub, occurring on pakihi. Typically dominated by wirerush, sedges (Baumea spp.), pakihi fern
and sphagnum moss. Manuka and to a lesser extent gorse are common emergent shrubs.
hM Semi-arid herbaceous vegetation. Herbaceous vegetation confined to freely draining sites in semi-
arid districts (<600 mm p.a.). The class includes sparse communities of exotic and indigenous
herbs and grasses, on severely modified and depleted short tussock grasslands. Includes scabweed,
sheep sorrel, catsear, hawkweed and grasses, including Poa maniototo, Aira caryophyllea and
vulpia hairgrass. The shrubs thyme, sweet brier and matagouri are locally conspicuous.
uV Unvegetated land. This symbol is used in place of the vegetation code where vegetation is absent
or where vegetation is insignificant (<10% of the map unit). This means uV will only be used
where no vegetation class is recorded. The class will therefore be mainly restricted to the alpine
zone above the altitude limit of vegetation or on bare sand dunes near the coast.
PREFIXES
Cutover forest is recorded as follows:
fO Unlogged podocarp–broadleaved forest.
cfO Logged podocarp–broadleaved forest, but where forest still contains podocarps (i.e. still has the
characteristics of a podocarp–broadleaved forest).
cfB Logged podocarp–broadleaved forest where podocarps have been removed to such an extent that
they no longer constitute a significant component of the forest (i.e. appears as a broadleaved forest).
fB A naturally occurring broadleaved forest. Includes areas of regeneration where podocarps have not
yet become a significant element.
Page 146
s Stunted. Indicates vegetation with a stunted canopy. This symbol is used on coastlines and
exposed headlands where forest is subject to severe wind and salt spray shear. It is also used in the
upper montane to subalpine zones where forest is subject to severe temperature stress.
e Erosion control trees. All trees planted and managed dominantly for erosion control. Typically
open planted poplars on farmland, or willows in gullies or along streambanks, but also including a
wide range of other species, e.g. Pinus radiata, Pinus contorta, eucalypts, acacia, flame trees.
Erosion control trees may also be block planted in plantations, where the primary purpose of the
planting is erosion control, although they may ultimately be milled. Some large-scale plantings
such as the Mangatu Forest (near Gisborne) have both erosion control and production functions.
Trees on eroding or potentially unstable sites have the primary function of erosion control. Where
the two components cannot be separated, the area is mapped as fF efF, or efF fF depending on
assessed extent of the two types.
n Naturalised exotic trees. Self-sown or untended exotic trees, not managed for production (any
erosion control function is incidental and fortuitous). Such trees are randomly scattered or
clumped. In some cases they may be aggressive colonisers and can be regarded as a weed.
Also included are trees that have been planted but have not been managed for production or erosion
control (e.g. trees planted around abandoned homesteads). Species include Pinus contorta near the
Desert Road, willows in swamps in the Waikato, macrocarpas or pines that have seeded on
farmland, wattles, silver birch, acacia and eucalypts.
Table 27: Area in hectares of LUC Classes 1–8, estuaries, lakes, quarries, rivers and towns
as mapped in the North and South Islands during the national NZLRI survey, 1975–1999.
Total arable and non
North Island2 South Island2 NZ Total2 NZ2
arable land2,
(x100 ha) (x100 ha) (x100 ha) (%)
(ha) & national %
LUC class 1 1525 345 1870 0.7
LUC class 2 6958 5062 12020 4.5
Arable land LUC Classes
LUC class 3 10645 13778 24423 9.2 1–4
LUC class 4 13004 14769 27773 10.5 6 608 700, 25%
LUC class 51 935 1167 2109 0.8
LUC class 6 40787 33943 74730 28.1 Non-arable land LUC
LUC class 7 27746 29148 56894 21.4 Classes 5–8
LUC class 8 10154 47853 58007 21.8 19 173 300, 72%
Estuaries 220 117 337 0.1
Lakes 1132 2204 3336 1.3
Quarries 10 .2 11 0.0
Rivers 281 2458 2739 1.0
Towns 1149 316 1465 0.6
Grand Total 114548 151158 265706
1
Class 5 as mapped under the former SCRCC (1974) definition.
2
Excludes land not mapped as part of the national NZLRI survey such as outlying islands and Stewart Island.
Page 147
REFERENCES
AgResearch 2006. Overseer® nutrient budgets Cuff JRI 1974. Erosion in the upper Opihi catchment.
v5.2.6.0 – software for nutrient budgeting and South Canterbury Catchment Board Publication
assisting in nutrient and environmental 6. South Canterbury Catchment Board. 66 p.
management. Hamilton, AgResearch. Cuff JRI 1977. A description of the Upper Ashburton
Beecroft FG, Hewitt AE, Smith SM 1991. Soils of the Catchment with emphasis on land use capability
Taieri Plain, northeast of the Taieri River, Otago, and sources of detritus. South Canterbury
New Zealand. DSIR Land Resources Science Catchment Board Publication 15. South
Series Report 17. Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional
Bibby JS, Mackney D 1969. Land Use Capability Water Board. 154 p.
classification. Technical Monograph 1. Soil Cuff JRI 1981. Erosion in the Upper Orari. South
Survey of England and Wales. Canterbury Catchment Board Publication 19.
Blaschke PM 1985a. Land Use Capability South Canterbury Catchment Board and
classification and land resources of the Bay of Regional Water Board. 152 p.
Plenty–Volcanic Plateau Region: a bulletin to De Rose RC 1996. Relationship between slope
accompany NZLRI Worksheets. Water and Soil morphology, regolith depth, and the incidence of
Miscellaneous Publication 89. 221 p. shallow landslides in eastern Taranaki hill
Blaschke PM 1985b. Interpreting our landscapes with country. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N. F.
the NZLRI. The Landscape 24: 9–13. Suppl. 105: 49–60.
Brice JC 1966. Erosion and deposition in the loess- Eyles GO 1977. NZLRI worksheets and their
mantled Great Plains, Medicine Creek Drainage applications to rural planning. Town Planning
Basin, Nebraska. Geological Survey Professional Quarterly 47: 38–44.
Paper 352H. United States Department of the Eyles GO 1983. Severity of present erosion in New
Interior. 337 p. Zealand. New Zealand Geographer 39 (1): 12-28.
Burrows CJ 1967. Progress in the study of South Eyles GO 1985. The NZLRI erosion classification.
Island alpine vegetation. Proceedings of the New Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication 85.
Zealand Ecological Society 14: 8–13. 61 p.
Campbell DA 1951. Types of soil erosion prevalent Eyles RJ 1971. Mass movement in Tangoio
in New Zealand. Union Géodésique et Conservation Reserve, northern Hawkes Bay.
Géophysique Internationale – Association Earth Science Journal 5: 79–91.
Internationale d’Hydrologie Scientifique – Fletcher JR 1981. NZLRI Taranaki–Manawatu
Assemblée Génerale de Bruxelles 1951 – Tome Region: Land Use Capability extended legend.
II. Pp. 82–95. Wellington, National Water and Soil
Clayden B, Hewitt AE, McLeod M, Rijkse W, Conservation Organisation.
Wallace H, Wilde RH 1997. North Island Soil Fletcher JR 1987. Land Use Capability classification
Surveys: classification of named soils by of the Taranaki–Manawatu Region: a bulletin to
subgroups of the NZ Soil Classification. Lincoln, accompany the NZ Land Resource Inventory
Landcare Research. Worksheets. Water and Soil Miscellaneous
Cossens GG 1983a. The effects of altitude on cereal, Publication 110. Wellington, Ministry of Works
brassica and grass growth in Otago. Proceedings and Development. 228 p.
of the Agronomy Society of NZ 12: 51–56. Fletcher JR, Jessen MR, Hunter GG, Lynn IH 1994.
Cossens GG 1983b. The effects of altitude on pasture Definitions and guidelines for land use capability
production in the South Island hill and high surveys in NZ: a discussion document.
country. Proceedings of the 1983 Hill and High Unpublished progress report for the Foundation
Country Seminar. Special Publication 26: 35–40. for Science, Research and Technology, FRST
Crippen TF, Eyles GO 1985. The NZLRI rock type Contract No. LC 9293. 39 p.
classification. Part 1: North Island. Water and Floate MJS, McIntosh PD, Risk PD, Enright PD,
Soil Miscellaneous Publication 72. Wellington, Smith LC 1985. Effects of fertilisers and
Ministry of Works and Development. 74 p. environment on lotus production on high country
Crozier MJ, Eyles RJ, Marx SL, McConchie JA, acid soils in Otago. Proceedings of the NZ
Owen RC 1980. Distribution of landslips in the Grassland Association 46: 111–118.
Wairarapa hill country. NZ Journal of Geology Forbes TR, Rossiter D, Van Wambeke A 1982.
and Geophysics 23: 575–586. Guidelines for revaluating the adequacy of soil
resource inventories. SMSS Technical
Page 148
Monograph 4. New York, Department of comparison from Cyclone Bola. NZ Forestry
Agronomy, Cornell University. (November): 21–22.
Hancox GT, Wright K 2005a. Landslides caused by Hicks DL, Fletcher JR, Eyles GO, McPhail CR,
the February 2004 rainstorms and floods in Watson M 1993. Erosion of hill country in the
southern North Island, NZ. Institute of Manawatu–Wanganui region 1992: Impacts and
Geological & Nuclear Sciences Science Report options for sustainable landuse. Landcare
2004/10. 33 p. Research Contract Report LC9394/51.
Hancox GT, Wright K 2005b. Analysis of landsliding http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/publications/maps.ht
caused by the 15–17 February 2004 rainstorm in ml
the Wanganui–Manawatu hill country, southern Hunter GG 1992. Guidelines for assessing land use
North Island, NZ. Institute of Geological & capability in South Island pastoral high country
Nuclear Sciences Science Report 2005/11. 62 p. land. DSIR Land Resources Technical Record
Harmsworth GR 1996. Land Use Capability 115.
classification of the Northland region. A report to Hunter GG, Blaschke PM 1986. The NZ Land
accompany the second edition (1:50 000) NZLRI Resource Inventory Vegetation Cover
worksheets. Landcare Research Science Series 9. Classification. Water and Soil Miscelleaneous
Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Press. 269 p. Publication 101. 92 p.
Harmsworth GR, Page MJ 1991. Correlation and James I 1973. Mass movements in the upper
description of Land Use Capability (LUC) units Pohangina catchment, Ruahine Range. Journal of
within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area Hydrology (NZ) 12: 92–102.
and eastern catchment boundary area. DSIR
Jessen MR 1984. NZLRI Waikato Region (2nd edn):
Land Resources Contract Report 91/114
Land Use Capability extended legend
(Version 1.0). Prepared for the Bay of Plenty
(unpublished). Wellington, National Water and
Regional Council. 117 p.
Soil Conservation Authority.
Harmsworth GR, Page MJ 1993. Correlation of Land
Jessen MR 1987. Urban Land Use Capability survey.
Use Capability (LUC) units into a single LUC
Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication 105.
classification for the Bay of Plenty Regional
74 p.
Council Area – Phase Two. Landcare Research
Contract Report LC9293/65. Prepared for the Jessen MR, Crippen TF, Page MJ, Rijkse WC,
Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Whakatane, Harmsworth GR, McLeod M 1999. Land Use
NZ. [Information for GIS database.] 111 p. Capability classification of the Gisborne–East
Coast Region: a report to accompany the second-
Hennessy K, Fitzharris B, Bates BC, Harvey N,
edition NZ Land Resource Inventory. Landcare
Howden SM, Hughes L, Salinger J, Warrick R
Research Science Series 21. Lincoln, Manaaki
2007. Australia and NZ, Climate Change 2007:
Whenua Press. 213 p.
impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: Parry
ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden Klingebiel AA, Montgomery PH 1961. Land
PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Contribution of Working Capability Classification. Agriculture Handbook
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 210. Washington, DC, US Department of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Agriculture.
Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Lambrechtsen NC, Hicks DL 2001. Soil
Pp. 507–540. intactness/erosion monitoring techniques: a
Hewitt AE 1998. New Zealand Soil Classification. literature review. Technical Paper 62.
Landcare Research Science Series 1. 2nd edn. Wellington, Ministry for the Environment.
Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Press. 133 p. Leathwick J, Wilson G, Rutledge D, Wardle P,
Hewitt AE, Lilburne LR, Lynn IH, Webb TH 2006. Morgan F, Johnston K, McLeod M, Kirkpatrick
Capturing heritage soil survey data for R 2003a. Land environments of NZ: Nga taiao o
pedometric analysis and modelling: the S-map Aotearoa. Auckland, David Bateman. 184 p.
approach. Abstract to Proceedings of the World Leathwick J, Morgan F, Wilson G, Rutledge D,
Congress of Soil Science, Philadelphia, July McLeod M, Johnston K 2003b. Land
2006. environments of NZ: Nga taiao o Aotearoa:
Hewitt A, Lilburne L 2003. Effect of scale on the technical guide. Wellington, Ministry for the
information content of soil maps. NZ Soil News Environment. 237 p.
51: 78–81. Ledgard NJ, Belton MC 1985. Exotic trees in the
Hicks DL 1991. Erosion under pasture, pine Canterbury high country. NZ Journal of Forestry
plantations, scrub and indigeneous forest: a 15: 298–323.
Page 149
Lilburne LR, Hewitt AE, Webb TH, Carrick ST 2004. manual for local government. Wellington,
S-map: a new soil database for NZ. Proceedings Ministry for the Environment.
of SuperSoil 2004: 3rd Australian NZ Soils Milne JDG, Clayden B, Singleton PL, Wilson AD
Conference, Sydney, Australia. 1995. Soil description handbook. Lincoln,
Lilburne LR, Hewitt AH, Ferriss S 2006. Progress Manaaki Whenua Press. 157 p.
with the design of a soil uncertainty database, Molloy L 1998. Soils in the NZ landscape, the living
and associated tools for simulating spatial mantle. 2nd edn. Wellington, Mallinson Rendel
realisations of soil properties. Proceedings of 7th and NZ Society of Soil Science. 239 p.
International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy
New Zealand Soil Bureau 1968. General survey of
Assessment in Natural Resources and
the soils of South Island, NZ. NZ Soil Bureau
Environmental Sciences, Lisbon, Portugal, 5–7
Bulletin 27. 404 p.
July 2006. Instituto Geografico Portugues. Pp.
510–519. Noble KE 1979. NZLRI Southern Hawkes Bay-
Wairarapa Region: Land Use Capability
LRG (Land Resources Group) 1981. Stock carrying
extended legend. Wellington, National Water
capacities and fertiliser data for the North Island.
and Soil Conservation Organisation.
Internal Report No.22, Aokautere Science
Centre, Ministry of Works. Noble KE 1985. Land Use Capability classification of
the Southern Hawkes Bay–Wairarapa Region: a
Lynch PB 1967. Warm zone crops. NZ Agricultural
bulletin to accompany NZLRI worksheets. Water
Science 1 (10): 12–13.
and Soil Miscellaneous Publication 74. 127 p.
Lynn IH 1985. The NZLRI rock type classification.
Norton EA 1939. Soil Conservation Handbook.
Part 2: South Island. Water and Soil
United States Department of Agriculture,
Miscellaneous Publication 73. Wellington,
Miscellaneous Publication 352.
Ministry of Works and Development. 66 p.
NWASCA (National Water and Soil Conservation
Lynn IH 1996. Land Use Capability classification of
Authority) 1986a. NZLRI worksheets (2nd edn)
the Marlborough Region: a report to accompany
1: 63 360. Wellington, National Water and Soil
the second edition NZLRI. Landcare Research
Conservation Authority.
Science Series 12. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua
Press. 222 p. NWASCA (National Water and Soil Conservation
Authority) 1986b. NZLRI (2nd edn) 1: 50 000.
Lynn IH, Eyles GO 1984. Distribution and severity of
Wellington, National Water and Soil
tunnel gully erosion in New Zealand. NZ Journal
Conservation Authority.
of Science 27: 175–186.
NWASCO (National Water and Soil Conservation
Lynn IH, Hunter GG, Prickett RC 1987. Land use
Organisation) 1975–79. NZLRI worksheets
capability standards as used in the South Island,
1: 63 360. Wellington, National Water and Soil
NZ Land Resource Inventory. Unpublished
Conservation Organisation.
report. Wellington, Water and Soil Division,
Ministry of Works and Development. NWASCO (National Water and Soil Conservation
Organisation) 1977. Shotover River Catchment:
Lynn IH, Crippen TF 1991. Rock type classification
Report on sediment sources survey and
for the NZLRI. DSIR Land Resources Scientific
feasibility of control, 1975. Water and Soil
Report 10. 123 p.
Technical Publication 4.
MacDonald AJ 1999. Harvesting systems and
NWASCO (National Water and Soil Conservation
equipment in British Columbia. British Columbia
Organisation) 1979. ‘Our Land Resources’ – a
Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada
bulletin to accompany NZLRI worksheets.
Handbook HB-12. Victoria, British Columbia,
Wellington, National Water and Soil
Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Branch.
Conservation Organisation. 79 p.
197 p.
NWASCO (National Water and Soil Conservation
Manderson A, Palmer A 2006. Soil information for
Organisation) 1983. The South Island Land Use
agricultural decision making: a NZ perspective.
Capability extended legend for the NZLRI, van
Soil Use and Management 22: 393–400.
Berkel P (ed.). Wellington, National Water and
Manderson A, Palmer A, Mackay A, Wilde H, Soil Conservation Organisation.
Rijkse W 2007. Introductory guide to farm
NZETS (NZ External Trade Statistics) 2007.
mapping. Palmerston North, AgResearch. 64 p.
Wellington, Statistics NZ.
McRae SG, Burnham CP 1981. Land evaluation.
NZMS (NZ Meteorological Service) undated.
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 239 p.
Summaries of climatological observations to
MfE (Ministry for the Environment) 2004. Climate 1980. NZ Meteorological Service Miscellaneous
change effects and assessment, a guidance Publication 177.
Page 150
NZMS (NZ Meteorological Service) undated. National Water and Soil Conservation
Temperature normal’s for New Zealand 1951– Organisation.
1980. NZ Meteorological Service Miscellaneous Salter RT, Crippen TF, Noble KE 1983. Storm
Publication 183. damage assessment of the Thames–Te Aroha
NZMS (NZ Meteorological Service) undated. area following the storm of April 1981.
Rainfall normal’s for New Zealand 1951–1980. Publication 1. Aokautere, Soil Conservation
NZ Meteorological Service Miscellaneous Centre. 54 p.
Publication 185. SCRCC (Soil Conservation and Rivers Control
Occupational Safety and Health Service 1999. Council) 1969. Land Use Capability handbook.
Approved code of practice for safety and health Wellington, Water and Soil Division, Ministry of
in forestry operations. Wellington, Occupational Works. 138 p.
Safety and Health Service, Department of SCRCC (Soil Conservation and Rivers Control
Labour. 134 p. Council) 1974. Land Use Capability survey
Page MJ 1975. NZLRI Eastern Bay of Plenty Region: handbook. A New Zealand handbook for the
Land Use Capability extended legend. classification of land. Wellington, Soil
Wellington, National Water and Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council. 137 p.
Conservation Organisation. Simpson P, Bargh BJ, Brown I, Hayward JD,
Page MJ 1976. NZLRI Northern Hawke’s Bay Wisheart CJ 1980. Wairau mountain lands: a
Region: Land Use Capability extended legend. study of the catchment environment with
Wellington, National Water and Soil particular emphasis on erosion. Marlborough
Conservation Organisation. Catchment Board and Regional Water Board,
Page MJ 1985. Correlation of North Island regional and NWASCO. 179 p.
Land Use Capability units from the NZLRI. Steel KW 1979. NZLRI Bay of Plenty – Volcanic
Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication 75. Plateau Region: Land Use Capability extended
Wellington, National Water and Soil legend. Wellington, National Water and Soil
Conservation Authority. 107 p. Conservation Organisation.
Page MJ 1987. Revised vegetation cover Taylor NH, Pohlen I 1962. Soil survey method. New
classification for the 2nd edition NZLRI. Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 25. 242 p.
Unpublished report. Aokautere, Water and Soil Taylor NH, Pohlen I 1968. Classification of New
Division, Ministry of Works and Development. Zealand soils. In: Soils of New Zealand, Part 1.
Page MJ 1988. Land Use Capability classification of Soil Bureau Bulletin 26(1): 15–33. With
the Northern Hawkes Bay Region: a bulletin to 1:1 000 000 scale soil map of New Zealand.
accompany the NZLRI worksheets. Water and Wellington, DSIR.
Soil Miscellaneous Publication 109. Wellington, Trustrum NA 1974. NZLRI Coromandel – Great
Ministry of Works and Development. 206 p. Barrier Island Region: Land Use Capability
Page MJ 1995. Land Use Capability classification of extended legend. Wellington, National Water
the Wellington Region: a report to accompany and Soil Conservation Organisation.
the second edition NZLRI. Landcare Research Wallace HJ, Burgham SJ, Hewitt AE, McIntosh PD,
Science Series 6. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Webb TH 2000. South Island soil surveys:
Press. 127 p. Classification of named soils by subgroups of the
Page MJ, Trustrum NA 1997 A Late Holocene lake New Zealand Soil Classification. Lincoln,
sediment record of the erosion response to land Landcare Research.
use change in a steepland catchment, New Walsh SD 1977. NZLRI Waikato Region (1st edn):
Zealand. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 41: Land Use Capability extended legend.
369–392. Wellington, National Water and Soil
Page MJ, Shepherd J, Dymond J, and Jessen MR. Conservation Organisation.
2005. Defining highly erodible land for Horizons Wardle P 1991. Vegetation of New Zealand.
Regional Council. Landcare Research Contract Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Report LC0506/050: Prepared for Horizons
Wratt DS, Mullan AB, Salinger MJ, Allan S, Morgan
Regional Council. 18p. plus map.
T, Kenny G 2004. Climate change effects and
Phillips CJ 1988. Geomorphic effects of two storms impacts assessment: A guidance manual for local
on the upper Waitahaia River catchment, government in NZ. Wellington, NZ Climate
Raukumara Peninsula, NZ. Journal of Hydrology Change Office, Ministry for the Environment.
(NZ) 27: 99–112. 140 p.
Prickett RC 1978. NZLRI South Island: Land Use
Capability extended legend. Wellington,
Page 151
FURTHER READING
Basher LR, Botha N, Dodd MB, Douglas GB, Lynn Science Series 26. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua
IH, Marden M, McIvor IR, Smith W 2008. Hill Press.
country erosion: a review of knowledge on Highland L (compiler) 2004. Landslide types and
erosion processes, mitigation options, social processes. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet
learning and their long-term effectiveness in the 2004-3072.
mgt of hill country erosion. Landcare Research (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3072/pdf/fs2004-
Contract Report LC0708/081. Prepared for MAF 3072.pdf).
Policy (POL/INV/0708/03). 201 p. Nairn IA 1975. Land Use Capability of the Kaituna
Bates Rl, Jackson JA (eds) 1980. Glossary of geology River Catchment, Bay of Plenty Region, North
(2nd edn). Falls Church, VA, USA, American Island, New Zealand. Land Use Capability
Geological Institute. 749 p. Survey Bulletin 2. Wellington, National Water
Crozier MJ 1986. Landslides. London, Croon Helm. and Soil Conservation Organisation.
252 p. Newsome PFJ 1987. The vegetative cover of New
Cruden DM, Varnes DJ 1996. Landslide types and Zealand. Water and Soil Miscellaneous
processes in landslides; investigation and Publication 112. Wellington, National Water and
mitigation. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Soil Conservation Authority. 153 p.
Special Report 247. Washington, DC, National New Zealand Soil Bureau 1954. General survey of
Academy Press. Pp. 36–71. the soils of North Island, New Zealand. New
Cumberland KB 1944. Soil erosion in New Zealand, a Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin 5. 286 p.
geographical reconnaissance. Christchurch, Prickett RC, Williams NM 1971. LUC of the Upper
Whitcombe and Tombs. 228 p. Waihopai River Catchment, Marlborough, New
Dunbar GA, Prickett RC, Howard G 1966. LUC of Zealand. LUC Survey Bulletin 3. Wellington,
the Mararoa River Catchment, Southland, New National Water and Soil Conservation
Zealand. LUC Survey Bulletin 1. Christchurch, Organisation.
Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council. Prickett RC, O’Byrne TN 1972. Recommended
Greenall AF, Hamilton DH 1954. Soil conservation conservation land use of the West Coast Region,
surveys in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of South Island, New Zealand. Land Use Capability
Science and Technology A 35: 505–517. Survey Bulletin 4. Wellington, National Water
and Soil Conservation Organisation.
Hicks DL, Anthony T 2001. Soil conservation
technical handbook. Wellington, Ministry for the Ramsay JW 1961. Conservation farm planning looks
Environment. 205 p. at the farm as a unit. Proceedings of the New
Zealand Institute Agricultural Science. Pp. 72–
Hutchinson JN 1968. Mass movement. In: Fairbridge
77.
RW (ed.) The encyclopaedia of geomorphology.
New York, Reinhold Book Corp. Pp. 688–696. Roche MM 1994. Land and water – water and soil
conservation and central government in New
Kellman EH, Kelly D 1954. Soil conservation
Zealand, 1941–1988. Wellington, Historical
reconnaissance report on the Awhea River
Branch, Department of Internal Affairs.
catchment, South East Wairarapa. Unpublished
report. Palmerston North, Soil Conservation Varnes DJ 1978. Slope movement types and
Division, Ministry of Works. processes. In: Schuster DL, Krizek PJ (eds)
Landslides, analysis and control. Special Report
McLaren RG, Cameron KC 1996. Soil science,
17b. Washington, DC, National Academy of
sustainable production and environmental
Sciences. Pp 11–23.
protection. Auckland, Oxford University Press.
Webb TH, Clayden B 1994. Criteria for defining the
Miller RL, Brown DA, McCraw JD, Avery B, Wardle
soilform — the fourth category of the New
PA, Gillies AJ, Anderson GA 1956. Shotover
Zealand Soil Classification. Research Science
River Survey (Upper Catchment) Otago
Series 3. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Press. 36 p.
Catchment Board Bulletin No. 1.
Hawley JG, Leamy ML 1980. The real dirt on the Williams NM, Harvey MD 1973. Recommended
worksheets. Soil and Water 16 (6): 20–23. conservation land use of the Awatere River
Hewitt AE 2004. Soil properties for plant growth: a catchment, Marlborough, South Island, New
guide to recognising soil properties relevant to Zealand. Land Use Capability Survey Bulletin 5.
plant growth and selection. Landcare Research Wellington, National Water and Soil
Conservation Organisation.
Page 152
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Aeration: Presence of air-filled space in the soil profile. Aeration limitation is defined as the proportion
of the year in which anaerobic conditions may prevail in the soil.
Aerial oversowing and topdressing: The application of fertiliser and seed from aircraft.
Allophane: A non-crystalline soil mineral; an oxide of silicon and aluminium with high water content,
variable-charge surfaces, and a very high surface area.
Allophanic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Soils dominated by allophane (and also imogolite or
ferrihydrite) minerals; have a porous, low-density structure, greasy moistened feel, stable resistant
topsoil, low natural fertility and high phosphorus retention.
Alluvium: Sediments such as sand, silt or gravel that have been deposited by streams, rivers and other
running waters.
Alluvial soils: Recent soils derived from alluvium, and showing incipient marks of soil forming
processes, but with a distinct topsoil.
Anaerobic: Absence of air. The condition that pertains when the soil is waterlogged and supply of
oxygen is limited to plant roots.
Andesite: A dark-coloured volcanic rock intermediate in composition between rhyolite and basalt.
Andesitic ash: Unconsolidated volcanic ash of intermediate silica content, of Recent and Upper
Pleistocene age. Occurs as a primary deposit, or as rewashed material in river and coastal terraces.
Anthropic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Soils substantially disturbed/created by man, e.g. as a result
of mining activity.
Arable: Capable of being ploughed; fit for tillage.
Arable use: Suitable for cultivation for cropping, and capable of growing at least one of the common
annual field crops, or more per season, with average yields under good management and without
permanently degrading soil conditions.
Argillaceous: Rocks or substances composed of clay, or having a notable proportion of clay in their
composition.
Argillite: A mudstone or siltstone that has undergone hardening by pressure, heat or cementation.
Basalt: A type of volcanic rock which has a high iron and magnesium content but low silica. Molten
basalt flows easily.
Bedrock: The solid rock that underlies soil or other loose material.
Beech forest: Evergreen trees of the beech family comprising hard beech, black beech, mountain beech,
silver beech, and red beech.
Bentonite: Soft, plastic, porous, light-coloured (often green or red) rock composed essentially of
montmorillonite clays, feels greasy or soapy, has the ability to absorb water and increase in volume up
to eight times, leading to the development of deep-seated earthflows.
Berry fields: Growing of shrubby plants, mainly cane plants, for soft fruit production. The term
excludes growing of strawberries, which is defined as a horticultural activity.
Border dyke irrigation: A flood irrigation system restricted to land <4° where parallel borders 10–20m
wide are separated by low levees or ‘dykes’. Between the dykes water is flooded from a headrace.
Breccia: Angular rock fragments in fine-grained material.
Broadleaf–podocarp forest (aka. Podocarp-broadleaved forest): Forests characterised by podocarps,
e.g., rimu, miro, matai, kahikatea, silver pine, totara, and broadleaved or hardwood subcanopy species
such as taraire, tawa, puriri, mahoe, hinau, maire and karaka, ngaio and pohutukawa in coastal
locations.
Brown Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Have yellowish brown subsoils, stable and well structured
topsoils, are well to imperfectly drained, with low to moderate fertility, and are generally drought free.
Capability: Suitability for productive use, after taking into account the various physical limitations the
land may have.
Catchment control scheme: A scheme combining river and erosion control works and an improved
Page 153
pattern of land use in a catchment where erosion and flooding have created community problems which
have required a co-ordinated effort to resolve.
Catchment Protection (Land): Class 8 land which has such unfavourable characteristics that it is
unsuited for agricultural, pastoral, or forestry use, although it is often well suited for recreational and
wildlife use, and for water yield.
Clay: Soil material which consists of particles less than 0.002 mm in diameter.
Cleavage: Tendency to split along closely spaced planar structures or textures.
Climatic limitations: Limitations for the growth of pasture, crop and tree species, such as rainfall,
temperature, wind and frost.
Colluvium: A general term for weathered soil and rock material mantling slopes which has been
transported primarily by gravity and sheet wash.
Community of interest: Problems shared by a group, largely as cause and effect, and which require
collective effort to resolve.
Compound slopes: Used in inventory code when slope patterns cannot be separated at the scale of
mapping, and are recorded as a complex using double or multiple symbols, e.g. D+E.
Conglomerate: A coarse sedimentary rock consisting of pebbles or boulders set in a sand and silt
matrix.
Conservation fencing: Fencing designed to enable grazing management to control and prevent soil
erosion, e.g. the separation of eroded from non-eroded land, summer from winter grazing country,
sunny from shady slopes.
Conservation planning: Based on land inventory and land use capability assessment, a series of one or
more five-year programmes are compiled which incorporate two concepts:
(a) The extent of the physical measures required to meet the magnitude of the conservation problems,
and the degree of financial assistance applicable to combat existing or potential erosion.
(b) The ‘tailoring’ of these measures to the ability of individual farmers to meet the local share, from
money budgeted for the purpose.
Conservation tillage: Seed drilled directly into an undisturbed soil (direct drilling), where the stubble
of the previous crop is retained on the surface.
Conservation trees: Tree species used specifically for erosion control, e.g. willows and flame trees.
Conservation works: Consist of the following practices: conservation fencing (including cattle-
proofing), tree planting (open, close, windbreaks, pair planting), gully control structures such as debris
dams, drop structures and flumes, terraces, water diversion (graded banks, spring tapping, pasture
furrows), regulating dams, stock ponds, strategic firebreaks, revegetation including over-sowing and
topdressing, sod seeding, bulldozing of tunnel gullies, and retirement from productive use.
Contour furrows: Contoured across-slope plough furrows designed to intercept and slow surface
runoff and sheet wash.
Debris flood: A rapid, hyper-concentrated, channelled flow of water charged with sand and silt sized
sediment. They have lower sediment concentrations than debris flows and are less damaging, often
extending downstream beyond debris flows. Debris floods can occur in the absence of debris flows, and
are not classified as landslides.
Debris flow: A type of landslide triggered by exceptionally heavy rainfall events. They consist of
dense fluid mixtures of debris (rock, soil, vegetation) and water. Sediment concentrations are high, with
a consistency like wet concrete. They move rapidly down a channel faster than the flow of water.
Debris mantle regolith: Comprises slope debris derived from the underlying and upslope bedrock and
bedrock regolith, and may contain layers of regionally derived loess, and/or interlaid tephric loess,
and/or tephra depending on location.
Degree of erosion: Extent of sheet, wind, and scree erosion is recorded on an areal basis as the percent
of bare ground or area eroding. However soil slip, slump, debris avalanche, earth flow, rill, gully,
tunnel gully, and streambank erosion are recorded in terms of seriousness, which is decided with
reference to standard selected sites, parent material, physical loss of land, and cost of repair.
Page 154
Degree of limitation: Applies to the Land Use Capability Classes, and expresses the relative limitations
to sustained use, from Class 1 to Class 8.
Diversion channel: A channel constructed around the slope or a designed gradient, to intercept and
divert water away from highly erodible sites (particularly effective for gully control).
Downland: Undulating land; usually an extensive area of gently to strongly rolling land around the
margin of a plain.
Drop structures: Structures constructed in gullies to dissipate the energy and erosive power of falling
water.
Erosion control forestry: (a) Planting exotic forest species principally for soil conservation and water
management purposes but with a variable component of production permitted. (b) Management of
indigeneous forests principally for soil conservation and water management purposes but with some
selective milling permitted (also see production forestry).
Erosion definitions and types (See Appendix 2).
Erosion severity: (See Degree of erosion).
Fan: Fans are gently sloping, fan-shaped masses of material formed along the margins of hills and
mountain ranges by the streams that drain their slopes. A fan commonly occurs where there is a marked
decrease in gradient, for example where a stream meets the gentler floodplain or river terrace.
Ferrihydrite: A non-crystalline iron oxide mineral; has a very large surface area per unit weight.
Ferromagnesian minerals: Minerals containing iron and magnesium.
Field survey: As referred to in land inventory mapping, is the field observation, measurement and
recording of the physical factors of the landscape in symbol form on a suitable base map.
Fine earth fraction: Those particles in a mass of soil less than 2 mm in diameter, i.e., sand (particles
between 0.06 and 2.0 mm), silt (particles between 0.002 and 0.06 mm), and clay (particles less than
0.002 mm) in diameter.
Flood plain: The surface of relatively flat land adjacent to a river channel; built of alluvium deposited
by that river or stream, which in the absence of flood protection works may still be flooded.
Fluviatile: Belonging to a river, produced by river action; growing or living in freshwater rivers.
Foliation: A planar arrangement of textural or structural features, especially that which results from the
flattening of the constituent grains of metamorphic rocks.
Forage crops: Supplementary feed crops for livestock. Winter forage crops include hay, silage, turnips,
swedes, choumoellier, and kale; summer forage crops include soft turnips, rape, lupins, barley, cereal
greenfeeds; autumn forage crops include rape, kale, turnips, lupins, green maize.
Forestry potential: The potential for establishment of productive exotic forest, based on assessment of
the physical factors of the site, but not on a full-scale study of economics, transport, markets, etc.
Fractured rock: Rock in which breaks, cracks or joints occur due to mechanical failure by stress, with
or without displacement.
Fragipan: A subsoil horizon which has a high bulk density and which is relatively hard when dry but
softens when wet. Fragipans usually impede the downward movement of water. The presence of a
fragipan frequently gives rise to impeded drainage and perched water tables.
Friable: A soil consistence term relating to the ease of crumbling of soils.
Gley Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Are saturated by water for prolonged periods and have pale
greyish subsoils. Many were originally wetlands before being drained.
Gleying: Absence of oxygen in soil leading to strong reducing conditions that create grey coloured
profiles. Usually associated with drainage limitations, perched water tables and severe compaction.
Gneiss: Hard coarse-grained metamorphic rock often similar in appearance and composition to granite;
usually has some banding.
Graded diversion (See Diversion).
Granite: Coarse-grained hard igneous rock that has crystallised deep below the earth’s surface. It is
rich in crystals of quartz, feldspars and shiny black and white micas.
Granular Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Clayey soils derived from strongly weathered volcanic rocks
Page 155
or ash, well developed resistant structure, slowly permeable and limited rooting depth.
Gravel: Rock fragments greater than 2 mm in diameter.
Grazing control: Control of stock numbers and movements to specific areas, most commonly by
fences.
Greenfeed crops: Special-purpose crops grown to provide succulent nutritious forage, e.g. for flushing
ewes, for lambing ewes in August, and for milking cows in August and early spring.
Greywacke: A dark grey sandstone, flecked with angular fragments of finer rock; formed by the
hardening of deposits in ocean basins; the major rock type of central New Zealand.
Groundwater: Water which occurs in the soil or rocks below the ground surface, and which is free to
flow.
Gully planting: Gully control and stabilisation involving the establishment of vegetation with extensive
rooting systems to reduce the velocity of flow and hence transporting power; to increase the resistance
to flow; and to trap debris. This is usually done in conjunction with small structures, diversions, fencing
for stock exclusion, and perhaps minor bulldozing.
Hard rock: Rocks that have hardness and strength through induration. They ring when struck with a
hammer, require a strong blow to fracture and are impractical to dig with a spade.
Hazard: The danger/risk of erosion and/or flooding.
Homogenous mapping units: At the scale of mapping the inventory factors (rock type, soil, slope
erosion severity and type and vegetation cover) are considered homogeneous within the mapping unit.
Horticultural use: The growing of crops, excluding berry fruit, vines and orchard crops, for the fresh
fruit and vegetable market, and intended to be consumed fresh.
Hydromorphic features: Mottling or gleying caused by chemical oxidation/reduction reactions
associated with changes in oxygen availability.
Igneous: Rocks that were once molten. If they crystallise deep below the earth’s surface they are
plutonic (e.g. granite); if they are erupted they are volcanic (e.g. rhyolite).
Imperfectly drained soils: Soils that have 50% or more grey mottles between 30–60 cm of the soil
surface (but not within 15 cm of the base of the A horizon), or soils that 2% or more rust-coloured
mottles or less than 50% grey mottles within 15 cm of the base of the A horizon, or within 30 cm of the
soil surface.
Intermontane: Situated between, or surrounded by mountains or mountain ranges.
Intrusive rock: Rock that consolidated from magma beneath the surface of the earth.
Joint: Fracture or parting in a rock, without displacement.
Kind of limitation: The single most limiting factor to the use of land for common agricultural
purposes. Four kinds of limitation are recognised: erosion (e), excess water (w), root zone limitations
(s), and climate (c).
Lahar: A flow of volcanic material, both ash and coarser products, mixed with water; often caused by
the spilling-over of a crater lake.
Land Resource Inventory (LRI): An inventory of the five physical factors considered to be critical for
long-term sustainable land use; rock type, soil, slope angle, erosion type and severity, vegetation.
Land Resource Inventory (LRI) map unit: The land contained by a mapping boundary within which
each of the physical characteristics recorded in the inventory is uniform at the scale of mapping.
Land Use Capability map unit: The land contained by a mapping boundary within which each of the
physical characteristics recorded in the inventory is within the range of those defined for a specific Land
Use Capability Unit.
Landslide: Landslide is a generic term covering a wide variety of mass movement types involving the
movement of a mass of rock, earth or debris down a slope, under the influence of gravity. Landslides
usually involve rapid failure along a slip plane at the contact between a more permeable material and an
underlying less permeable material occurring when shear stress forces exceed shear strength. Landslides
vary in size and volume from <10 m³ to >1,000,000 m³.
Lapilli: Pebble-sized fragments of tephra.
Page 156
Lava: The molten rock that exudes from a volcano. Also the solid rock formed from cooling the molten
material.
Levee: Any naturally produced low ridge, but usually built of sand and silt by a stream on its
floodplain.
Light summer grazing: Restricted, controlled grazing during summer to encourage flowering and
seeding of native and/or introduced pasture. A management technique used in the rehabilitation of
depleted and eroded high country areas particularly in the semi-arid and mountainous regions of the
South Island.
Limestone: A rock composed predominantly of calcium carbonate.
Lithic contact: The contact of soil with underlying rock where the rock is hard or very hard, maybe
cracked and shattered, is impracticable to dig with a spade, and is impenetrable to plant roots.
Lithology: The nature and composition of rocks.
Loess: A blanket deposit of silt-sized materials; usually carried by wind from dry river beds or outwash
plains during glacial and post-glacial periods.
Magma: Molten rock generated within the earth; on cooling, forms igneous rocks.
Map unit: The area enclosed by a boundary indicating that within the limitations imposed by the scale
of mapping the information mapped is homogeneous within that area i.e. rock type, soil, land use
capability etc.
Marble: A hard metamorphic rock consisting predominantly of the calcium carbonate mineral calcite.
Massive: Occurring in thick beds, free from minor joints and lamination.
Melanic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Have high fertility, dark well structured topsoils, and are
associated with lime-rich rocks or dark (basaltic) volcanic rocks.
Metamorphic rocks: Rocks that have been altered by heat and pressure deep below the earth’s surface.
Minimum tillage: An alternative to conventional cultivation aimed at minimising disturbance of the
soil after spraying with herbicide. The soil is lightly worked with a cultivator before drilling.
Modal classes: When formulating Land Use Capability standards each soil grouping is usually assigned
a capability class. Variables such as slope, elevation, or erosion, may then be of significance and
warrant placing variants in a higher or lower capability class.
Moderately well drained soils: Soils that have 50% or more grey mottles between 60–90 cm of the soil
surface or greater than 2% rust-coloured mottles between 30–90 cm of the soil surface.
Moraine: Mound or ridge of debris deposited by a glacier. Lateral moraine is deposited at the sides of a
glacier; medial between two tongues of ice, and terminal at the front end of the glacier.
Mottles: Spots or blotches of (often bright) colour different from the predominant soil colour. Very
often the mottles are rusty in colour and are due to concentrations of iron oxides. Mottles indicate that
there are periods of restricted profile drainage. The severity of the restriction to profile drainage is
indicated by the abundance and depth at which mottles and gleying occur.
Mudstone: Soft sedimentary rock formed from material which contains a large proportion of clay.
Form may be massive, bedded, frittered or bentonitic. Mudstone comprises much of the Tertiary ‘soft
rock’ hill country. Soils formed from mudstones tend to be naturally fertile, but often carry a severe
erosion potential.
Multiple symbols: Are used to denote that at the scale of mapping, there are two or more inventory
factors or land use capability classes present within the mapping unit. The first recorded component is
dominant, e.g. rock types Af+Pt; soils 99+90d; slope C+D … land use capability classes 3e4+6e12 etc.
Multiple use concept: Flexible land use and management that meets society’s objectives and achieves
sustainable yields whilst maintaining the resource.
Native pasture: Grasslands dominated by poa tussock, fescue tussock, snowgrass, and red tussock, and
native grasses such as danthonia and fescue, and various small herbaceous plants which extended over
considerable areas of New Zealand at the time of European settlement.
New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI): A national land resource inventory survey that
used the land use capability method of land evaluation at a nominal scale of 1:50,000 (1:63,360), which
Page 157
was initially completed in the late 1970s (1st Edition), with limited 2nd Edition regional remapping in
Northland, part Waikato, Gisborne East Coast, and Marlborough in the 1990s.
New Zealand Land Resource Inventory (NZLRI) Worksheets: The map presentation of NZLRI
inventory codes (rock type, soil, slope angle, erosion type and severity, vegetation cover) and land use
capability codes.
No-till: An alternative to conventional cultivation aimed at minimising disturbance of the soil. After
spraying with herbicide to kill weeds the seed is drilled directly into the undisturbed soil (also known as
direct drilling).
Optimum crop production: Maximising sustainable crop production within the environmental limits
of a particular soil and site.
Organic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Formed from partly decomposed plant materials, e.g. peat, are
strongly acidic and have high water-tables.
Outfalls: Safe disposal areas for water directed from soil conservation structures such as flumes,
diversion banks etc. Outfalls include natural depressions, sod flumes, road ditches, waste land, concrete
channels and tile drains.
Oxidic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Clayey soils formed from weathered ash or dark volcanic rock,
friable with low plasticity and fine stable structure, limited rooting depth, slow permeability, and
moderate or rapid infiltration rates.
Pallic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Have pale coloured high bulk density subsoils, weak structure,
are slowly permeable and have limited rooting depths. They are dry in summer and wet in winter.
Paralithic contact: The upper surface of rock or regolith that can be cut with difficulty with a spade or
easily broken by a hammer, but is impenetrable to plant roots.
Parent material: The unconsolidated material in which the soil develops.
Parent rock: The rock from which the parent material is derived by weathering.
Pastoral use: Growing of pasture to be harvested by grazing animals, but in some cases, e.g. lucerne, to
be harvested by machine and fed to grazing animals. The term may also embrace the growing of fodder
crops for on-farm supplementary feeding of animals.
Perched water table: A zone in the soil where, due to a slowly permeable layer such as a fragipan,
downwards percolation of water is impeded and the water table is said to be ‘perched’ above the slowly
permeable layer of soil.
Perennial vegetation: Vegetation living for more than 2 years, e.g. pasture, forestry, tree crops
(walnuts, apples and olives) and vineyards.
Permanent works: Major works such as large scale community based irrigation, flood control or
drainage schemes that significantly reduce or permanently remove a limitation to use.
Permeability: A measure of the rate at which water can flow through the soil.
Phosphate retention: Capacity of a soil to ‘lock up’ phosphorus and make it plant-unavailable. High
P-retention values indicate that plants will give a lower response to the same amount of phosphate
fertiliser than on a soil with low P-retention.
Physical limitations: Permanent unalterable features of the environment that determine the potential
use of an area, under a given climate, i.e. rock type, soil, slope, climate, erosion, and vegetation.
Plant-available nutrients: The proportion of soil nutrients available for plant uptake.
Plant-available water capacity: The amount of water a soil can hold that is available for plant uptake.
Podzols [NZ Soil Classification]: Occur in high rainfall areas, are strongly acidic and strongly leached,
with very low fertility. Drainage is variable from well to poorly drained.
Polygon: A series of points that are combined together topologically to create a two-dimensional
enclosed space, equivalent to a map unit.
Poorly drained soils: Soils that have 50% or more grey mottles within 15 cm of the base of the A
horizon or within 30 cm of the soil surface, OR soils that lack a topsoil and have 50% or more grey
mottles between 10–30 cm depth from the soil surface.
Porosity (soil porosity): The amount and nature of the voids in a soil. A soil with high porosity allows
Page 158
water and gases to pass relatively easily.
Potential evapotranspiration: Actual evapotranspiration is the total volume of water removed from
land through evaporation and plant transpiration. Potential evapotranspiration represents the
evapotranspiration rate of a short green crop, completely shading the ground, of uniform height and
with adequate soil water supply.
Production forestry: Forests managed principally for commercial wood production.
Profile available water (PAW): The amount of water that can be extracted between field capacity
(10kPa) and 1500kPa to 1.0 m depth.
Profile drainage: Profile drainage provides an indication of how long a soil, or part of a soil, is
saturated with water, and how quickly it can rid itself of excess water.
Profile readily available water (PRAW): The amount of water held in a soil that can be easily
extracted by plant roots within the potential rooting depth. Profile readily available water (PRAW) is
measured as the water that can be extracted between field capacity (10kPa) and permanent wilting
point (1500kPa) for topsoils, and between 10kPa and 100kPa for subsoils to 1.0 m depth.
Protection forestry: Forests managed principally for soil conservation and regulation of water (also see
erosion control forestry)
Protective blocks: Spaced or close planted blocks of trees, creating strong points to control gully head
enlargement and the gradient of the longitudinal gully profile.
Pumice: A soft, light-coloured, frothy, glassy rock with the appearance of a sponge; usually formed by
the trapping of bubbles of volcanic gases in molten rhyolite.
Pumice Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Sandy or gravelly soils dominated by pumice, or pumice sand
with a high content of natural glass, rapid drainage but high water storage capacity, low clay contents,
low soil strength, high macroporosity, deep rooting depths, and low macronutrient reserves.
Raw Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Very young soils lacking distinct topsoil, and developed on sites
of active deposition or erosion.
Reach: The length of a channel, uniform with respect to discharge, depth, area, and slope.
Recent Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Soils formed in young sediments. They have distinct topsoil, but
weakly developed subsoil, with moderate to high fertility and well to imperfect drainage. They have
widely variable rooting depths and water storage capacities.
Recommended land use: A legacy component of early Land Use Capability surveys, whereby a map
of recommended land use was prepared to accompany the Land Resource Inventory and the LUC
classification. Simply recognises that some land uses are more suited (or less suited) to particular land
types and classifications. Similar to potential land use used in NZLRI extended legends.
Reconnaissance surveys: Quick investigative surveys to gain preliminary information for planning
more comprehensive surveys.
Redox segregations: Redox segregations are mottles or concretions formed as a result of the reduction
and solubilisation of iron and/or manganese, their translocation, concentration, oxidation and
precipitation as oxides. They are indicated by the association of low and high chroma colours.
Regolith: A general term for the layer or mantle of fragmental and unconsolidated rock, whether
residual or transported and of highly varied character, that nearly everywhere forms the surface of the
land and overlies and covers the bedrock.
Resilient soil: Soils with the ability to recover or maintain essential soil physical qualities such as
infiltration, aggregation and aeration from modification such as intensive cultivation.
Rhyolite: Volcanic rock rich in silica, but poor in iron and magnesium. Molten rhyolite is very stiff and
usually gives rise to explosive volcanic eruptions with emissions of large quantities of ash.
Rooting barrier: The type of barrier that limits root extension, e.g. very dense soil horizons, pans,
densely packed gravels, rock, anoxic conditions and high water tables.
Rooting zone limitations: Limitations to plant growth within the rooting zone such as profile
shallowness, stoniness, pans, rock outcrops, low soil water holding capacity, low fertility (where this is
difficult to correct), poor soil texture and structural conditions, salinity or toxicity.
Page 159
Saline soil: Soil that contains enough soluble salts to interfere with the growth of most crop plants.
Sand: Material which consists of particles between 0.05 and 2.0 mm in diameter.
Sandstone: Sedimentary rock consisting of compressed or cemented sand-sized particles.
Schist: A metamorphic rock that has developed distinct layering (foliation); can be split into slabs or
flakes. Mica appears as characteristic shiny flecks in the rock.
Seasonal wetness: Seasonal fluctuation of water table depths influencing plant performance through
determining soil aeration, e.g. high water table in winter, lower in summer.
Sedimentary rock: Rocks resulting from the consolidation of loose material that has accumulated in
layers, usually on the bed of the sea, in lakes or in rivers.
Seepage: Groundwater emerging at the surface. This commonly takes place at a change of slope, at the
junction of permeable and impermeable strata, or where groundwater is perched.
Semiarid Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Are dry for most of the growing season, have moderate to
high natural fertility and are well to imperfectly drained. They are fragile with weak soil structure, and
very low organic matter.
Silt: Material which consists of particles between 0.05 and 0.002 mm in diameter.
Soft rock: Weak rocks with minor or insignificant cementation that disaggregate with a mild hammer
blow or can be crushed by hand. Soft rock can be cut by hand with a spade.
Soil and water conservation plans (farm plans): A conservation management plan designed to
address soil erosion and water control issues through management, and the installation and maintenance
of conservation works. Such a plan includes:
(a) An initial land inventory survey and land use capability assessment
(b) The design of a conservation programme based on land use capability, and effective,
economic soil and water conservation techniques.
(c) An agreement between the regional authority and the farmer to carry out specified works or
practices within a prescribed period.
Soil depth: Soils are assigned to one of five depth/stoniness phases according to their depth above
gravel, bedrock or stone in the upper 20 cm: Deep (>90 cm), Moderately deep ( 45–90 cm), Shallow
(20–45 cm), Very shallow (<20 cm), Stony (5–35% stones in upper 20 cm), and Very stony (>35%
stones in upper 20 cm).
Soil erosion: Is the displacement of sediment, soil, rock and other particles usually by wind, water, or
ice, by downward movement in response to gravity, or by living organisms.
Soil phase: Most commonly used as a subdivision of the soil type based on a characteristic or
combination of characteristics potentially significant to land use, e.g. depth, physical composition,
surface forms, drainage, salinity, erosion, sedimentation, or climatic regime. For example, Oxford silt
loam, easy rolling phase; Mata clay, slightly eroded phase; Rukuhia peat, burned phase.
Soil profile: A vertical section of a soil showing all its horizons to 100 cm depth.
Soil salinity: Soils where the electrical conductivity of a saturated soil extract is greater than 0.8 mS
cm-1.
Soil series: As a profile class concept, a modal profile with defined range of values for certain
properties, e.g. Templeton series. As a soil mapping unit – a soil-landscape mapping unit dominated by
Templeton series profile classes, BUT which may contain other profile classes, for example, the Eyre or
Wakanui series.
Soil set: A convenient mapping unit used on general surveys, and is a grouping of soils with like
profiles or like assemblages of profiles. Its constituent soils need not be geographically related.
Soil structure: The way in which soil particles are aggregated into soil peds. Structure is described by
ped size (fine, medium, or coarse), shape, and how strongly they are formed (weakly, moderately or
strongly). The presence of peds is important because spaces are left between and within them. These
spaces are necessary for root growth and the movement of water and air within the soil.
Soil texture/texture class: Soil texture is used to describe the particle distribution of those particles in a
mass of soil that are less than 2 mm in diameter. Particles coarser than 2 mm are described as gravel and
Page 160
are not regarded as a textural component. Soil texture is described as a class determined from a standard
texture triangle based on the relative proportions of sand, silt and clay.
Soil type: The basic unit of soil mapping, a unique combination of chemical, physical, biological, and
mineralogical characteristics and site features. Often designated by a geographic name and/or a topsoil
textural and depth qualifier.
Stony soils: Soils that have 5–35 % stones in the upper 20 cm depth.
Stopbanks: Embankments along streams or on floodplains designed to confine river flows to a definite
width for the protection of surrounding land from flooding.
Supplementary feed crops (See Forage crops and Greenfeed crops).
Surface runoff: Is that portion of the precipitation that makes its way towards stream channels, lakes,
or oceans as surface flow. The term runoff also includes subsurface and deep seated flows. Runoff will
occur only when the rate of precipitation exceeds the rate at which water may infiltrate into the soil.
Tephra: A general term for all solid (rather than molten) materials ejected from a volcano during an
eruption: boulders, lapilli and ash.
Terrace: A relatively flat or gently inclined surface (tread) less broad than a plain, bounded one edge
by a steeper descending slope (riser) and along the other by a steeper ascending slope (riser), and
sufficiently elevated to be beyond the reach of the waterway that formed it.
Texture: (see soil texture).
Topsoil: A general term for the upper part of a soil with evidence of organic matter accumulation;
usually identified as an A horizon.
Tree crops: The growing of trees for fruit and/or nut production.
Tuff: A general term for consolidated volcanic tephra.
Ultic Soils [NZ Soil Classification]: Strongly weathered soils with a well-structured, clay-enriched
subsoil horizon, clay depleted E horizon immediately beneath the topsoil. Ultic Soils are acid and
strongly leached with low levels of Ca and other basic cations, are slowly permeable, and have low
nutrient reserves.
Ultramafic: Relates to igneous rocks with very high contents of dark-coloured minerals containing iron
and magnesium and less than 44% silica.
Very poorly drained soils: Soils that have an O horizon (an organic horizon), or lack a distinctive
topsoil and have 50% or more grey mottles at less than 10 cm from the soil surface.
Vineyards: Growing of vines for their fruit, e.g. grapes, kiwifruit; or flowers, e.g. hops.
Volcanic ash: Fine ash-like rock particles ejected from volcanoes during eruptions; may be transported
large distances by wind.
Water holding capacity: The storage capacity (or ability) of a soil to hold water.
Waterlogging: Periods of soil anaerobic conditions after rain or flooding. Short-term water logging is
where anaerobic conditions may occur after heavy rainfall for periods of up to one week; Water logging
is where there are sustained anaerobic conditions for periods of greater than one week due to a high
groundwater table or perched water table.
Water table: At a depth below the surface, the ground is saturated with water. The upper surface of this
zone of saturation is termed the water table.
Well drained soils: Soils that have no evidence of gleying or mottling within 90 cm of the soil surface.
Windbreaks: Any type of barrier for protection from winds. Although more commonly associated
with vegetative barriers, they also include non-vegetative barriers.
Page 161
The New Zealand Association of Resource Management
(NZARM) and the New Zealand Society of Soil Science
(NZSSS) proudly support and endorse the LUC Handbook and
its use for consistent and professional application of the LUC
Classification system in New Zealand.
Simon Stokes
Simon Stokes, NZARM President 2009.
Brent Clothier
Brent Clothier, NZSSS President 2009.
Page 162
Page 163