Lower Mississippi Valley

LOE
a field guide

David J. McCraw

and

Whitney J. Autin

July 1989

The Mississippi Valley Loess Tour·· 1989

organized by

INQUA COMMISSION ON LOESS

and the

NORTH AMERICAN LOESS WORKING GROUP

Leon R. Follmer, Coordinator

 DEuI(:A1'ION

This field guide of key Lower Mississippi Valley loess sections, covering the southern
portion of the Mississippi Valley Loess Tour of 1989, organized by the INQUA COMMISSION
ON LOESS and the NORTH AMERICAN LOESS \VORKING GROUP (formerly the informal
Mississippi Valley Loess Club), coordinated by Dr. Leon R. Follmer, Illinois State Geological
Survey, is dedicated to the late

Dr. Bobby J. Miller

(Deceased 12 April 1987).

Formerly a member of the faculty of the Department of Agronomy, Louisiana Agricultural

Experiment Station, LSU Agricultural Center, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College, "Dr. Bob" was known and respected as an authority on Louisiana soils and
soil morphology, and as an innovative research scientist working with loess soils and paleosols,
loess mixing zones, and Lower Mississippi Valley loess stratigraphy.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication i

Acknowledgements ii

Probable Lower Mississippi Valley Loess Route and Timetable 1

A Review Of Historic And Modem Concepts Of

Lower Mississippi Valley Loess Stratigraphy. 2-24

Key Loess Sections in the Lower Mississippi Valley

Vicksburg, MS: Mississippi Standard Section .25-29

Sicily Island, LA: Sicily Island Loess Type Section . 30-33
Natchez, MS . .34-35

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are indebted to Dr. Mark Walthall and William J. Day for their assistance and
cooperation in the extraction of borings from key sections at Vicksburg and Natchez with the LSU
Department of Agronomy's Giddings Probe truck and to the Louisiana Geological Survey for
guidebook compilation support.

ii
 Probable Lower Mississippi VaHey Loess Tour Route And Timetable.

Wittsburg Quarry, Crol'i'Iey's Ridge, AR to Helena, AR

24 .hOy. MJ!..Tl!I.ru:.
Helena to Crowder, MS (U.S. 49, MS 316 to MS 3): loess over mature paleosol in gravel
near Yocona River

Crowder, MS to Tchula, MS (MS 3, U.S. 49, U.S. 49E): loess over Tertiary clay near
Fannegusha Creek

Tchula, MS to Vicksburg, MS (Mississippi Standard Section, U.S. 61 - ByPass) (U.S.

49E, MS 3, U.S. 61 - ByPass): 3 loesses with paleosols

25 July ~s.illu
Vicksburg to Sicily Island, LA (1-20 West, LA 17, LA 15): Type section of Sicily Island
loess; 2 loesses over gravel

Sicily Island to Natchez, MS (LA 15, U.S. 65-84): New section with both Peoria loess
(exposed) and Sicily Island loess overlying terrace alluvium

(IF TIME PERMITS ... )

Natchez to Pond, MS (U.S. 61): Peoria loess overlying sand & gravel with stable isotope
cm'onostratigraphic (7) data of Peoria loess

Pond to Tunica Hills, LA: A series of new road cuts revealing Peoria loess overlying a highly
dissected thin Citronelle (7) and Miocene surface

Tunica Hills to Baton Rouge, LA: end of Loess Tout

1
 A Review of Historic and Modern Concepts
Of Lower Mississippi Valley Loess Stratigraphy.

David J. :McCraw Department a/Geography & Anthropology. Louisiana State

University. Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70803-4105 alld Louisiana
Geological Survey. Box G University Station. Baton Rouge.
Louisiana. 70893-4107

vVhitney J. Autin Louisiana Geological Sllrvey. Box G University Station.

Baton Rouge. Louisiana. 70893-4107

Introduction.

Ever since Sir Charles Lyell viewed the eastern Mississippi River loess bluffs of Natchez,

Mississippi in 1846, numerous scientists have discussed concepts of Lower Mississippi Valley

(LMV) loess genesis, lithology, fauna, buried soils, correlation, and chronostratigraphy. Both the

literature and field conferences have sparked heated debate since the late 1800s, first over eoHan

versus non-eolian, in-situ theories of origin, and more recently, old versus new schools of

stratigraphic interpretation. Given the fonner issue has basically been settled, we here address the

cun-ent status of LMV loess stratigraphy. In the past five years, a gathering body of evidence

suggests that the gu1fward latitudinal extrapolation of classic midwestern loess stratigraphy, a

model popularized in the 1950s, falls short of accurately describing loess stratigraphy here. We

review the historical development of this stratigraphic conflict and compare 4 modern disparate

models of LMV loess stratigraphy. Key locations described below are depicted in Figure 1.

Historical Development.

Call (1891) was most likely the first to recognize that more than one loess existed in the

LMV, as he mapped an "upper" and "lower" loess on Crowley's Ridge, Arkansas. Also during

the late 1800s, there was significant discussion as to the relationship of Mississippi loess to an

adjacent "yellow or brown loam." Hilgard (1860) was the first to describe it and placed it

2
 Distribution of
LOESS
In the
Lower Mississippi Valley
LOESS
U] VALlEY TRAIN DEPOSITS
// (Who,o No! ~red By Lou,,)
..J;UL
-- ARK --

SCALE
f:::._!Q 10 MIlES
6~-""""'10 Kn.OMETERS

J
C'r/
~.r
OJ>' Ar./!'XICO
(Sue frOID Autin, et aI., In press)

Figure 1. General distribution of loess deposits and location of key sections in

the LMV (Sources: Autin, et al., in press; Miller, Day, & Schumacher, 1986, p. 6;
and USDA-SCS, General Soil Map, State of Arkansas, 1982),

3
 stratigraphically overlying the loess. Mabry (1898) thought the loam to be homotaxial or

synchronous to the loess while McGee (1891) placed loess deposition as a phase of overall loam

deposition, recognizing loam stratigraphically above and below loess in different areas. Shimek

(1902), agreeing with McGee (1891), described loam beneath the loess at Natchez. It is now

apparent that "the loess" of these early workers refers to the most recent Peoria loess, and their

"yellow or brown loam" is either the uppermost leached Peoria (above) or an older, weathered,

leached loess (below).

The early- to mid-20th Century was spent demonstrating an eolian origin of LMV loess.

Russell (1944) provided the strongest and most eloquently stated argument for a colluvial in-situ

origin. He believed that loess was homogeneous and time-transgressive, accumulating in valley

bottoms below early Pleistocene terrace backswamp deposits. Fisk (1951), in the face of

overwhelming evidence for an eolian origin to LMV loess (see below), stubbornly accepted

Russell's model because it supported his model for Gulf Coast Pleistocene terraces (which in turn,

has since been significantly revised -- see Autin, et ai., in press).

The first major stratigraphic study of LMV loess was that of Wascher, Humbert, & Cady
(1947). They describe 3 distinct loesses: Peoria, Late Sangamon, and a "Third loess" (suggested

by G.D. Smith as possibly being correlated to the Loveland loess of the midwest). The Late

Sangamon loess, found immediately below Peoria loess in western Kentucky, western Tennessee,

and northern Mississippi, was differentiated based upon its generally non-calcareous, denser,

darker brown to reddish-brown (where locally calcareous, pinkish) character. The Third loess was

clearly distinguished from the upper two loesses by its well developed paleosol.

Leighton and Willman (1950), after leading a Mississippi Valley loess field conference

from Iowa City, Iowa to Natchez, Mississippi and Louisiana in 1949, clearly concurred with the

stratigraphic model of Wascher, Humbert, & Cady (1947) and decisively rejected Russell's theory

for loessification. Southern Peoria loess was basically identical in composition, topographic and

stratigraphic position, and general appearance to Peoria deposits of the midwest, albeit with a

greater degree and depth of surface leaching. The loess immediately beneath the Peoria, was

\
renamed from Late Sangamon loess to "Farmdale" loess, based upon Leighton's recognition of it

in the Falm Creek type section in Illinois (Leighton, 1926). Leighton and Willman (1950) describe

the thick (3-6 m) Fanndale loess above Memphis, Tennessee as thinning southward to < 1 m thick

at Vicksburg and Natchez, Mississippi, but mention it having a thickness of 1.2 m at one locality

on Sicily Island, Louisiana.

Wascher, Humbert, & Cady's (1947) "Third loess" was correlated to and named after the

Loveland loess of the midwest by Leighton and "Villman (1950). They describe it as leached (in all

but one exposure out of about twenty-five) with a strongly weathered Sangamon soil profile, and

ranging in thickness from 3 to 4.5 m along the LMV bluffs from Tennessee to southern

Mississippi. They furthermore recognize the presence of a fourth, still older loess-like silt beneath

the Loveland in places and suggest it as tentatively correlative to a "pro-Kansan" loess described in

the Upper Mississippi Valley. Based upon observations from northern Tennessee to Natchez, and

on Crowley's Ridge near Wynne and Forest City, Arkansas, they state:

it is best exposed in the Mississippi River bluffs in Natchez, where it is 4-8 feet
[1.2-2.4 m] thick, is overlain by Loveland loess as much as 15 feet [4.6 m] thick,
and overlies the deeply weathered zone on the Natchez Formation (Leighton and
Willman, 1950, p. 616).

Unfortunately, this classic Natchez section has largely been destroyed by slumping associated with

basal undercutting by the Mississippi River and is now greatly overgrown.

The extension of this classic midwestern loess stTatigraphy (Peoria, Farmdale, Loveland,

pre-Loveland) by Leighton and Willman (1950) south throughout the LMV was generally

accepted, with minor revisions in nomenclature. As summarized in McKay (1979), the Farmdale

loess has since been subdivided into the upper Robein silt (in Illinois) and the lower Roxana silt.

The Roxana is now generally believed to have been derived from proglaciallake drainage down the

Illinois - Mississippi River system during the Altonian (Winters, et al., 1988). This explains its

restricted distribution in the midwest and accounts for it thinning and pinching out southward in the

5
LMV. Miller et al. (1985) believed that by the latitude of Vicksburg (around 33· N), the Roxana is

no more than a cumlic horizon atop a paleosol developed in early Wisconsinan loess.

Since the 1950s, most workers, satisfied with the establishment of the eolian theory of

origin, have accepted this southward extension of midwestern loess stratigraphy (e.g., Snowden

and Priddy, 1968). Kdnitzsky and Turnbull (1967, p. 9-10) were the first to critically question the

applicabilty of Wascher, Humbert, and Cady's (1947) and Leighton and ¥lillman's (1950)

latitudinal extension:

[Wascher, Humbert, and Cady's (1947)] field correlations of the Sangamon and
Third [loess] are subject to severe criticism, as these layers are widely
discontinuous in the LMV loess and in many places are recognizable only on the
most tenuous basis. [Their] supporting evidence from mineralogical studies is
based on 37 samples taken from only 4 locations within a loess area which is nearly
450 miles long and 100 miles wide [725 km by 160 kmJ. [Their] results are further
weakened by the general unreliability of using the degree of weathering in loess
layers as a regional correlation criterion .

... The authors [Krinitzsky and Turnbull] agree with the previously mentioned
writers to the extent that there is more than one loess sheet in the LMV. One would
expect this to be the case by simple analogy with the interpretations of loess sheets
in the central states and from field observations and laboratory analyses made in the
LMV. However, the authors feel that it is unwise to read precise stratigraphic
implications into the LMV loess until better criteria than degree of weathering and
comparison with the sequence in Illinois are obtained.
I

Because of this, they renamed the LMV loesses after newly exposed sections along U.S. 61 By-

Pass at Vicksburg. From top to bottom these became the "Vicksburg loess," the "basal transition

zone," recognized as an intermediate mixed zone exposed between the 2 loesses, and the "Pre-

Vicksburg loess." After cautiously rejecting the midwestern stratigraphy for Mississippi loesses,

however, they tentatively correlated their units with Peoria, Roxana, and Loveland loesses,

respective! y!
Starting in the late 1960s and continuing into the 1970s, several workers turned their

attention to the loess deposits in Louisiana, which had largely been ignored since Emerson (1918)

established paleowind directions from these deposits. Daniels and Young (1968) documented the

presence of a single leached loess on the Prairie Terrace west of the Mississippi River in south-

6
central Louisiana. They did not attempt to correlate it with other loess deposits and assigned it a

post-Prairie pre-late Holocene age. To the north of this area yet still west of the Mississippi River,

Touchet and Daniels (1970) described an older (pre-Prairie, post-Montgomery) loess. Rchage

(1980) was the first to recognize 2 loesses in northeastern Louisiana, mapping a band of pre-Peoria

loess west of Peoria loess. He identified multiple source areas for this older loess and tentatively

assigned it to the Fanndalian substage.

In the Tunica Hills of East Feliciana Parish, east of the Mississippi River and south of

Mississippi, Spicer (1969) and Delcourt (1974) document 210esses separated by a paleosol and a

basal mixing zone in the upper loess. Otvos (1975) used 14C dating to establish that this

uppermost loess was indeed correlated to the Peoria loess of Vicksburg. Meanwhile, in the

northern LMV, West (1978) and West, Rutledge, and Barber (1980) identified 3 superposed

loesses on Crowley's Ridge and correlated them, top to bottom, with the Peoria, Roxana, and

Loveland. Two additional loesses have since been mapped on Crowley's Ridge at Wittsburg
Quarry.

Current Status Of LMV Loess Stratigraphy.

There have been 4 significantly different models of LMV loess stratigraphy presented in the

mid to late 1980s. The major questions implicit to these studies are: 1) to what degree, if any, do

paleoclimatic differences between the LMV and the midwestern glacial margin, as well as a single

Mississippi River floodplain deflatable silt source versus mUltiple sluiceway silt sources, influence

spatial and temporal patterns of LMV loess deposition and therefore LMV loess stratigraphy; 2) is

the classic midwestern loess stratigraphy, based on prima facie evidence of interfingering tills and

drift sheets, directly applicable to this region 1,000 km south of ice-marginal conditions; and 3)

what are the chronostratigraphic implications of individual loess packages and their paleosols

exposed in the key sections of the LMV?

7
 +
O~UlS odOlOSI rl ~ ~ 00 mOM N w ~ ~
U~~AXO M 1""'4 1""'4 1""'4 1""'4 1""'4

.
til

Figure 2. The model of McKay and Follmer (1985) depicting the relationship
between LMV loesses to those of the glaciated midwest.

9
 Of these current working models (described individually in detail below), those of McKay

and Follmer (1985) and Pye and Johnson (1988) still invoke the classic stratigraphy of the

midwest to explain the stratigraphic framework of LMV loess but differ chronologically. Miller,

Day, & Schumacher (1986) reinterpreted stratigraphic, soils, and other data, developed new

lithostratigraphic units, and seriously questioned the applicability of many elements of the classic

midwestern model. Most recently, Clark et al. (1989), having assembled an aminostratigraphy of

Mississippi Valley loessialland snails, combine elements of both the classic model and Miller's

new model.

McKay and Follmer (1985)

This study reports on the stratigraphic analysis of 6 interstratified loess sheets and 5

paleosols with tills along the Mississppi Valley in Illinois. Based upon stratigraphic position with

respect to 2 tills traditionally regarded as Illinoian and Kansan, but whose ages are uncertain,

McKay and Follmer (1985) observed 2 Wisconsinan (Peoria and Roxana) loesses above the

Illinoian till and 3 other loesses between and below these tills. Similarities in lithology and degree

of pedogenic development between these and the loess sheets on Crowley's Ridge were then

compared, allowing the extrapolation of 4 loesses (Peoria, Roxana, Loveland, and Pre-Loveland)

south through the LMV (Figure 2). They argue, however, that these latter 2 loesses are older than

previously recognized. Attempting to place this model chronostratigraphic ally within the global

glacial/interglacial cycles defined by marine oxygen isotopic data, based upon stratigraphic

evidence from Illinois, McKay and Follmer (1985) depict the Loveland and the Pre-Loveland as

correlating to isotopic stages 8 and 14, respectively. This was done not to rigidly bracket these

loesses into the chronology of these stages (245 - 303 and 524 - 565 ka, according to Imbrie, et

at., 1984), but to simply show them as being significantly older than Sangamon (McKay, personal
communication).

8
Pye and Johnson (1988)

Working on borings taken in the vicinity of Vicksburg and Natchez, Pye and Johnson

(1988) develop their model of LMV loess stratigraphy based upon numerous 14C and

them101uminescence (TL) dates as well as morphologic and geochemical criteria. They recognize 4

loesses, described from the top down with increasing age as Units 1 through 4, and suggest:

the four loess units in southern Mississippi are stratigraphically equivalent to the
Peorian, Farmdale [Robein?], Roxana, and Loveland loess recognized in Illinois.
However, the time period represented by these units in the latter area could be
greater than in southern Mississippi, since glacial outwash would have been present
for a longer period in the Missis$ippi alluvial valley during each Pleistocene cold
stage (Pye and Johnson, 1988, p. 123).

Based upon absolute age data, they show that the majority of LMV loess was deposited

during the Woodfordian as Peoria loess (Unit 1) and Fam1dale loess (Unit 2). The older 2 loesses

are assigned to early Altonian (75 ka) and Illinoian (> 130 ka) time (Figure 3). They suggest that

the absolute ages of Units 2 and 4 reported should be viewed as minimum ages.

Miller, Day, & Schumacher (1986)

The late Bobby J. Miller has probably spent more field and laboratory time critically

analyzing morphologic, pedologic, and stratigraphic relationships of LMV loesses than any other

modern scientist. He spent much of the 1970s and early to mid 1980s gathering physical and

chemical data, working extensively in Louisiana east and west of the Mississippi River, as well as

in much of western Mississippi and on Crowley's Ridge, prior to presenting his stratigraphic

model in 1985.

Alford and Miller (1985) first recognized that the sole criterion of waning and waxing of (~­

continental glaciers, the major component of the midwestern model, fell short in explaining LMV

loess stratigraphy, far south of the ice sheets. They proposed a multiple-component model for

LMV loess deposition and distribution which expanded upon general glacial cyclicity, taking into

account such criteria as changes in sea level, accumulations of stream-parallel alluvial deposits, the

1a
 ------=--------------~-----
DEPTH STRATIGRA- Tl AGE RADIOCARBON DEPTH UNIT fl AGE (14 AGE
m PHIC UNI r AGE rn
D --- --- o -'--,-
lEACHED _ SlSO!:J60
LEACHED _ , _ , , _ _ _ _- - - lONE

DEPTH UNIT Tl AGE

M
o 1~660tl010
16J20!1210
012630 t 920
(J1MIIQ.t 11110

113660! 200 o 11640±'<400

5
______ 19~_

2 o '1, .. 0±4)0 1'1"20±250

7.... 10t5'250
o 76UO±S9JO
'---+"0""',,-".0:'2so! 7380

5
o 15580 t 1090 '16620t 130 10

o 16460! 1400 I'

o 17090! 16000
o :;~:~; ~~~g 117130 ~ 100
30.
10
DEPTH Ut~1I 1L AGE (14 AGE
m
o 79610! 5400 o ---
15 3 LEACHED
ZONE
o 76100 t 5690 ._._- ._._._.-
020010!' 1'''0 o IOlS0t760

0122570"!" lQ030 15
o >132000 5 .

PFl

10 r-·-2-·~-2'6·~~~'~'<-60-41~!2·'-400T390----
!!..~!...!!92.. ~L.l.6JP.t1S!L ____ .

TRANSIT - 0 l6'<0!27S0
ION ZONE

PFL
3t>.
3a. 3d.

Figure 3. Summary stratigraphic interpretations and chronologie data from

sections described at both Vicksburg (3a and b), and Natchez (3c and d) by Pye and
Johnson (1988, p. 108-110).

development of coastwise tenaces, as well as pedogenesis of subaerial surfaces. Miller and Alford

(1985) and Miller, et al. (1985) then utilized this expanded model to correlate loesses within the

LMV. Formallithostratigraphic names were proposed for individual LMV loesses in Miller, Day,

& Schumacher (1986) and Miller (in press). Geographie relationships among Miller's units

throughout the LMV are depicted in Figure 4.

11
 feet
o

==
E(Y) l Q -
E C!l-
1-
I .-J-
VI
VI
~----F=
I-~

~
_'---S'-
(\)
Cl.
lQ-
1-
C!l-
.-J-

VI
(I)
<II
o
~::---------------~-----"==
"0
~

r: til
'0
~ ~
- 'Vi
LO--
I --
~"::>..I---~-------
(')-:5
I -.~
~

C!l
.i
~.':::
- -
:gj
0--
.-J === 0-
.-J:=
U) :::>---;
--i
U)

Ol'~
... 2:
.
----------_._-----------......
------
_____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _._......,.:.-..-J
I

~(Y)~N'
::I ....
..0 (I)
~ ....
1/1 1/1
~I--
0 - - - C!l:=:::
•~ VI
U (I) .-J .-J-
>i: VI
VI
--------~---
~
til
~-~----- .o; : - - - -
<II
Cl.

----·1 1
lQ o
N
SJ919UJ

r.'igure 4. Summary of Miller's model of stratigraphic and geographic

relationships of loesses at key sections in the LMV. Abbreviations of geosol units
represent: Loess Geosol (LG), Holocene Mississippi River Meander Belt 3
(Hmm3), Deweyville Geosol (DG). Prairie Complex Geosol (PG) Intermediate
Complex Geosol (IG) and Upland Complex Geosol (UG)(Miller, in press).

12
 Miller agreed that the uppermost LMV loess, deposited 22 to 9 ka, correlated to Peoria

loess of the midwest. His model deviates from previous stratigraphic concepts, however, with the

recognition of an early Wisconsinan loess (having TL dates of 75 to 95 ka at Vicksburg -- Johnson

et ai., 1984; Pye, 1985), differentiated from Peoria loess by a well developed paleosol, found
widely in Mississippi and Louisiana. Miller, Day, & Schumacher (1986) named this the "Sicily

Island loess" after their type section described on Sicily Island. As pointed out by Schumacher,

Miller, & Day (1987), Sicily Island loess is equivalent to the pre-Peoria loess of Miller, et al.

(1985) and the pre-Peoda, post-Montgomery ioess of Touchet and Daniels (1970) in Louisiana; the

pre-Vicksburg loess of Krinitzsky and Turnbull (1967) and the L,oveland loess of Leighton and

Willman (1950) and Snowden and Priddy (1968) in Mississippi; and the Loveland loess of West

(1978), West, Rutledge, & Barber (1980), and Rutledge, West, & Omakupt (1985) in Arkansas.

This is the key point: Miller correlates the post-Sangamon Sicily Island loess throughout

the LMV with the previously held pre-·Sangamon Loveland loess of the classic model. Miller's

LMV pre-Sangamon loess, the "Crowley's Ridge loess," is the fourth loess on a'owley's Ridge,

found stratigraphically below Peoria, Roxana, and Sicily Island loess here. The stratigraphy of the
I

Mississippi Standard Section at Vicksburg supports this contention. The best developed paleosol,

apparently the Sangamon geosol, is developed in the Crowley'S Ridge loess, the third loess at

Vicksburg (again, not recognizing Roxana as a loess unit), found below the road base (Figure 5).

It is n01 the paleosol developed in the second (Sicily Island) loess immediately above the road,

which Krinitzsky and Turnbull (1967) and Snowden and Priddy (1968) believed to be Sangamon!

While this paleosol is well expressed (having a 2B t > 1 m thick with a 7.5YR 5/4 color, with

subangular blocky structure and continuous clay films on ped surfaces), it is developed in

calcareous (10YR 5/4 to 6/3) loess. This package is clearly less weathered than the 5YR 5/6, 2m

thick 3Bt developed in leached (5YR 5/6) silt of the Crowley's Ridge loess below.

Finally, Miller, Day, & Schumacher (1986), based largely upon unpublished data from

Rutledge, describe a 5th loess-like silt on Crowley's Ridge, and name it after Marianna, Arkansas:

the Mariana loess. Thus, Miller's model shows a progressive southward pinching out of loesses.

13
 - - - - - - - -----_.-

0
Peoria Loess
(contains Memphis soil)

2-

4~
17.850 Bpl

6-

8-

19_200 BPt
0_

f---- - - - - - - - - --- - - - 22:600BPT - - -

2. basal mixed zone 25,300 Bp1
Sicily Island Loess
_roa;.9.- (contains buried Alfisol) road
bas e 95,000-75,000 Bp2 base
~-------------------------
4_ basd mixed zone
Crowley's Ridge Loess
(contains buried Alfisol)
135,000-125,000 Bp2 .
6- ~-------------------------
I
basal mixed zone
Citronelle. Formation
(contains buried Ultisol)
18
1. Snowden, 1966
2. Johnson et al., 1984.

Figure 5. Stratigraphy of the Mississippi Standard Section near Vicksburg

according to Miller, Day, & Schumacher (1986, p. 32). Approximate location of
materials dated by 14C and TL methods aTe depicted (1. Snowden and Priddy,
1968; 2. Johnson, et al., 1984).

14
Marianna loess is found only on Crowley's Ridge. The Roxana thins from Crowley's Ridge to

northern Mississippi, where it becomes too thin to exceed the the thickness of the basal mixing

zone between Peoria and Sicily Island loess at Vicksburg. This is followed by the disappearance

of Crowley'S Ridge loess by the vicinity of Natchez, and finally Sicily Island loess loses its

surficial expression in southern Louisiana, leaving only Peoria loess on the Prairie complex south

of Baton Rouge.

Clark, et al. (1989)

Clark, et at. (1989) point out that stratigraphic differentiation of Mississippi Valley loess

has traditionally been based on 14C dating of late Wisconsin loess and upon stratigraphic position,

color, mineralogy, and degree of soil development for older loesses. Furthermore, while TL

dating holds promise for differentiating among these older loesses, it yields minimum ages

(Canfield and Pearson, 1985; Norton and Bradford, 1985; Pye, 1985; Pye and Johnson, 1988) or,

at best, relative ages. They therefore reason that since correlating loesses based upon age and soil

development (whose rates differ, increasing southward) is an enterprise fraught with difficulty, a

new method of stratigraphic correlation of Mississippi Valley loesses is needed. Hence, based

upon rates of amino acid racemization of terrestrial gastropod shells, common to calcareous loess,

they desclibe a new aminostratigraphy of LMV loess.

Snails collected from 16 localities from different loesses from Illinois to Louisiana yield

epimerization aIle/lIe ratios which allow them to differentiate 5 loesses (Figures 6 and 7). In terms

of LMV samples, aIlelIle ratios increase both southward and with apparent age, from Peoria

(collected from Finley, Tennessee; Vicksburg; Natchez; Tunica, Louisiana; and Baton Rouge) to

Loveland (collected from Crowley's Ridge) to Sicily Island loess (collected at the type locality on

Sicily Island). This latter site yielded the highest ratios found in the LMV, 0.44±O.Ol and

0.458±o.008 for Helicina orbiculata and Hendersonia occulta respectively, implying that this is the

oldest loess of the LMV.

15
 \O::::!::::!~
tv - ..- _.
tv ;::::-.g (YO
,;-,~a:;
..... n:>
~~O\
~ •
(1)
.....
@§cn
"d a
o -<
>;~~
~

rt Ulc~·
o..0 Sicily Island, Vicksburg,
_ M Wittsburg, Powdermill Collinsville, Lima, IL
8" ~ 'g. LA (13) MS (12) AR (11) Creek, IL (9) IL (7)

r
(5)
00'<
,... >-t
...... 0
0.. H,
(1)
0 en
!l
Peoria-l
I
I~-l I- peo=! p'
I I
I '
I
~"~~unty
Hendersonia I ..... Ine

I .::~: I silt"
0, I
~0@
~ ::1. ....... ~ 1 Loess
Peoria ! I
1 0.1l1±0.01l II I
I I
O-<~
_. I Lo,,, .. Succinea

~
~8.~
.... \

P..-;;--~
"Sicily
Loess
I I I Peoria
o..:g ;;;.
~
ill
o ~ J Island
1 I Loess !

U
;2. u loess"
:->-.o~
>-t
I Rox=a
I
~X"d
I I
1\1

-L. CR~:r~· i 0.44 + 0.01

I Rox=a i
0) 0 ....
O~~
< • Helidna Siit
! I
I Loveland Silt

hir-1
'-'0--'- • 0.458±0.008
• 0.142±0.011
....... 0

l
~ Hendersonia Helicina i Silt
gg'< I I
1. 0.27±0.02
O~Ul
0..
>;~0_. (') gravel 1 Hendersonia I Roxana I
o~ .. O
(YO~g
,... ~
_. pre-Peoria
I loess "Crowley's
I
"Chinatown Silt
0.090+0.003
I
...... Pl Ul
Ridge silt" .. Hend;rsonia I
o >; 0::p
Loveland loess" .0.22±0.02 . 0.15+0.02
(JUlO
~=-a.
Silt I Hendersonia I Succinea
tI0.19.:':.0.01
~o (?) "Marianna I
I Succinea
~~~
~
('\) _.
0::r
~

.... 02-
gravel
loess"
gravel I
~ 0.. ...
:--~~
..--. ::ra
....... 0 .....
I Teneriffe
Silt
\OPlO
000 0
-\0 0 :n
"d ~(')
.
....... ,... •
0 0..
 0.10

0.20 -

T ;;;-;;;;-

I
. • HendersoTlia
o HeliciTla
!l! Mesodon

.. Catiltella

o SucciTlea
1
1 0.40 - ~
~ b
t;:.
., +' "Sicily Island loess"
~
0.50

0.60
"County Lin, ,ill" j
(B)
0.70 ...-...-L_-1 I I I __L_-L_......J_ _L_l----'-_. . . .
290 30° 31° 32° 33° 34° 35° 36° 37° 38° 39° 40° 41° 42° 43° 44°
Latitude

Figure 7. Plot of aIlelIIe ratios measured on both "slow" (Hendersonia, Helicina,

Mesodon) and "fast" (Catinella, Succinea) epimerizers among the gastropod genera
found in fossiliferous loess versus latitude. Dashed line roughly separates the LMV
from northern valley sites (from Figure 3b, Clark, et al., 1989, p. 925).

A Summary Of The Current Concepts Of LMV Loess Stratigraphy.

Early workers recognized more than one loess deposit in the LMV and after the non-eolian

genesis theory of Russell (1944) was discounted, the classic midwestern model of loess

stratigraphy applied here by Wascher, Humbert, & Cady (1947) and Leighton and Willman (1950)

was accepted. Within the past 5 years, 4 significant models of LMV loesses have been promoted.

1 "l
They are equally divided between old (i.e., the extrapolation of midwestern stratigraphy) and new

schools of stratigraphic interpretation. We conclude with a review of the chronostratigraphic

differences among these models, using the Quaternary chronologie framework of Richmond and

Fullerton (1986) (Figure 8). It should be noted that the chronologie boundary implications

associated with the older loesses and paleosols depicted in this figure are regarded as tenuous as

best, are not necessarily implied by the models examined, and are shown for comparison purposes

only. These discrepancies in LMV stratigraphic interpretation are those that we, the members of the

North American Loess Working Group, are faced with resolving.

McKay and Follmer (1985) and Pye and Johnson (1988) both call for the gulfward

latitudinal extrapolation of midwestern loesses. The former authors worked with interstratified

loesses, paleosols, and tills in the Mississippi Valley of Illinois. Their model of LMV loess
I

stratigraphy is based upon similatities of stratigraphic position, degree of soil development, and

other physical and chemical criteria between these loesses and paleosols in Illinois with those

found on Crowley's Ridge. The majoi' contribution of this model lies in theh' suggested correlation

of the Loveland and pre-Loveland loesses on Crowley's Ridge with 2 loesses found below the

Illinoian and Kansan tills, respectively, thus implying a greater antiquity of LMV loess than

previously thought.

Pye and Johnson (1988), on the other hand, worked exclusively in southern Mississippi.

Using an extensive chronologie framework of multiple 14C and TL dates from 4 borings at

Vicksburg and Natchez, they differentiated loess packages with unit numbers 1 through 4, and

assign these units to an antiquated midwestern stratigraphic model, utilized at Vicksburg by

Snowden and Priddy (1968). Pye and Johnson's (1988) units 2 and 3, and their assignment as

Fanndale and Roxana, are problematical.

Unit 2, described as Farmdale loess, have both 14C and TL dates which average 21 ka and

range fr0111 18 to 23 ka in 3 of the 4 borings. In the 4th core, section V2, loess units 3 and 4 are

absent. A 14C date of 20.8 ka is reported at the top of unit 2 and 4 TL dates, ranging from 27 to

36 ka are described below a "transition zone" developed between basal unit 2 and the underlying

"18
 Modern Concepts of LMV Loess Stratigraph.y
~
A\.~~
_~o~
~~i' 9~fo1
~o~V'
)O~"'v ~~~~~' ~~{ \Y
ka
~~~i~~) 1ii~~o-")~)
~ .. ~7>~
S~~
0-
Modern Soil Modern SOU Mod,ernSoU Modern Soil
Holocene
14 000-

Late Wisconsin
3; 000-

Middle Wisconsin
6: 000-
Early Wisconsin
7' 000-
" Eowlsconsln" Sangamon
12: 000- Geosol Sangamon Sangamon
Geosol Geo5Ql
\0 Sangamon SugamQft
G~I
13: 000-
Late minobln
19: 000-
Early nnnolan
30 000-

Middle Midd.le Pleistocene Undifferentiated

Paleosol
61 000-

Early Middle Pleistocene

788, 000+-
Early Pleistocene
(Quaternary chronology after Richmond &
Fullerton, 1986)

Figure 8. Chronostratigraphic implications of current models ofLMV loess stratigraphy.

Exact chronologic boundaries of loesses and paleosols older than Late: Wisconsin are
uncertain and were not specifically reported by the studies cilted~ but are depicted for
comparison purposes.
Pleistocene fluvial deposits. While they recognize that these older dates are contaminated by

mixing within the transition zone, they suggest that the radioccu'bon and the younger TL dates aU

underestimate the maximum age of unit 2, since these dates all fall into early Peoria (Woodfordian)

age and not Farmdale.

Pye and Johnson (1988) describe their unit 3 as Roxana loess. While 2 TL dates from

section N1 might possibly fall into earliest Roxana (74,420±5250 and 76,840±5930 TL yrBP),

they are, again, most likely minimum ages. At section VI, near the Mississippi Standard Section,

they report 3 TL dates ranging from 76 to 85 ka. This agrees well with the spread of dates

described from here by Johnson, et al. (1984) and Pye (1985) (75 to 95 ka). We regard these

dates, all taken from the same unit described by Miller, Day, & Scumacher (1986) as early

\Visconsinan Sicily Island loess, as too old for Roxana. If Roxana can be differentiated at

Vicksburg and Natchez, a questionable endeavor as discussed above, it should correlate to Pye and

Johnson's (1988) unit 2, not unit 3!

These TL dates tend to support Miller, Day, & Schumacher's (1986) contention that an

early Wisconsinan loess occurs in the LMV which post dates midwestern Loveland loess and

predates midwestern Roxana loess. Furthermore, Pye and Johnson's (1988) unit 4, which is

Miller, Day, & Schumacher's (1986) Crowley's Ridge loess has TL dates of 117,122, and >132

ka, which suggest a Sangamon or pre-Sangamon age. In the face of this evidence, the classic

midwestern model's LMV Loveland loess is younger than considered by most prior workers.

A significant problem in Miller's modelUes in the utilization of the 2nd loess at Sicily

Island as the type section for this early Wisconsinan loess. Peoria loess is thin (only 3.8 m) and

entirely leached here and the paleosol developed in the 2nd loess is not nearly as well developed as

it is in the 2nd (Sicily Island) loess at Natchez and Vicksburg. Miller, et ai. (1985) reported a 14C

date of 27,500±1200 yr BP obtained from gastropod shells at the top of calcareous Sicily Island

loess from this section. Miller rejected the date, believing it to be contaminated with younger

carbonate having percolated down from leached Peoria loess above.

20
 Most recently, Clark, et al. (1989) describe this loess as the oldest loess in the LMV based

upon very large amino acid aTle!Ile ratios derived from gastropod shells at this section. While these

ratios could be significantly inflated relative to those obtained at more northerly latitudes due to

higher paleotemperatures and greater weathering rates on Sicily Island, they clearly do not fall in

the same field as that defined by Loveland loess on Crowley's Ridge and the Chinatown silt of

Illinois. Nevertheless, comparison of aIlelIle values over 12" of latitude, based upon the

assumption that the range in mean annual temperature approximates the effective diagenetic

temperature (EDT) histories should be scrutinized. While Clark, et al. (1989) argue that it has been

shown that amino acid racemization-derived paleotemperature gradients have been independently
0
verified in coastal regions of the U.S. and Europe spanning >20 latitude, this relation has not

been definitively established for continental regions. One should seriously question whether or not ,A ( I

intense Pleistocene ice-marginal paleoclimates (and thus, EDTs) should be directly compared to

those of the marine-moderated Gulf Coast (in Louisiana and southwest Mississippi) ~ 1,000 km

south of glacial paleotemperature conditions. We suspect that southern EDTs and racemization

rates reflect warmer paleotemperatures and significantly higher weathering rates. Compare, for

example, the increasing relative thickness of leached Peoria loess from Illinois to Mississippi and

Louisiana.

Loess deposits in the Mississippi Valley have long attracted the inquiry of Quaternary

scientists. There is at present time, renewed interest in the endeavor of working out the spatial and

temporal relationships of these loesses and the data base necessary for the attainment of this goal is

growing. Within the past 5 years, there have been 4 significant stratigraphic models proposed for

LMV loess which question the validity of elements of the classic stratigraphic model developed 40

years ago by glacial geologists and pedologists of the midwest. Renewed interest in valleywide
I

field conferences, reinterpretation of old exposures, critical examination of new exposures and

borings, and the application of relatively new geochemical techniques undoubtedly all bring us

closer to solving remaining problems associated with North American loesses and paleosols.

21
 References.

Alford, LT., and Miller, B.J., 1985, Loesses in the Lower Mississippi Valley: I. A multiple-
component model for their deposition and distribution [abstract]: Soil Science Society of
America, Agronomy Abstracts, p. 188.

Autin, W.J., Burns, S.F., Miller, B.J., Saucier, R.T., and Snead, J.I., in press, Quaternary
geology of the Lower Mississippi VaIley (Chapter 13): in: Morrison, R.B. (editor),
Quaternary nonglacial geology; conterminous United States, The Geology of North
America, v. K-2, Geological Society of America.

Call, R.E., 1891, The geology of Crowley's Ridge: Geological Survey of Arkansas, Annual
Report (1889), Little Rock, v. 2.

Canfield, H.E., and Pearson, D., 1985, Thennolurninescence dating of sediment in the midwest
[abstract]: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, p. 282.

Clark, P.U., Nelson, A.R., !V'1cCoy, W.D., Miller, B.B., and Barnes, D.K., 1989, Quaternary
aminostratigraphy of Mississippi Valley loess: Geological Socie~y of America Bulletin, v.
101, p. 918-926.

Daniels, R.B., and Young, K.K., 1968, Loess in south-central Louisiana: Southeastern Geology,
v. 1, p. 9-19.

Delcourt, P.A., 1974, Quaternary geology and paleoecology of West and East Feliciana Parishes,
Louisiana, and Wilkinson County, Mississippi: Master's Thesis, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, 174 p.

Emerson, F.V., 1918, Loess depositing winds in the Louisiana region: Journal of Geology, v.
26, p. 532-541.

Fisk, H.N., 1951, Loess and Quaternary geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley: Journal of
Geology, v. 59, p. 333-356.

Hilgard, E.W., 1860, Report on the geology and agriculture of the state of Mississippi: E.
Barksdale, State Printer, Jackson, MS, 391 p.

Imbrie, J., Hays, J.D., Martinson, D.O., et al., 1984, The orbital theory of Pleistocene climate:
Support for a tevised chronology of marine 0 18 0 record: in: Berger, A., Imbrie, J.,
Hays, J.D., Kukla, 0., and Saltzman, B. (editors), Milankovitch and Climate, Part 1, p.
269-305.

Johnson, R.A., Pye, K., and Stipp, J.J., 1984, Thermoluminsecence dating of southern
Mississippi loess: American Quaternary Association, Program and Abstracts, 8th Biennial
Meeting, Boulder, CO.

Krinitzsky, E.L., and Turnbull, W.J., 1967, Loess deposits of Mississippi: Geological Sociery of
America, Special Paper No. 94, 64 p.

Leighton, M.M., 1926, A notable type Pleistocene section: The Farm Creek exposure near Peoria,
Illinois: Journal o/Geology, v. 34, p. 167-174.

22
 Leighton, M.M., and \Villman, H.B., 1950, Loess formations of the Mississippi Valley: Journal
of Geology, v. 58, p. 599-623.

Mabry, T.O., 1898, The brown or yellow loam of north Mississippi, and its relation to the
northern drift: Journal of Geology, v. 6, p. 273-302.

McGee, W.J., 1891, The Lafayette formation: U.S. Geological Survey, 12th Annual Report,
Part 1, p. 347-521.

McKay, E,D" 1979, Wisconsinan loess stratigraphy of Illinois: in: Follmer, L.R., McKay,
E.D., Lineback, J.A., and Gross, D.L. (editors), Wisconsinan, Sangamonian, and
Illinoian stratigraphy in central Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook 13, p.
95-108.

McKay, E.D., and Follmer, L.R, 1985, A correlation of Lower Mississippi Valley loesses to the
glaciated midwest [abstract]: Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v.
17, p. 167.

Miller, B.J., in press, Pedology: in: Autin, W.J., Burns, S.F., Miller, B.J., Saucier, RT., and
Snead, J.I., Quaternary geology of the Lower Mississippi Valley (Chapter 13): in:
Morrison, R.B. (editor), Quaternary nonglacial geology; conterminous United States, The
Geology of North America, v. K-2, Geological Society of America.

('{Pi f/I Miller, B.J. and Alford, J.1., 1985, Loesses in the Lower Mississippi Valley: II. Correlation and
Z;:> l v distribution with respect to Upper Mississippi Valley loesses [abstract]: Soil Science
Society of America, Agronomy Abstracts, p. 196.

Miller, B.J., Day, W.J., and Schumacher, B.A., 1986, Loesses and loess-derived soils in the
Lower Mississippi Valley: American Socie(y of Agronomy, Guidebook for Soils -
Geomorphology Tour, New Orleans, 144 p.

Miller, B.J., Lewis, a.c., Alford. J.J .• and Day, W.J., 1985, Loesses in Louisiana and at
Vicksburg, Mississippi: Friends of the Pleistocene, South-central Cell, Guidebook, Baton
Rouge, 126 p.

Norton, L.D., and Bradford, lM., 1985, Thermoluminescence dating of loess from western
Iowa: Soil Science Socity of America Journal, v. 49, p. 708-712.

Otvos, E.G., Jr., 1975, Southern limit of Pleistocene loess, Mississippi Valley: Southeastern
Geology, v. 17, p. 27-38.

Pye, K., 1985, Geochemistry, stratigraphy, and thermoluminescence ages of Lower Mississippi
Valley loess [abstract]: Spencer, T. (editor), ist international Conference On
Geomorphology, Manchester, U.K., p. 486.

Pye, K., and Johnson, R, 1988, Stratigraphy, geochemistry, and thermoluminescence ages of
Lower Mississippi Valley loess: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 13, p. 103-
124.
Rehage, J.A., 1980, Distribution, characteristics, and probable sources of loess soil parent
materials in northeastern Louisiana: Master's Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge, 227 p.

23
Richmond, G.M., and Fullerton, D.S., 1986, Introduction to Quaternary glaciations in the United
States of America: Quaternary Science Reviews, v. 6, p. 3-10.

Russell, R.J., 1944, Lower Mississippi Valley loess: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.
55, p, 1-40.

Rutledge, E.M., West, L.T., and Omakupt, M., 1985 Loess deposits on a Pleistocene age terrace
in eastern Arkansas: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 49, p. 1231-1238.

Schumacher, B.A" Miller, B.J., and Day, W.J., 1987, A chronotoposequence of soils developed
in loess in central Louisiana: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 51, p. 1005-
1010.

Shimek, B., 1902, The loess of Natchez, Miss.: American Geologist, v. 30, p. 279-299.

Snowden, J.O., Jr., and Priddy, R.R., 1968, Geology of Mississippi Loess: Mississippi
Geological, Economic, and Topographical Survey Bulletin 111, p. 1-203.

Spicer, H.E., 1969, Characteristics of the loess deposits and soils in East and West Feliciana
Parishes, Louisiana: Master's Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 69 p.

Touchet, B.A., and Daniels, R.B., 1970, A port-Montgomery, pre-Prairie age loess near Ville
Platte, Louisiana: Southeastern Geology, v. 12, p. 83-93.
,

Wascher,H.L., Humbert, R.P., and Cady, J.G., 1947, Loess in the southern Mississippi Valley,
identification of the loess sheets: Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, v. 12, p.
389-399.

West, L.T., 1978, Silty deposits of a terrace adjoining the Ozark Mountains: Master's Thesis,
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
West, L.T., Rutledge, E.M., and Barber, D.M., 1980, Sources and properties of loess deposits
on Crowley's Ridge in Arkansas: Soil Science Society of America Journal, v. 44, p. 353-
358.

Willman, H.B., and Frye, J.c., 1970, Pleistocene stratigraphy of Illinois: Illinois State
Geological Survey Bulletin 94,204 p.

Winters, I-LA., Alford, LT., and Rieck, R.L., 1988, The anomalous Roxana silt and mid-
Wisconsinan events in and near southern Michigan: Quaternary Research, v. 29, p. 25-35.
 MISSISSIPPI LO:ESS STANDARD SECTION

The road cuts in Sec. 9, T. 16 N., R. 4 E., along U. S. Hwy. 61 bypass, Warren County,
Mississippi were originally identified as a type section by Krinitzsky and Turnbull (1967),
originally described by Snowden and Priddy (1968), and later descdbed and reinterpreted by
Miller et a1. (1985, 1986).
The Standard Section described and discussed in the literature is at the road cut in NEI/4, NEI/4,
Sec. 9, T. 16 N., R. 4 E., west side of U. S. Hwy. 61 bypass, north edge of Vicksburg, Warren
County, Mississippi, surface elevation 116 m. The following description and laboratory data are
modified from Miller et a1. (1986, p. 33-40).

Ap horizon -- Silt loam; dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4); moderate, fine and medium,
subangular blocky and granular structure; fdable consistence; consists of mixed A and Bt horizon
material; strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundary; 0.00-0.20 m.

Bt horizon -- Silt loam; dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) ped exteriors and yellowish brown
(10YR 5/4) ped interiors; moderate, fine and medium, subangular blocky structure; finn
consistence; continuous clay films on ped surfaces and in pores; many fine and medium pores;
common, fine roots; strongly acid; gradual smooth boundary; 0.20-0.51 m.

Bt2 horizon -- Silt loam; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) with dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) clay
films on many ped surfaces and in pores; continuity and thickness of clay films decreases with
depth; friable consistence; common fine and medium roots; common fine and medium pores;
medium acid; diffuse smooth boundary; 0.51-1.22 m.

Bw horizon -- Silt; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); weak, coarse, subangular blocky structure;
friable consistence; mildly alkaline; diffuse smooth boundary; 1.22-1.83 m.

Cl horizon -- Silt; yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) to light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); massive to
friable consistence; contains calcareous concretions and gastropod fossils; calcareous matrix;
neutral to moderately alkaline; gradual smooth boundary; 1.83-11.43 m.

C2 horizon -- Silt loam; pale brown (10YR 6/3); massive to friable consistence; contains
calcareous concretions and gastropod fossils; calcareous matrix; neutral to moderately alkaline;
contains admixture from underlying 2BU b horizon; clear
smooth boundary; 11.43-12.04 m.

SICILY ISLAND LOESS -- 12.04-13.92 m

2Btlb horizon -- Silty clay loam; brown (7.5YR 5/4); moderate, medium, subangular blocky
structure; firm consistence; continuous clay films on ped surfaces and in pores; calcareous in
places on some ped surfaces; neutral; clear smooth boundary; 12.04-12.34 m.

2Bt2b horizon -- Silt loam; brown (7.5YR 5/4) to yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4); moderate,
medium, subangular blocky structure in upper part grading to weak, medium and coarse,
subangular blocky structure in lower part; firm consistence; clay films on ped surfaces and in
pores decrease in thickness and continuity with depth; calcareous; neutral in upper part and
mildly alkaline in lower part; gradual smooth boundary; 12.34-12.95 m; road base is
approximately at the base of this unit.

2Bt3b horizon -- Silt loam; yellowish bro.wn (IOYR 5/4); weak, coarse, subangular blocky to
massive structure; friable consistence; thin discontinuous clay films on some ped surfaces; some
gastropod shells; calcareous matrix; mildly alkaline; diffuse smooth boundary; 12.95-13.51 m.

25
2Bwb horizon -- Silt loam; pale brown (10YR 6/3) to yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4); massive
structure; friable consistence; some gastropod shells; calcareous matrix; mildly alkaline; gradual
smooth boundary; 13.51-13.92 m.

CROWLEY'S RIDGE LOESS -- 13.92-16.81 m

3Bt! b horizon -- Silty clay; yellowish red (5YR 5/6); strong, medium and fine, subangular blocky
structure; very firm consistence; continuous clay films; neutral; gradual smooth boundary; 13.92-
14.22 m.

3Bt2b horizon -- Silty clay loam; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) with common fine and medium light
brownish gray (1 OYR 6/2) mottles; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; firm
consistence; clay films on many ped surfaces; calcareous matrix; neutral; diffuse smooth
boundary; 14.22- I 4.38 m.

3Bt3b horizon -- Silty loam; yellowish red (5YR 5/6) with common fine and medium light
brownish gray (lOYR 6/2) mottles; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; firm
consistence; clay films on many ped surfaces; calcareous matrix; neutral; gradual smooth
boundary; 14.38- J4.68 m.

3Bt4b horizon -- Silt loam; reddish brown (7.5YR 5/4) to yellowish red (7.5YR 5/6); weak,
medium, subangular blocky structure; firm consistence; thin discontinuous clay films on some
peds; calcareous in some parts and mildly alkaline to 15.29 m; noncalcareous and mildly alkaline
below 15.29 m; gradual smooth boundary; 14.68- I 5.90 m.

3C horizon -- Silt; yellowish red (5YR 5/6); weak, coarse, subangular blocky structure; friable
consistence; common fine black concretions; slightly acid in upper part and neutral in lower part;
gradual smooth boundary; contains admixture from underlying 4Btb horizon; J 5.90-16.8 J m.

4Btb horizon -- Silt loam; yellowish red (5YR 5/6); moderate, medium, subangular blocky
structure; firm consistence; clay films on ped surfaces; common fine black concretions; slightly
acid; 16.81-17.12 m.

26
 Table I. Particle size distribution in a Memphis soil and underlying paleosols in V:lcKsburg. Mississippi.

r I Size Class andP-article Diameter (mm)

Depth 'Horizonf"" , Total _ .J Sand i. 1
I I
I Sand
I
Silt I Coarse,
t
I
i Silt
I Sand I Tex-
.. rs)
I (2.0-
0.05)
I
1
(0.05-
O.OO:n
Clay
« 0.002)
~
veryl
2.0-1.0)j (1.0-0.5)
Coarse I Medium
(0.5-0.25)
Fine
(0.25-0.1)
Very fin e I
.(0.1-0.0 5) I
Itural
l0laSS
O.
O.
O.
1
20, Ap
ct:. of"- 2 mm

0.1
0.2
{\ 1
0.2
0.4
{\ 1
0.3
0.6
" '1
-:1"
4.1 -
!
"L 3 . -,

21. 6
)

16.0 l.s~l
I
I.
S11

I·
51
1.83-2. 29 1 Be
2.29-2.?9 1'"', ,,~
I 4.2
3.4 I
88.5
88.0
7.3
8.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
,;,;.6
3.4
I,
1
21.1 I si
25.9 its;
,
"8' I ;,:
1
2.79-3. jO I 3.2 90.0 ;...
,r
6.8
3.30-3. 81 1 3.6 I 89.5
\
6.9
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.l
0.1
3.0
3.5
I
_4.9
~.
, 51
I
N
3.81-4. 31 1 I
I,
3.5 ,I 89.6 6.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.3 I 25.6 j Si
4.31-4. 72 1
""'-l
3.6
I 91. 4 I 5.0 0.0
I, 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.6 ' 25.4 I si
4.72-5.33\ 3.6
I
89.4 II 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 3.5 I 24.8 si
5.33-5.94. 4.9 87.9 7.2 0.0
I 0.0 0.1 0.1 4.8 I ] -1.'1~ 1
51.
,I,
,
5.94-6.55. 4.0 89.7 if -,')',
6.55-7.16 4.2 , 89.2
I 6.3
6.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.9 - .. ~
1
I

Ie'
5;
I

7.16-7.77·
7.77-8.28 :
4.2 I
I 90.7 I 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
4.1
4.2
,
'\
21.6
'11 ')
-,,-, ~
si I
_1

3.9 90.0 6.1 0.0

8 • 2 vR-8 • '9:I 4.5 I 88.1 7.4 0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.8 1 23.1 s~

I
I 4.4 1 19.6, S1
I
I

S.79-9.30 4.2 89.4 6.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 II _.

"I 3 I, S l.
9.30-9.80
I, 4.1
J 3.9 I 91.3 4.8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.8 I 23.4 lSi
9.80-10.2J, 4.9
I 91.2 I 3.9 0.1 I
II
0.1 0.1 O.l 4.8 1 18.6 si
10.21-10.Sl
10.82-11.4j
5.4
3.3
90.7
90.0
3.9
6.7
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.2 I 16.8 s;
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.2 I
11.43-11.74 C2 4.9 I 82.0 I 13.1 0.0 I 0.1 0.1 0.3 4.4
27.3
16.7
S1
s;l
11.73-12.04
2Btlb l
4.1 I 79.5
I 16.4 i
II
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.4 I 19.3 sil
12.04-12.31 2.5 I 64.7 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.3 I 25.9 sic1
lI
1
12.34-12.6~ 2Bt2b 3.0 72.8 ! 24.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.7 , 26.0 sil I
12.65-12.9~
12.95-13.2~ 2Bt3b
4.0
4.5
I 75.3
77.6
j 20.7 II 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.8 18.8 ,'sil
13.26-13. 5~ 5.8 I 79.7 I 17.9
14.5 I,,
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1 4.4 17.21,sil
I. 5~~
13 .51-13.71 2B~b 6.9 77.6 I 15.5 0.0 0.1 0.4
0.5
0.7
5.1 13.7
Ii 511
I
I 1
I
I
5.8 11.2

i
1
 --

Table I. (continued) Particle size distribution in a Memphis soil and underlying paleosols in Vicksburg, MissisSippi.

I r ~-----Size-CIass and- Particle Diameter (rom)

Depth !Horizonl . Total I Sand '\
I . i i
Sand I Silt:
'I I \I Silt

(meters.
j (2.0- I (0.05-
10.05)
Clay
\ 0.002)
Very
I Coarse Coarse~
«0.002)
I
M:dium_
(2.0-1.0) (1.0-0.)) (0.)-0.2:»
Fine
(0.25-0.1)
II Very fin:
(0.1-0.0))
Sand Tex-
tural
,class
I - - - . . . : . . - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ?IP - r 1 I
1I t • '--. o~
- ~ .,- :nm I, ,
I

13.77-13.92 ! 5.4 ,72.0 22.6 0.0 1 0.1 I 0.3 0.6 4.5

13.92-14.0~ 3Btlbi 3.5 i 49.5 47.2 0.0 \ 0.1 I 0.2 0.4 2.9
14.07-14.22 3.0 \ 47.6 49.4 0.0 0.1 I 0.1 0.3 2.6
14.22-14.38 3Bt2b: 3.0 64.0 33.0 \ 0.0 I 0.1 1\ 0.1 0.3 2.7
l4.38-14.6~ 3Bt3'o' 3.4 \ 73.0 ,23.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.3
1~.68-1~.~~ 3Bt4'o\ ;.~ 78.1! 1;.~ I 0.0 I O.~ \ ~.2 0.1 3.8
14.98-b .... ';\ ~.C 180.9 I h.) \ 0.0 I D....... v.l 0.2 i 4.2
1~.29-15.6q I o.~
N b.60-15.90
co 15.90-16.2q 3Cb
4.5
6.8
0.5
1

I
80 . 7
I 78.9
84.9
I14.8
14.3
8.6
1
i
I'
0.0
0.0
0.0
I
I
\
0.0
0.0
0.1
\

I
ad.
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
I
I 4.3
6.5
6.3
I
I
17.9\
11.6
13'
s~~
S~I
-,
\ • .L I :.:
I
I
16.20-16.51 6.8 88.0 I 5.2 0.0 0.0 \ 0.1 I
0.3 6.5 12.9 I S~
I

16.51-16.81 7 . 4 ! 87.2 \ 5.4 j 0.0 I 0.0 \ 0.2

\
I 0.4 I
16.81-17.12 4Btb 8.9 I 71.8 i 19.3 I 0.1 I 0.2 ! 0.8 1.6 I
6.8
6.3 \
11.8 I
8.1 I
Si
sil
\
i
I
,I II, \ Ii
I
\
\ I
I I \I

I
I
\
I I
I
\ \

I
I I
\
I \
I
\
I
I I \
I
!
I
!
1. \
I
\, !
I \

I II \
I
I
 Table II. Profile distd.btltion trends of PhyltosiHcates in the clAy-she
fraction of 8 Memphis soil and underlying paleosols in Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
---------·----·-------------T-----------
________________ !.~:!:P_~ r ?-DLomponen t
Inter-
stratified
Depth Soil and
~eter_~.L ____!!~rizo~_.!~o 1~'l~~~ ___}1j. ca_~.2~~~c:...t_~~Jn ~_~a~_~

0.00-0.20 Ap
0.20-0.51 Btl xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x
0.51-1.22 Bt2 xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x
1.22-1.83 Bw xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x
1.83-2.29 BC xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx x
2.2.9-2.79 C1 xx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx x
2.79-3.30 xx xxx x VV"\l'v""vv"\t''''I.t''l ..... r1rlr ... ,.
~ .. ,1 ....".r>.Ar..J\.AJ\.hA"'.I\...I\.. .--
t. l

Almost identical difEtactograms in

fifteen horizons between 2.79 and 10.82 meters

10-21-10.82 xx XXX){ xxxxxxxxxxxxxx tr

10.82-11.43 xxx X){XX xxxxxxxxxxxxx tr
11.43-11. 73 C2 xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x
11. 73-12 .04 xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx x
12.011-12.3/~ 2Btlb xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxx
12.34-12.65 2.Bt2b xxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx
12.65-12.95 xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx
12.95-13.26 2Et3b xx:kxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx
13.26-13.51 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx x
13.51.-13.77 2Bwb xxxxxxx xxx x xxxxxxx xx
13.77-13.92 xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xx
13.92-1.4.07 JBtlb xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx
14.07-14.22 xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxx
14. 22-1{~. 38 3Bt2b xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx
14.38-111.68 3BtJb xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx
14.68-14.98 3Et4b xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx
ill. 98-15.29 xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxx "XX
1.5.29-15.60 xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx
15.60-15.90 xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx
15.90-16.20 3Cb xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx :ltX
16.20-16.51 XXXX:ltXX xxxx xxxxxxx xx
16.51-16.81 xxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx X
16.81-17.12 4Btb xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxx xx :It

1
Each 'x' represents approximately 5 percent:.

29
 SICILY ISLAND SECTION

Miller et at. (1986) designated T. 10 N., R. 7 E, of Sicily Island, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana as
the type area for Sicily Island loess, where the unit is exposed in several abandoned quarries.

The type locality is an abandoned gravel pit in SWI/4, SEI/4, Sec. 11, T. 10 N., R. 7 E., Sicily
Island, Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, surface elevation 73 m. The following description and
laboratory data are modified from Miller et al. (1986, p. 69-74).

PEORIA LOESS -- 0.00-3.80 m

A horizon -- Silt loam; brown (10YR 4/3); weak, medium and fine, angular blocky and granular
structure; friable consistence; many fine roots; slightly acid; abrupt smooth boundary; 0.00-0.07
m.

Btl horizon -- Silt loam; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); moderate, medium, subangular blocky
structure; firm consistence; clay films on ped surfaces and in pores; common fine roots; strongly
acid; clear smooth boundary; 0.07 -0.38 m.

Bt2 horizon -- Silt loam; dark brown (7.5YR 4/4); model'ate to weak, medium, subangulal' blocky
structure; firm consistence; thin clay films on ped surfaces and in pores; few fine roots; medium
acid; gradual smooth boundary; 0.38-0.76 m.

Bt3 horizon -- Silt loam; dark brown (7.5YR 4/4); weak, medium and coarse, subangular blocky
structure; firm consistence; thin discontinuous clay films on some ped surfaces; thin gray silt coats
on some vertical ped surfaces; mildly alkaline; gradual smooth boundary; 0.76-1.14 m.

Bt4 horizon -- Silt loam; dark brown (7.5YR 4/4); weak, coarse, subangular blocky to massive
structure; friable consistence; thin discontinuous clay films on some peds; thin gray silt coatings
on some vertical ped faces; mildly alkaline; diffuse smooth boundary; 1.14-2.13 m.

CI horizon -- Silt loam; dark brown (7.5YR 4/4); structureless; massive; friable consistence;
moderately alkaline in upper part, mildly alkaline in lower part; diffuse smooth boundary;
2.13-3.34 m.

C2 horizon -- Silt loam; dark brown (7.5YR 4/4) to brown (lOYR 4/4); structureless; massive;
friable consistence; mildly alkaline; gradual smooth boundary; 3.34-3.80 m.

SICILY ISLAND LOESS -- 3.80-10.21 m

2Btl b horizon -- Silty clay loam; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); moderate, medium; subatlgular
blocky structure; very firm consistence; continuous clay films on ped surfaces and in pores;
neutral; gradual smooth boundary; 3.80-4.40 m.

2Bt2b horizon -- Silt loam; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); moderate, medium, subangular blocky
structure; firm consistence; clay films on ped surfaces and in pores; neutral in upper part to
mildly alkaline in lower part; gradual smooth boundary; 4.40-5.02 m.

2Bwb horizon -- Silt loam; strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); weak, coarse, subangular blocky structul'e;
friable consistence; mildly alkaline; gradual smooth boundary; 5.02-5.33 m.

2C 1b horizon - - Silt loam; bl'own (7.5YR 5/4); structureless; massive; very friable consistence;
mildly alkaline in upper part; calcareous; contains gastropod shells; moderately alkaline in lower
part; diffuse smooth boundary; 5.33-7.01 m.

2C2b horizon -- Silt; bl'Own (7.5YR 5/4); structureless; massive; very friable consistence;
calcareous; contains gastropod shells; strongly alkaline; diffuse smooth boundary; 7.01-9.75 m.

30
2C3b horizon -- Gravelly silt loam; brown (7.5YR 5/4); structureless; massive; friable consistence;
moderately alkaline; gradual smooth boundary; 9.75-10.21 m.

CITRONELLE FORMATION -- 10.21-11.58_m

3A 1b horizon -- Gravelly sand; yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); structureless; massive; loose
consistence; calcareous; mildly alkaline; diffuse smooth boundary; 10.21-10.66 m.

3A2b horizon -- Gravelly sand; light yellowish brown (J OYR 6/4); structureless; massive; loose
consistence; calcareous; mildly alkaline; clear smooth boundary; 10.66-11.27 m.

3Btb horizon -- Gravelly sanely loam; ted (2.5YR 4/8); modet'ate, medium and coarse, subangular
blocky structure; very firm consistence; seams of material from overlying horizons extend through
horizon along sotne peds; calcareous on some ped faces; mildly alkaline; 11.27-11.58 m.
 Table In •. Particle size distribution in a Memphis soil and underlying paleosols on Sicily Island in Caeahou1a Parish,
Louisiana.

r-, -~ Size Class and Particle Diameter (mm)

Depch .Horizonr Total Sand , I

II Sand
I
I Silt II I Silt
Sand
! Tex-
I (2.0- I (0.05- Clay Coarse Medium. Fine Very fine I tural
(meters)
0.05) 10.002.) «0.002) (1.0-0.5) (0.5-0.25) (0.25-0.1) (0.1-0.05) I I class
0.00-0.07'
I .--------------~:I I
.

0.07-0.38
A
Btl 75.8 0.0 0.1
0.6
0.2
1.3
1.4
I
!
27.3
44.6 I
I 511
5i 1
0.38-0.76 Btl 1.5 77 .2 21.3 0.0 0.1
0.76-1.14 0.2 0.2. 1.1 I 51.5 I
I '511
·
Be3 0.9 82.2 16.8 0.0
1.14-1.52
1.52-2.. 13 1
Bt4 1.3
1.3
80.6
79.1
18.1 0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.9
1.0
I
t
91.3
62.0
I s~l
s11
2.13-2. 73 i
2..73-3. 34 1
Cl 1.3
1.6
79.0
19.6
19.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.1
II ~O .. 8 j
00 .. 7 I
5 .~]
76.5 2.2.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
51 I
3.34-3.80, C2 2.0 0.2. 1.2 I 47.8 s'i1
74.6 23.4 0.0 0.1 0.1
1

3.80-4.1°1 2.Btlb 1.1 69.9 29.0 0.0 0.2 0.4

0.2. 1.6 i 37.3! si1
)!4. 10-4. 40 : 0.8 0.2 0.4 t,I r" - I
I ~.; c'I
70.4 28.9 0.0 0.1 0.2
Q,j .. ;) ~~
)i4.40-4.72. ; ?
~Bt-ol? 0.7 86.2. 13.1 0.0
0.1 0.4 I 38 . 0 I 5': C1
4.72-5.02
5.02-5.33: 2Bwb
, 0.6
0.9
86.1
83.7
13.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
j 123.1
143 .. 5
I s:l
511
5.33-6.091 2Clb 1.3 81.8
15.3
16.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1 0.1 0.9 ! 93.0 I s~l
6.09-7.01
7.01-7.92
i
i 2.C2b
1.8
4.8
85.3
85.2
12.9
10.0
0.0 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
1.2
1.3
I 62.9
i 47 ~4
1

I
511
sil
0.8
7.92-8. 38 1 5.9 86.3 7.7 0.7
1.2
;
~ •
'l
.j
0.6
1.1
0.6
1.2.
1.6 I 17 .. 7 I 5~
8.38-8.83J 7.7 86.2 6.1 1.6 I 14.6 51
1.2. 2..9 1.3 1.1.
8.83-9.29 7.9 84.5 7.6 1.3 11.2 S1
1.8 2.2. 1.3 • 1
9.29-9.75 9.4 81.5 9.1 2.4
.L._ 1.5 10.,7 si
2.2 2.0 1.4
9.75-10~2· 2C3b I 18.5 73.1 8.4 3.6 5.4 5.9
1.5 8.7 S1
10.21-10.6~ 55.2 37.5 7.3 16.7
2.2. 1.4 4.0 sil
13.6 18.5 4.2. 2.2
10.66-10.9il 3Mb 89.7 7.1 3.2 18.4 0.7 1
30.7 33.8 5.3 1.5
10.97-11. 2'1- 3A2b 94.6 2.8 2.7 4.8 36.1 0.1 s
48.1
no 27-U.S1 3Bt:b 82..0 1.2 16.8 11.6 II 42.6 26.4
4.4
1.1
1.1
0.4
0.1 s
i 0.1 I 51
I1
,
I
I
I! I
I
I
I
I
I l i ~
 Table IV. Profile distribution trends of Phyllosilicates in the clay-size
fraction of. 11 Memphts soil and underlying p sle0801 on Sicily hiland in
Catahou1d Parish, Louisiana.

---------
_____________ Hine.!'..Q1-~omp_~!:l~n~_____ .~=___==~:_=_= _= _
Hlt.e r-
strRtiHect
Depth SoU I1nd
.( me te rs) Horizon KaoHnite Hicaceous
--~.---~-
SmectitE! I n t.~J_-_~~ e t.':..L

0.00-0.07 A xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx x

0.07-0.38 Btl xxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx x
0.38-0.76 Bt2 xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx X
0.76-1.lIt Bt3 xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx x
1.1I~-1.52 Bt4 xxxxx xxxxxxx KltXXXXXx tr
1.52-2,13 xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx tr
2.13-2.73 cl xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx tr
2.73-3.34 xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx tr
3.3/~-3.80 C2 xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx tr
3.80- /1.10 2Bt1b xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx
4.10-4.40 xxxxxxx xxxxxx:: xxxxx xx
[1,40-4.12 2Bt2b xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx X
[1.72-5.02 xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx x
5.02-5.33 2Bwb xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx I:r
5.33-6.09 2C1b xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx tr
6.09-7.01 xxx XXXXX XXXXXXX1Ol:XXX tt
7.01-7.92 2C2b xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx tr
7.92-8.38 xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx tr
8.38-8.83 xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx tr.
8.83-9.29 xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx tr
9.29-9.75 xxxxx XXXi< XXXXXi<XXXXX tr
9.75-10.21 2e3b xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx tr.
10.21-10.66 3Alb xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxXx tr
10.66-10.97 3A2b xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx I:r
10.97-'-11.27 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxx I:r
11.27·-11.58 3Btb xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xx I:r

lEach 'x' represents approximately 5 percent.

.33
 MISSISSIPPI

NATCHEZ S:ECTION

The Natchez sectiom is approximately 4 km southwest of Natchez, Mississippi on Industrial Park

Road, 2 km east of the Mississippi River in Sec. 28, T. 7 N., R. 3 W. This is a new locality
different from other Natchez localities repol"ted in scientific literature. Description by W. J.
Autin and D. J. McCmw.

PEORIA LOESS -- 0.0-18.2 m

Spoil -- consists of mixed A horizon material disturbed by wad construction; 0.00··0.50 m.

A horizon -- Silt loam; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/2); weak, fine, granutal" stl"uctme; very
friable consistence; numerous roots, few pores; strongly acid; clear smooth boundary; 0.50-0.80 m.

E horizon -- Silt loam; bwwn (lOYR 4/3) with few, fine, faint pale brown (10YR 6/3) mottles;
weak, very fine, subangular blocky structure; very friable consistence; numerous roots, few pores;
very strongly acid; abrupt irregular boundary; 0.80-1.0 m.

Bt horizon -- Silt loam; yellowish brown (IOYR 5/6) with common, medium, faint pale brown
(lOYR 6/3) mottles; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure; friable consistence; strongly
acid; few gray (10YR 6/1) silt films, few pores, occasional roots; clear smooth boundary; 1.0-1.8
m.

Bw horizon -- Silt loam; yellowish brown (I OYR 5/6); weak, very fine, subangular blocky
structure; friable consistence; medium acid; few gray (lOYR 6/1) silt films, few pores, occasional
roots; clear smooth boundary; 1.8-2.2 m.

BC horizon -- Silt loam; yellowish bwwn (10YR 5/4); weak, very fine, subangulal' blocky
structure; friable consistence; medium acid; some pores; few worm traces; gradual smooth
boundary; 2.2-2.8 m.

Cl horizon -- Silt; yel10wish brown (10YR 5/4); very friable consistence; very slightly acid; few
roots; few worm traces; clear wavy boundary; 2.8-3.7 m.

C2 horizon -- Silt; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); very friable consistence; strongly
effervescent; contains gastropod fossils; calcareous matrix; alkaline; few pores; gradual irregular
boundary; 3.7-4.6 m.

C3 horizon -- Silt; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); very friable consistence; sU'ongly
effervescent; contains gastropod fossils, more abundant than overlying horizon; scattered 2-3 cm
carbonate concretions; calcareous matrix; alkaline; few pores; cleat wavy boundary; 4.6-8.0 m.

C4 horizon -- Silt; dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); very friable consistence; strongly
effervescent; contains gastropod fossils, similar abundance to overlying horizon; scattered 2-3 cm
carbonate concretions; calcareous matrix; alkaline; clear smooth boundary; 8.0-8.6 m.

C5 horizon -- Silt loam; dark brown (J OYR 3/3); weak, very fine crumb structure; friable
consistence; mildly effervescent; contains gastropod fossils, similar abundance to overlying
horizon; scattered 2-3 Col carbonate concretions; calcareous matrix; alkaline; analogous to "dark
band" of Krinitzsky and Turnbull, 1967; clear smooth boundary; 8.6-9.0 m.

C6 horizon -- Silt; light yellowish brown (JOYR 6/4); friable consistence; strongly effervescent;
contains scattered gastropod fossils; calcareous matrix; alkaline; few pores; occasional roots; 9.2-
11.1 111 covered by slump; diffuse smooth boundary; 9.0-15.0 m.

34
C7 horizon -- Silt; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4); friable consistence; strongly effervescent;
contains scattered gastropod fossils; carbonate concretions common in tipper meter of unit;
calcareous matrix; alkaline; clear irregular boundary; 15.0-17.5 m.

C8 horizon -- Silt; light yellowish brown (J OYR 6/4); fdable consistence; strongly effervescent;
contains scattered gastropod fossils; abundant large carbonate concretions; calcareous matrix;
alkaline; few very dark brown (1 OYR 2/2) stains; gradual irtegular boundary; 17.5-18.2 m.

SICILYISLANDLOESS --18.2-18.6+ I}l

2Btl -- Silt loam; brown (7.5YR 4/4); weak, very fine, subangular blocky structure; friable
consistence; scattered root traces; few discontinuous clay films; 18.2-18.6+ m..

35