1. VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV Ispra - February 6-7, 2006

2. The first to fill in the exchange format in order to provide an example Austria-Veneto pilot areas are not cross- border LACK OF HARMONISATION POSSIBILITIES

3. Austria-Veneto: very different environments. High interest but low correlation possibilities Humus forms could have been discussed more, during all excursions (important for OC) Friuli-Slovenia: good examples of harmonisation. A single pilot area, already harmonised. EXCURSIONS

4. Similar interpretations of pedogenetic processes (es: Bs/Bw horizons in Lombardy or Switzerland) This should lead to similar classifications, with few problems of different soil classifications on the borderline (U. Wolf) EXCURSIONS

5. Italy seems confident using WRB classification (no national classification) Countries with national classifications tend to translate their classifications to WRB (single WRB adjective) CLASSIFICATION

6. STU-TOT (pixel table) Total STU coverage (%), sum of all STUs coverage. STU-TOT+NON SOIL should be 100%, exept for border pixels. Was the interpretation of the parameter the same for everyone? Is it coherent with the 1:1M DB? Problem: NON SOIL ( SUR-BARE+SUR-URB+W-BODY ) and STU_TOT come from different DB PIXEL TABLE

7. SUR-BARE+SUR-URB+W-BODY: Should everybody use Corine 2000 to have the same definition of NON-Soil or should they use local sources and describe them in metadata? Which is the source for non-soil for the 1:1M DB? PIXEL TABLE

8. PX-CFL: Confidence level of pixel description PX-AVLB: Soil data availability PX-OBS: Number of total observations in the pixel N-PROF: Number of profiles in the pixel There is no reason not to fill in these parameters. PIXEL TABLE

9. CO-HUM: organic carbon content of holorganic layers in the pixel (t/ha) Is the value 0 of some pilot area for missing data or for no holorganic layers presence? (es: agricultural sites, vineyards, ecc..) PIXEL TABLE

10. S-LOSS: Actual soil loss in the pixel (t/ha/year) some pilot areas have filled the DB with the interval of the classes of t/ha (ES: 10-40) PIXEL TABLE

11. STU-DOM Dominant STU coverage (%). It should have been calculated as percentage of the STU-TOT Was the interpretation of the parameter the same for everyone? Is it coherent with the 1:1M DB? DOMINANT STU TABLE

12. TOP-DEPTH : depth of topsoil (cm) It gives precision and accuracy to the data, it helps to characterise mountain and agricultural soils Should bulk density and organic carbon content of TOP-DEPTH be added to check the data of 1:1M DB? DOMINANT STU TABLE

13. Very important to be filled in. Has it been filled by all partners? If not, why not? METADATA TABLE