Talk:Humus form

Humus form

I do not understand why the page I have created under the name of 'Humus form' has been shifted to 'Draft: humus form', meaning that it did not comply with Wikipedia requirement and should be rewritten. Please give me more details about that point, which is s strong deceipt to me. Quality of the language? Quality of the matter? Or both? Please be more explicit. Jfponge 06:28, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

An explicit explanation was given at User talk:Jfponge#Humus form moved to draftspace. when the article was moved, which was done per WP:DRAFTREASON 1 as explained in the edit summary. The article is in an unfinished state unsuitable for publication in mainspace, and your conflict of interest means you moving the article to mainspace yourself and bypassing the AfC process is highly inappropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I will abandon the idea of creating a wikipage devoted to humus forms. The process of creation and your multiple suggestions to improve it are out of the scope of what I wanted to do from the beginning. Maybe I am not the best person in the best place to do that. Too complicated for me, indeed. Il will focus on improving existing pages, as I did from the beginning, nothing else. Maybe somebody will have stronger shoulders to perform it. Jfponge 09:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Conflict of interest on the page Humus form

When I created the wikipage Humus form on last 3 September I was suspected of conflict of interest, being myself a specialist of humus forms and citing as sources many papers where my name was present in the authors list. Here I want to explain why there is in fact no conflict of interest. I am retired from my institute, the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, since 2008. Until last year I was still involved in research projects and wrote or participated to various papers and books on soil biology, my research area. However, from the beginning of this year, I decided to stop research work and devote my time to the diffusion of knowledge. Wikipedia seems to me the best vehicle for sharing knowledge about humans. I know Wikipedia for a long time, having made many additions or revisions on existing pages, sometimes adding full sections, when I judged it useful. I also created some pages on limited subjects. But this is the first time I decided to devote my work to the creation of a wikipage embracing a whole research area, which is also one of my own research areas. My purpose was to share our knowledge on a chapter of soil science which is now in a state of renewal, after being ignored for a long time by most soil scientists. We are here at the interface between soil morphology and soil biology. This recent renewal occurred mainly under the influence of Augusto Zanella, a colleague from the University of Padua in Italy, who gathered an ever increasing number of research scientists working in this domain of science, first in Italy and France, then in whole Europe (including eastern countries) and then in the rest of the world. Field sessions, workshops, exchanges succeeded, until there was a consensus about a new definition and classification of humus forms, called HUMUSICA. From the beginning, I participated to this common endeavour. Now that I am retired, not only from my institute, abut also from research work, I think that it is time to make as many people as possible aware of this piece of science, still largely ignored from the public, and to give them access to most publications on this subject, if they need to be more deeply informed on some particular topics. Hence, as I am accustomed to do, the inclusion of many sources, all or most of them in a freely available form. It happens that among these sources, a non-negligible number are of mine of include my name in the aurhors list. This is not surprising because I belong to the team working on this subject. But why there is in fact no conflict of interest? First, because I am retired for a long time and do not need anything for my own scientific career. Second, because my only purpose is to make better known a research area which is highly promising in putting more light on present and expected effects of climate and land-use change on soils and the ecosystem services they provide. As we know, the observation and identification of humus forms is a cheap although highly informative method for the early detection of changes occurring in soil under various influences. I hope this will convince the staff of Wikipedia editors that I do not want to make my own promotion, but rather that of a still largely ingnored piece of knowledge. What I hope is that as many people as possible will contribute to improve this page, hence my willing of leaving it as a mainpage, even if still in construction, not as a draftpage, only visible by the editorial staff. I hope my quarantine will end soon... Jfponge 10:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Citing yourself and your own work, especially to the extent that is present in the article, is absolutely a conflict of interest. That you belong to the team working on this subject and have cited individuals that you have a professional relationship with is indisputably a conflict of interest. That you do not need anything for my own scientific career is not deterministic in whether or not a conflict of interest exists. I would highly suggest reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Aoidh (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I will abandon the idea of creating a wikipage devoted to humus forms. The process of creation and your multiple suggestions to improve it are out of the scope of what I wanted to do from the beginning. Maybe I am not the best person in the best place to do that. Too complicated for me, indeed. Il will focus on improving existing pages, as I did from the beginning, nothing else. Maybe somebody will have stronger shoulders to perform it. Jfponge 09:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards?

Hello @Aoidh

You tagged the article to say it might need some rewriting. As someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject I am going to have a read through now to see whether I can understand it or whether any context or background needs adding. I will also have a look to see whether it follows Wikipedia conventions. If there is anything else I should do please let me know either here or by tagging the specific place in the article with a reason. Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I had made some changes initially, but there are issues that still should to be addressed before the article should be moved to mainspace. These include the empty sections, WP:DUE issues (e.g., the iOS app comes across as jarringly promotional and does not have third-party sources warranting its mention). The lede isn't a summary of the article, and everything after the third sentence seems like it would belong in a "history" type section. - Aoidh (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I will abandon the idea of creating a wikipage devoted to humus forms. The process of creation and your multiple suggestions to improve it are out of the scope of what I wanted to do from the beginning. Maybe I am not the best person in the best place to do that. Too complicated for me, indeed. Il will focus on improving existing pages, as I did from the beginning, nothing else. Maybe somebody will have stronger shoulders to perform it. Jfponge 09:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Some questions to check I understand this right

Hello @Jfponge

Thank you very much for your time and expertise. I know absolutely nothing about humus forms at the moment but hope to know a lot more after reading this. I sometimes write stuff as part of WikiProject Climate change so I already have a vague notion that soil is very important in relation to climate change.

Hello @Paleorthid

Good to see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Soil is not completely inactive.

—————————————————-

Some notes and questions for either of you follow to check I understand this right:

1) Are ‘humus form’, 'humus profile' and 'humipedon' synonyms or if not what is the difference? (Le Chat AI gave me a comprehensive answer but I don't quite understand it yet - @Jfponge as a French AI does Le Chat give the best answer?)

2) Is the “humus form” the part of the soil profile down to and including the lowest layer of humus or if not what is the difference?

I don't understand why the humus profile might evolve more quickly than the soil profile but that might become clearer with the answer to Q2.

Will add more questions as I go

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your contribution. Yes, humus profile and humipedon could be considered as synonyms, being objects which can be observed, measured, etc., but humus form differs, being a concept. As an example, a butterfly is an object, the species to which it pertains is a concept. I will try to make this clearer in the draftpage. Jfponge 15:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The soil profile include the humus profile but also deeper layers, down to the parent rock. Being more superficial, the humus profile may evolve at a higher rate than deeper horizons. Given that soil classifications are mostly based on mineral horizons deeper than the humus profile, they register more ancient and more stable features of soil. Note also that the humus profile is built by successive deposits from above, mainly as leaf litter, thus more recent than what is buried below. If not enough clear for the reader I will try to improve it. Jfponge 15:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a simpler definition for the first sentence?

I think the current first sentence is too hard to understand and should be moved lower down in the article. For the first sentence how about something like:

Humus form is the layers of topsoil and plant litter.

or

Humus form is the characteristics of layers of topsoil and plant litter in a biome.

Humus form is the type of layers of topsoil and plant litter in a biome, such as mull humus in deciduous forest and mor humus in coniferous forest.

?

Or how about renaming the article to “humus profile” with a first sentence such as:

A humus profile is the layers of topsoil and plant litter in a biome.

or

A humus profile is the type of layers of topsoil and plant litter in a biome.

or

A humus profile is a description of layers of topsoil and plant litter

or

A humus profile is a type of overlying layers of topsoil and plant litter

or

A humus profile is the layers of topsoil and plant litter

see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#First sentence content Chidgk1 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The topsoil and plant litter articles are a comfortable fit with the organic-mineral A horizon and organic horizon(s), which are essential to describing humus forms. The first sentence revised according to the "Writing Better Articles" essay: What humus form is and why humus forms are notable would be a better article. Building on your good ideas, my attempt:

The Humus form is composed of layered plant litter and topsoil, where the humus form type and thickness respond to changes in the biome. Paleorthid (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Humus forms contain layered litter and topsoil whose type and thickness vary with biome changes. Reliable source: Shaw, C.H., Chertov, O., & Hoffman, D. (2017). Soil Carbon Modelling with Soil Fauna and Humus Forms. Global Soil Biodiversity Initiative Blog: Beneath Our Feet. Retrieved from https://www.globalsoilbiodiversity.org/blog-beneath-our-feet/2017/11/13/soil-carbon-modelling-with-soil-fauna-and-humus-forms . Quote: “Soil fauna are key agents in different types of organic debris processing in the forest floor and mineral topsoil, resulting in humus forms” Paleorthid (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I will abandon the idea of creating a wikipage devoted to humus forms. The process of creation and your multiple suggestions to improve it are out of the scope of what I wanted to do from the beginning. Maybe I am not the best person in the best place to do that. Too complicated for me, indeed. Il will focus on improving existing pages, as I did from the beginning, nothing else. Maybe somebody will have stronger shoulders to perform it. Jfponge 09:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Paleorthid Definitely better but I think the second word should be “is” or “are” - can you suggest? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Replaced cite

I replaced a cite per guideline WP:RS, which notes that when the same information is present in primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. However, beyond that, the citation replaced was one of the many references authored by Zanella. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I will abandon the idea of creating a wikipage devoted to humus forms. The process of creation and your multiple suggestions to improve it are out of the scope of what I wanted to do from the beginning. Maybe I am not the best person in the best place to do that. Too complicated for me, indeed. Il will focus on improving existing pages, as I did from the beginning, nothing else. Maybe somebody will have stronger shoulders to perform it. Jfponge 09:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Too many references authored by Zanella

The article demonstrates a clear bias toward the work of Augusto Zanella, who is prominently featured as the director of HUMUSICA development. Multiple references throughout the article cite Zanella’s work extensively, suggesting the contributor may have a professional relationship with this researcher or the HUMUSICA project itself. Unbalanced citations suggest potential bias in favor of promoting specific research over providing comprehensive, neutral coverage of the field. Can we discuss what promotional and biased language looks like? Is there dismissive treatment of competing classifications? Evaluative phrasing, such as the "seminal contribution" of Muller, should be attributed to a reliable source or removed. The article presents HUMUSICA’s features (mobile app, multi-language availability, comprehensive scope) without critical analysis or mention of limitations, creating a promotional tone rather than the neutrality desired. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that I will abandon the idea of creating a wikipage devoted to humus forms. The process of creation and your multiple suggestions to improve it are out of the scope of what I wanted to do from the beginning. Maybe I am not the best person in the best place to do that. Too complicated for me, indeed. Il will focus on improving existing pages, as I did from the beginning, nothing else. Maybe somebody will have stronger shoulders to perform it. Just a short comment on what you said about Müller's seminal contribution to the knowledge of humus forms. As you can see three sources were cited for Müller's work: its original book in Danish and its two translations in German and French. What else is needed? And another comment on your changes in the citation of a source after the sentence "HUMUSICA, a worldwide morpho-functional classification of humus forms, was achieved by an array of soil scientists working under the direction of Augusto Zanella, after numerous field sessions, workshops and exchanges between participants from various countries." (section Classification) Your replaced the citation of Zanella et al. (2018) by another one which is just a short account of old classifications, without any reference to the most recent one, within a German textbook which I know well and I have already cited by elsewhere. What can I do with that? Delete your change, as it is clear that it was unsuitable? Or else? I am discouraged. Do your best with this draftpage, but not with me. To end my message, I say (for the last time) that this is not a promotional contribution. Just I wanted to promote a research area, longtime neglected by soil scienists, recently resurrected by Augusto Zanella and collaborators (including me) and which is highly promising in the frame of pollution, landuse sustainability, climate change and several other aspects of crucial importance for the future of our Planet. Jfponge 09:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I am torn on that line as well. As to how critical the Zanella and Ponge-authored references are to the statements made, we won't know until we dig into each inline cite and see the specifics, and search for analog sources. Then follow the guidelines and discuss any situational questions. For example in the replacement of Zanella with "by another one which is just a short account of old classifications, without any reference to the most recent one, within a German textbook which I know well and I have already cited by elsewhere" that issue was already answered with the link in my edit summary. I am at a loss as to whether yours is a serious request for a response or simply a rhetorical statement getting the last word. Please forgive me if I choose to treat it as rhetorical. Also, my mother is French, I recognise your position, and how this is ultimately about living a life of deep consistency. My respect to you. The winds of Wikipedia will change the article to one more aligned with the guidance we link to, so you can join in, and linked in the edit summaries. It's totally okay to revert with an edit summary; taking it to the talk page works. Any revert may or may not recur in AfC. We've all reverted to some things in the past; some of those reverts have stood the test of time, while others haven't. Who can predict? -- Paleorthid (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

At the moment I turned to working on wikipages in French. I will await some time before working again on wikipages in English. As I have seen the draftpage Humus form has been improved by Chidgk1, with a good illustration, which is highly profitable and which I acknowldge quite a lot. Jfponge 16:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Rename to “humus profile”?

@Paleorthid If we rename it the first sentence might be easier to write? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

We need to check which alternative ( form vs profile) is more common in secondary sources. If form is the more usual, there has to be a supporting rationale. Thinking this through… Paleorthid (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I withdraw this rename proposal as the lead has now been rewritten Chidgk1 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Subheadings for future expansion

Per Wikipedia standards discussion above here are the sections which have not yet been started:

Subsections under Terrestrial humus forms:

Amphi (after mor)

Humus Index (at the end)

Sections after Terrestrial humus forms:

Vegetation dynamics

Land use

Pollution Chidgk1 (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Should mull be an excerpt?

@Paleorthid Should we move the current text to main article and excerpt? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Doable, but Mull will need to be rewritten in a way that makes the excerpt work here. -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

OK so I won’t be excerpting unless someone else rewrites Chidgk1 (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

App

For me I would gave been happy to keep the below in the article but @Aoidh was not as it “comes across as jarringly promotional and does not have third-party sources warranting its mention”. Third opinions welcome

A freely available iOS called TerrHum was developed in English, Italian and French, with an APK Android version as a tool to identify humus forms directly on the field. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

For me it's an issue of WP:DUE. Is that fact that there's an app so important to the concept of humus form as a whole that it needs to be mentioned here? There should be third-party reliable sources that mention this app as being important or relevant to this topic, not just individuals who helped develop it or co-authors and peers closely associated with those individuals. - Aoidh (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MisawaSakura talk 12:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Peter Erasmus Müller and Charles Darwin were among the first to explain humus form?

• Source: https://heathland.place/faced-with-an-x Most importantly, [Müller] called attention to the crucial importance of earthworms for the decomposition of organic compounds into humus. ..... In a speech to the Geological Society in 1837, Charles Darwin had concluded that formation of humus ”is due to the digestive process, by which the common earthworm is supported.” .....

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Durrani–Qing relations
  • Comment:

Created by Jfponge (talk), Paleorthid (talk), and Chidgk1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC).

• I don't think either page is ready to be presented on the front page. Müller'd article has multiple unfootnoted claims (plus an incomplete infobox) and the humus form article has a primary sources tag at the top of the page. Fix those issues with the pages, then a review can start. Roast (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Guerreroast: I have fixed some of this but in the Danish article a lot of the info is from the general sources in external links. Is that not OK on enwiki? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I think it's passable, but given you know which sources verify which claims, it'd be best to footnote the article. For one, the source you cited doesn't use the superlative to describe his describing of humus form. I don't know if that's mentioned in a different source, and if it is, cite it. And, to discretion of the promoter, the fact may be too niche of interest for a DYK. Roast (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Guerreroast: Unfortunately I don't know which sources in the Müller article verify which claims so I have unbolded it above. If any patriotic Dane or keen naturalist would like to improve that article please make yourself known. As the hook source mentions other people I changed "the first" to "among the first". Are you now able to do a full review of humus form and the hook? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Humus form’s article is long enough that the footnotes are possibly not required to be completed, but idk. Article is new enough and long enough. All of Earwig is of quotes, so fine. Given you removed Müller from the bold, he best be removed. The source doesn't give the fact that Darwin was among the first, at least for the quote you provided. Roast (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that mull, mor and modor are humus forms?
  Source: https://forestfloor.soilweb.ca/definitions/humus-forms/

on ALT1. Roast (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

To Prep 5

Humus forms classification scheme is secondary

The article is about humus forms; the classification scheme is secondary. Downplaying the verbiage dedicated to classification would improve the article. More concise treatment in combination with flipping the content, to follow an inverted pyramid (journalism) style would make the article more approachable. (WP:PYRAMID). Leading with the classification systems creates barriers for general readers who want to understand humus forms in a fundamental way. Articles should clearly state the obvious (WP:OBVIOUS) and provide context before delving into technical details. WP:BETTER Paleorthid (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me if you are able to do this Chidgk1 (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Meaning of 4th sentence?

@Paleorthid I am struggling to understand: “Where surface mineral soil mixes sufficiently with humus, the carbon-enriched topsoil serves as an integral part of the humus form.”

Could you make it more obvious to a layperson like me? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this:

When the top layer of regular soil (made mostly of minerals like sand, silt, and clay) is well mixed with decayed organic matter (humus), that mixture of dark, carbon-rich soil becomes a key part of the overall humus layer.

Paleorthid (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe better but I still have comments and questions:

1) I think readers will be confused by “regular soil”

2) Wouldn’t the mixture only be more carbon rich than the layer above if the minerals were from certain rocks such as basalt?

3) Where in the body of the article does it say that is a key part? Presumably it is a key part due to weathering? Should weathering be mentioned in the lead? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

1) OK, 2) yes? I guess the mineral soil could be made of mineral coal (anthracite), or deeply enriched with black carbon like Terra Preta, so I see your point. 3) Topsoil is considered part of the humus form, on topic and necessary to the article, because the significance of bioturbation is not intuitive; on a first read, it might get missed. Bioturbative mixing is essential to the mull form. The process of humus enriching topsoil through bioturbation, making a mull humus form in the process, is exactly what we biomimic when we turn compost into garden soil to enrich it with beneficial biology, carbon, and nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, ...). A compost analogy may be valuable here to make humus-form concepts approachable. Editing the mull humus form article to highlight this in the excerpt might help. The mull article needs to say that some mull forms are only the topsoil when there is no plant litter layer. -- Paleorthid (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Well the lead is only 3 sentences now, so if you are able to clarify the last sentence and also expand it that would be great. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Wet humus forms

Blume 2016, a university soil science textbook (German, translated to English), has a section on hydromorphic humus forms. Excerpts from section 7.2.2.2 Hydromorphic humus forms: ... Half-fens and peats are formed as wet humus forms or bog humus forms. ... Half-fens (German Anmoor) ... subhydric humus forms dy, gyttja, and sapropel, are found at the bottom of lakes. Excerpts from section 7.5.19.1 Subhydric soils - Limnic Fluvisols: ... (Humic horizon) consisting of humified plankton (is called the) Lh horizon ... (In dy humus the) Lh horizon is acidic ... the Lr horizons of sapropels is black ... the Lo horizon of typical gyttja (corresponds) to the sediment type Lebermudde ... Today, anthropogenic eutrophication in many lakes has lead to a transformation (or superimposition) of gyttjas into sapropels. These sapropels exhibit high nutrient and heavy metal contents. (end of excerpts). Does anyone have any thoughts on adding a 'Wet Humus Forms' section to the article? -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to attempt it myself but if you can it would certainly clear up the mystery of why there is a section called “Terrestrial humus forms” - I had assumed the opposite was “marine humus forms” but could not find them. If you do it maybe the section headings should be something like “Land humus forms” and “Underwater humus forms”? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course the opposite of terrestrial might be extraterrestrial, but Space farming does not yet explain whether the technique used in The Martian would work e.g. on the moon. Maybe in the 2030s America or China will test e.g. Earthworms on the moon https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.03044 to see whether they can make a humus form Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

My purpose at the beginning (when I created this page) was to write a section called Terrestrial humus forms immediately followed by Semi-terrestrial humus forms, the latter embracing humus forms found in bogs and fens, and their diagnostic horizons. This is still my purpose, awaiting for time and 'peace of mind' to write again on this webpage. Given the trouble which followed this creation (conflict of interest, etc...) I decided to devote my time to pages in French, my mother language. I think that within a few weeks, hoping that no further disturbance about this webpage occurs in the meantime, I will be able to find the time necessary to make a good work with it, and add sections about changes in humus forms under vegetation dynamics, land use and climate change, and in turn the role of humus forms in vegetation dynamics and climate change, based on present-day knowldege. I want to add also a section called Humus Index showing that humus forms are not only descriptive but may also be numerically treated to be included in mathematical models. Here too, this is my own research area. Sorry... Jfponge 09:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jfponge If you could add whatever is missing from this article to the French article then let us know on this talk page that would be really useful. I or someone else will easily be able to translate it. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

OK I will do it. Many thanks to you... Jfponge 10:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)