Revista Mexicana Ciencias Agrícolas   volume 11   number 8   November 12 - December 31, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v11i8.1975

Article

Updating the soil mapping of the State of Mexico: a planning tool

Erasto Domingo Sotelo Ruiz1§

Gustavo Cruz Bello2

Antonio González Hernández3

Román Flores López1

1Metepec Experimental Field-INIFAP. Adolfo López Mateos, road Toluca-Zitácuaro highway km 4.5, San José Barbabosa, Zinacantepec, Estado de México. CP. 51350. (flores.roman@inifap.gob.mx). 2Laboratory of socio-territorial analysis-Cuajimalpa Metropolitan Autonomous University. Av. Vasco de Quiroga 4871, Santa Fe, Cuajimalpa, México City. CP. 05348. (gcruzbel07@gmail.com). 3National Center for Disciplinary Research in Conservation and Improvement of Forest Ecosystems-INIFAP. Av. Progreso No. 5, Barrio de Santa Catarina, Coyoacán, Mexico City. CP. 04010. (aglez6419@gmail.com).

§Corresponding author: soteloe@colpos.mx.

Abstract

The soil is a very important natural body for the development of crops and plant species, because it provides support to the roots of plants, it also provides nutrients for their development and production, depending on the type of soil and its properties. Knowing and quantifying soils is necessary to plan agricultural, livestock, forestry, urban, mining and conservation activities. The objectives of this work were: 1) to update the 1:50 000 soil mapping per municipality in the State of Mexico; and 2) quantify the surface of the soils and know their location to identify areas of productive reconversion. The cartography was generated with the digitization of the 1:50 000 scale soil charts, with a geographic information system (GIS), its database was generated: primary soils, secondary soils, physical phase, chemical phase and texture; this database was updated to the 2015 WRB soils version. The soils with the largest and most productive areas are: Andosols with 479 908 ha, Pheozems with 472 718 ha, Vertisols with 241 485 ha and Cambisols with 196 047 ha. These predominate in the municipalities of Aculco, Toluca, Acambay, Jilotepec, Axapusco, Ixtlahuaca and Almoloya de Juárez.

Keywords: digital cartography, municipality, soils, update.

Reception date: October 2020

Acceptance date: December 2020

Introduction

The word ‘soil’ has several meanings and is derived from the Latin word solum which means soil. In its traditional meaning, soil is the natural environment for the development of terrestrial plants, whether or not it has discernible horizons (Soil Survey Staff, 2014; IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015).

Soils, naturally, have five main functions: 1) to support the growth of higher plants, mainly by providing a medium for the roots and supply of nutrients that are essential for all plants; 2) control the fate of water in the hydrological system; 3) as a recycling system; 4) provide a habitat for countless living organisms such as small mammals, reptiles, tiny insects, and a diversity of microscopic cells; and 5) the soil plays an important role as an engineering environment (Brady and Weil, 1999; Porta et al., 2003; Soil Survey Staff, 2014).

The modern and most widely used soil taxonomic systems are soil taxonomy (TS) and the world reference base of soil resources (WRB), which classify soils using diagnostic horizons, properties and materials (Bockheim and Gennadiyev, 2000; Spaargaren, 2000; Wilding, 2000; IUSS Working Group WRB, 2007; Soil Survey Staff, 2014; IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015).

The TS consists of six categories: order, suborder, large group, subgroup, family, and series. The first version was published in 1960, which consisted of 10 orders. The 1999 version is modified and consists of 12 orders, which include Andosols and Gelisols, which are preserved until the 2014 version (Soil Survey Staff, 1960; Soil Survey Staff, 1998; Soil Survey Staff, 2014). The WRB classification consists of two categories: unit and subunit. This began its publication in 1970 with 26 units and 104 subunits, the 1988 version with 28 units and 153 subunits, the 1998 version with 30 units and 533 subunits, the 2006 and 2015 version consist of 32 units and the subunits can be all possible combinations (FAO-UNESCO, 1970; FAO, 1988; FAO-ISRIC y SICS, 1998; IUSS Working Group WRB, 2006; IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015).

Soil studies emerged in the United States of America in the early 1820s and are based on the Russian school, where they start from a concept and a geological basis, which over time changes to a pedological concept of soils (Brevik and Hartemink, 2013). The researchers who conducted studies and mapped the soils had a geologically based formation (Brevik, 2009; Brevik, 2010), therefore these early maps were essentially maps of surface geology (Brevik and Hartemink, 2010).

Digital mapping has many advantages to improve, automate and update soil studies, such as: a) consistent mapping; b) rapid update of soil surveys; c) cost and time reduction; d) continuity of knowledge; and e) digital products (Zhu et al., 2001; McBratney et al., 2003; Hengl and Rossieter, 2003; Behrens and Scholten, 2006; Kozlova and Konyushkova, 2009).

Currently, studies to generate soil mapping are based on predictions and property-based modeling. This is due to the time-consuming and expensive application of soil survey methodologies for the preparation of Edaphological cartography. Among these studies, those by Behrens et al. (2010a; 2010b) who propose to generate soil maps based on the elevation of the terrain. Brevik and Hartemink (2013) mention that the soil maps generated with soil studies are important, because they provide valuable information about the maps and the time when they were prepared.

Rosas et al. (2015) conclude that the use of more environmental variables results in an increase in the accuracy of soil map prediction models. For their part, Jafari et al. (2014) apply prediction models for the digital mapping of large soil groups. Finally, Shi et al. (2009) mention that the knowledge of soils derived from studies carried out by soil science scientists is a guide for the development and planning of agricultural activities, they conclude that digital soil mapping is important for the generation and cartography of soil maps.

In the case of Mexico, Ortiz et al. (1994) make an adaptation of the 1988, FAO version to the soils of Mexico, where they make changes to the units that disappear from the country’s soil maps (FAO, 1988). In addition, SEMARNAP (1996) established the foundations and adaptations of the soil units. For its part, the National Institute of Geography and Information Statistics (INEGI) carried out soil studies at the national level at three scales: 1:1 million covering 100% of the country, 1:250 000 covering 75% of the country and 1:50 000 covers 35% of the national territory (INEGI, 1974; 1988a; 1988b).

The State of Mexico is covered by the 1:50 000 Edaphological cartography, hence the need to generate an updated database arises. The sectors involved in planning demand updated digital information, by municipality, information that is the basis for the planning and ordering of urban, agricultural, livestock, forestry, mining and fishing activities (INEGI, 2015). Due to the relevance and demand of this information, in the present investigation, the following objectives were proposed: 1) update the soil mapping 1:50 000 per municipality of the State of Mexico; and 2) quantify the surface of the soils and know their location to identify the areas of productive reconversion.

Materials and methods

Location of area of study

The State of Mexico is located from 18° 22’ 14” to 20° 17’ 22” north latitude and from 98° 35’ 35” to 100° 36’ 19” west longitude and has a surface area of 2 324 422 ha. It borders with the states of Hidalgo and Querétaro to the North, Puebla and Tlaxcala to the East, Morelos and Guerrero to the South and Michoacán to the West (INEGI, 2015). The climates that occur in the state are: temperate, semi-cold, warm, semi-warm and cold. The annual mean temperature fluctuates from 6 to 28 °C, the annual precipitation ranges from 600 to 1 800 mm, the height above sea level ranges from 340 to 5 100 m (INEGI, 1999; García, 2004). The dominant soils are: Andosol, Pheozem, Vertisol, Regosol and Arenosol (Sotelo et al., 2010). The State of Mexico is made up of 125 municipalities (Figure 1), for which soils were described (INEGI, 2015).

Figure 1. Location of the State of Mexico and municipalities that comprise it.

Methodology

The Edaphological information from INEGI, scale 1:50 000 (INEGI, 1974) was used. 43 letters covering the State were digitized with Arcinfo version 6.0 (ESRI, 1992). The delimitations of polygons and databases generated were: primary soils, secondary soils, physical phase, texture, chemical phase and soil depth. Field trips were carried out to verify and update the Soil Units, through drillings and description of soil profiles, in the groups that had doubts regarding the type of soil present; the profiles were geographically located and sampled (FAO, 2009). The soil samples were sent to the laboratory to perform the analyzes that the WRB uses to classify soils; these data were the basis for classifying and updating the soils. The classification was carried out with the WRB 2015 (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015). The updating of the soils, its database and the generation of the maps by municipality was carried out with ArcGIS version 9.3 (ESRI, 2010).

Results and discussion

The State of Mexico has 11 soil units, which are: Andosol, Pheozem, Regosol, Vertisol, Cambisol, Leptosol, Luvisol, Acrisol, Solonchak, Fluvisol and Gleysol (Sotelo et al., 2011. In this work, the classification of the Planosols and Histosols corresponded to Vertisols and Pheozem respectively. The most productive soils in the state are: Pheozems, Vertisols and Cambisols, due to the physical and chemical properties that present, as average texture, organic matter> 3%, slope less than 10% and without physical phases in most cases Its surface is presented by municipalities and the state distribution is described (Figure 2 and Table 1).

Pheozems distribution

The State of Mexico has 472 718 ha and represents 20.34% of the state surface. Pheozems have potential for most crops and plant species, although climatic conditions limit their adaptation and development. They have potential for species such as corn, wheat, beans, potatoes, carrots, barley, oats, triticale, peas, broad beans, avocados, peaches, plums, raspberries, alfalfa and grasslands (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest area are: Aculco, Toluca, Axapusco, Acambay and Jilotepec. Due to the surface area of these soils, it can be said that these municipalities have the greatest productive potential for species that adapt to their climatic conditions (Table 1).

Figure 2. Municipalities with the largest area of Pheozem in a) Aculco, Vertisol; in b) Jilotepec; and Cambisol in c) Sultepec.

Table 1. Municipalities with the largest area of Pheozem, Vertisol and Cambisol.

Vertisols distribution

The state has 241 485 ha and represents 10.39% of the state's surface. They are located in the central and northern part of the state. They have potential for species such as corn, wheat, beans, triticale, barley, oats, peas, broad beans, alfalfa and grasslands (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest area are: Jilotepec, Almoloya de Juárez, Ixtlahuaca, Aculco, Acambay and Jocotitlán. These soils are very productive at the state level, although they need irrigation to exploit their full productive potential (Table 1).

Cambisols distribution

The state has 196 047 ha and covers 8.43% of the state surface. They are fertile soils with very good productive potential for plant species that adapt to the climatic conditions of the municipalities, mainly for species such as corn, wheat, beans, potatoes, carrots, barley, oats, peas, broad beans, avocado, peaches, plums, raspberry, alfalfa and grasslands (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest area are: Sultepec, Zacualpan, Texcoco, Temascaltepec and San Simón de Guerrero (Table 1).

Andosols, Regosols and Luvisols are the next in importance and surface area. They are less fertile, high Al content, medium to coarse textures, slopes >12%, organic matter <2% and acidic pH in the three soils (Figure 3 and Table 2).

Figure 3. Municipalities with the largest Andosol area in a) San José del Rincón, Regosol; in b) Tlatlaya and Luvisol; and in c) Jilotepec.

Table 2. Municipalities with the largest surface area of Andosol, Regosol and Luvisol.

Andosols distribution

The State of Mexico has 479 908 ha, covers the largest area and represents 20.65% of the state. They are located in the mountainous parts of the Neovolcanic Axis, Sierra Madre del Sur and in the northern mountains of the state. They are soils of forestry and agricultural vocation. The species that have productive potential in these soils are corn, peas, potatoes, broad beans, carrots, avocados, peaches, plums and raspberries (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest area are: San José del Rincón, Villa de Allende, Ocuilan, Amanalco, Temascaltepec and Valle de Bravo (Table 2).

Regosols distribution

The state has 265 683 ha and represents 11.43% of the state surface. They have potential for species such as corn, wheat, beans, potatoes, barley, oats, peas, broad beans, avocados, peaches, plums, raspberries, and mangoes (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest surface area are: Tlatlaya, Tejupilco, Amatepec, Sultepec and Luvianos. These have the largest surface area in the southern part of the State of Mexico, where the predominant climate is tropical (Table 2).

Luvisols distribution

The State of Mexico has 146 905 ha and covers 6.32% of the state surface. They have forestry potential and for fruit trees such as peach, guava, coffee and avocado (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest area are: Jilotepec, Nicolas Romero, Villa del Carbon, Acambay and Almoloya de Alquisiras (Table 2).

Acrisols, Fluvisols and Leptosols are not very productive, with a forestry vocation, for the production of vegetables and for mining activities. Fluvisols are poorly developed and flat soils; Acrisols are mountain soils with medium texture and acid pH, Leptosols are thin soils 5 to 20 cm, slope> 20 and <2% organic matter, their vocation is mining and forestry (Table 3 and Figure 4).

Table 3. Municipalities with the largest surface area of Acrisol, Fluvisol and Leptosol.

Figure 4. Municipalities with the largest Acrisol surface in a) Luvianos, Fluvisol; in b) Chalco and Leptosol; and in c) Zumpahuacan.

Acrisols distribution

The State of Mexico has 46 968 ha and covers 2.02% of the state surface. Acrisols are young, mountain soils and low fertility, if proper fertilization and conservation management is carried out, some species such as avocado, guava, coffee and peach can be planted (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest Acrisols area are: Luvianos, Valle de Bravo, Villa Victoria, Temascaltepec and Ixtapan del Oro (Table 3).

Fluvisols distribution

The state has 25 216 ha and represents 1.08% of the state. They have high natural fertility, because they have medium texture, they are deep, organic matter content is medium, flat and the crops that adapt to the present climatic conditions are developed; they are located on the banks of rivers, lakes and lagoons. The municipalities with the largest area are: Chalco, Amecameca, Ixtlahuaca, Tlalmanalco and Temamatla (Table 3).

Leptosols distribution

The state has 174 968 ha and covers 7.53% of the state’s surface. The potential of Leptosols is forestry, livestock, recreational and mining; the Rendzico and Umbric subunits have potential for crops such as corn, beans, wheat, barley, oats and rice in the state (SIAP, 2019). The municipalities with the largest surface area are: Zumpahuacan, Luvianos, Malinalco, Tepetlaoxtoc and Tejupilco. In these soils, a quarry is exploited and other minerals that the mining industry demands are extracted (Table 3).

The least productive soils that occur in the state are Solonchaks and Gleysols, due to their high salinity, sodicity, thick textures and irregular slopes, they are soils with little surface and very localized, where only salty grass grows in the case of the former (Table 4 and Figure 5).

Table 4. Municipalities with the largest area of Solonchak and Gleysol.

Figure 5. Municipalities with the largest area of Solonchak in a) Texcoco and Gleysol; and in b) Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.

Solonchaks distribution

The State of Mexico is covered by 39 290 ha and represents 1.69% of the state surface. These soils present characteristics of high salinity, electrical conductivity and pH, which is why it is very difficult to grow crops; the potential is for salty grass and for salt exploitation in areas where salinity is very high. The municipalities with these soils are: Texcoco, Nezahualcóyotl, Ecatepec de Morelos and Atenco (Table 4).

Gleysol distribution

The surface in the State of Mexico is 2 765 ha and it only represents 0.12% of the state’s soils. They have a low natural fertility and their vocation is forestry; only a few species can be sown with proper fertilization management. The main municipalities with Gleysols are: Valle de Chalco Solidaridad, Chalco, Temascalcingo and El Oro (Table 4).

Soil information is necessary, because the data is crucial in land use planning, management, environmental studies, erosion studies, conservation and modeling studies, which simulate crop growth and estimate yield in advance (Nachtergaele et al., 2000; Adhikari et al., 2014; Jafari et al., 2014). There are very few soil studies and the scales of representation are between 5 and 25 million. FAO has soil studies at the continental level with scales of 1:25 million, 1:15 million and 1:5 million (FAO, 1993; FAO, 1996; FAO, 2008).

Soil surveys in the United States of America are scale 1:7.5 to 1:15 million (Soil Survey Staff, 1998). In this sense, Brevik and Hartemink (2013) use taxonomy and determine that the dominant soils in the USA are: Molisol, Alfisol, Entisol, Inceptisol, Aridisol, Ultisol and Vertisol; furthermore, Lytle (2000); USDA (2000); VanEngelen (2000) conducted soil studies and designed a database (NASIS), which facilitated the acquisition, management and location of soils.

At the international level, studies similar to those of this research have been carried out, such as those of the International Center for Reference Information on Soils (CIIRS), where a database with the world's soil information was designed to publicize the studies of soils, which are carried out in different countries (ISRIC, 2000). For their part, Adhikari et al. (2014) elaborate a national soil map of Denmark, which was based on the FAO-UNESCO legend, using digital soil mapping techniques, with observations of soil profiles and environmental data. This information is the basis for the planning, management, conservation and evaluation of the country’s environmental impact studies.

In the case of Mexico, there are the INEGI soil studies with the scales 1:1 000 000, 1:250 000 and 1:50 000 (INEGI, 1970; INEGI, 1974) in this regard, the INEGI does not have digital cartography of no scale; for this reason, the results of this work are very important, since they present the digital cartography scale 1:50 000, where the dominant soils are Andosol, Pheozem, Vertisol, Regosol and Cambisol. For its part, the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) establishes the bases for conducting and updating soil studies in Mexico (SEMARNAT, 1999).

At the national level, 18 units are reported (INEGI, 1974), of which 11 occur throughout the State of Mexico, the dominant soils being: Andosol, Pheozem, Regosol, Vertisol and Cambisol, which are also the most productive. Sotelo et al. (2010); Sotelo et al. (2011) carried out the updating of the soils of the State of Mexico at a scale of 1:50 000, at the level of the Rural Development District (DDR), highlighting that the soil is one of the main natural resources, on which forests are sustained. and food production. In addition, they indicate that having up-to-date information on the type of soil and its distribution facilitates the planning and classification of agricultural activities. Brevik and Hartemink (2013) mention that in the United States of America soil maps began to be generated at the beginning of the twentieth century, as a need to know the management and conservation of this resource.

Due to the soils present in the municipalities of the State of Mexico, it is recommended that the crop or species to be established be selected, taking into account the climatic conditions and the purpose of production, whether it is for self-consumption or commercial. It is not recommended to establish urban areas in municipalities that have fertile soils and with little slope. There are types of soils that have a vocation for mining exploitation and urban development, such as Leptosols. Urban developments in municipalities must be implemented on these soils and prohibit the construction of subdivisions on soils with agricultural vocation such as: Pheozem, Cambisols, Vertisols and Andosols.

Finally, the information generated is a fundamental tool in the planning of agricultural activities in the municipalities of the State of Mexico, due to the detail of the information, which is at the municipality level. The municipalities of the State of Mexico, with this study, know the types of soils they have and the surface they cover, therefore, they know if the vocation of their soils is: agricultural, livestock, forestry, urban or mining and consequently they can implement better municipal development plans.

Conclusions

The soils with the largest surface area in the State of Mexico are: Andosol (20.65%), Pheozem (20.34%), Regosol (11.43%), Vertisol (10.39%), Cambisol (8.43%), Leptosol (7.53%), Luvisol (6.32%), Acrisol (2.02%), Solonchak (1.69%), Fluvisol (1.08%) and Gleysol (0.12%). The best soils for agriculture and food production worldwide due to their physical and chemical properties and that dominate in the State of Mexico are: Pheozems with 472 718 ha, Vertisols with 241 485, Cambisols with 196 047 and Andosols with 479 908 ha. The Pheozem are presented in Aculco, Toluca, Axapusco, Acambay and Jilotepec, while the Vertisols stand out in Jilotepec, Almoloya de Juárez, Ixtlahuaca, Aculco and Acambay.

Cambisols have a greater surface area in the municipalities of Sultepec, Zacualpan, Texcoco, Temascaltepec and San Simon de Guerrero, while Andosols stand out in San José del Rincón, Villa de Allende, Ocuilan, Amanalco and Temascaltepec. The municipalities of the State of Mexico that have excellent soils, for the production of annual crops and perennial fruit trees depending on the present climate, are Aculco, Toluca, Jilotepec, Almoloya de Juárez, Ixtlahuaca, Sultepec, Zacualpan, Texcoco, Villa de Allende and Temascaltepec.

Cited literature

Adhikari, K.; Minasny, B.; Greve, M. B. and Greve, M. H. 2014. Constructing a soil class map of Denmark based on the FAO legend using digital techniques. Geoderma. 214-215:101-113.

Behrens, T. and Scholten, T. 2006. Digital soil mapping in Germany-a review. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 169(3):434-443.

Behrens, T.; Schmidt, K.; A. X. Zhu, A. X. and Scholten, T. 2010a. The ConMap approach for terrain-based digital soil mapping. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 61(1):133-143.

Behrens, T.; Zhu, A.; Schmidt, K. and Scholten, T. 2010b. Multi-scale digital terrain analysis and feature selection for digital soil mapping. Geoderma. 155(3-4):175-185.

Bockheim, J. G. and Gennadiyev, A. N. 2000. The role of soil-forming processes in the definition of taxa in Soil Taxonomy and the World Soil Reference Base. Geoderma. 95(1-2):53-72.

Brady, N.C. and Weil, R. R. 1999. The nature and properties of soils. Prentice Hall. Twelfth Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America. 881 p.

Brevik, E. C. 2009. The teaching of soil science in geology, geography, environmental science and agricultural programs. Soil Survey Horizon. 50(4):120-123.

Brevik, E. C. 2010. Collier cobb and allen d. hole: geologic mentors to early soil scientists. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth. 35(15-18):887-894.

Brevik, E. C. and Hartemink, A. E. 2010. Early soil knowledge and the birth and development of soil science. Catena. 83(1):23-33.

Brevik, E. C. and Hartemink, A. E. 2013. Soil Maps of the United States of America. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77(4):1117-1132.

ESRI. 1992. Environmental Systems Research Institute. Arc info. New York, USA. 125 p.

ESRI. 2010. Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGis 9.3. New York, USA. 286 p.

FAO. 1988. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Soil Map of the World. Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report 60. FAO. Rome, Italy. 136 p.

FAO. 1993. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. World soil resources. An explanatory note on the FAO World Soil Resources Map at 1:25,000,000 scale. World Soil Resources Report No. 66, Rev. 1. FAO. Rome, Italy. 268 p.

FAO. 1996. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The digitized soil map of the world including derived soil properties. CD-ROM. FAO. Rome, Italy. 527 p.

FAO. 2008. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Nueva base de datos mundial sobre el suelo. Roma, Italia. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/ES/news/2008/ 1000882/index.html.

FAO. 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guía para la descripción de suelos.  Cuarta Edición. Rome, Italy. 99 p.

FAO-ISRIC y SICS. 1999. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación- Centro Internacional de Referencia e Información en Suelos y Sociedad Internacional de las Ciencias del Suelo. Base Referencial Mundial del Recurso Suelo. FAO. Roma, Italia. 93 p.

FAO-UNESCO. 1970. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/United Nations Educational, Cientific and Cultural Organization. Soil Map of the World 1:1 000 000. Vol. I. Legend. Paris, France. 59 p.

García, E. 2004. Modificaciones al sistema climático de Köppen para la República Mexicana. 5a Ed. Instituto de Geografía. Serie de libros No. 6. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). México, DF. 292 p.

Hengl, T. and Rossieter, G. D. 2003. Supervised landform to enhance and replace photo-interpretation in semi-detailed soil survey. Soil Science Society of American Journal. 67(6):1810-1822.

INEGI. 1970. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Cartografía de México Escala 1:250 000. Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto. México, D. F.

INEGI. 1974. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Cartografía Escala 1:50 000. Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto. México, D. F.

INEGI. 1988a.Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Atlas Nacional del medio físico. 1a reimpresión. Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto. México, D. F. 235 p.

INEGI. 1988b. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Síntesis Geográfica. Nomenclatura y Anexo Cartográfico del Estado de México. Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto. México, D. F. 635 p.

INEGI. 1999. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Anuario Estadístico del Estado de México. Aguascalientes, Ags., México. 596 p.

INEGI. 2015. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Estadísticas básicas del Estado de México. Síntesis Geográfica del Estado de México. http://www.inegi.gob.mx.

ISRIC. 2000. International soil reference and information centre. GLASOD, SOTER, Other soil databases International Soil Reference and Information. Centre Wageningen, The Netherlands. www.isric.nl.

IUSS Grupo de Trabajo. WRB. 2007. International unión of soil science grupo de trabajo base mundial de suelos. 2007. Base referencial mundial del recurso suelo. Primera actualización informes sobre recursos mundiales de suelos No. 103. FAO. Roma, Italy. 117 p.

IUSS Working Group. WRB. 2006. International union of soil science - international soil reference and information Centre and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (IUSS- ISRIC and FAO). World reference base for soil resources. A framework for international classification, correlation and communication. 2nd (Ed.). World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. Rome, Italy. 128 p.

IUSS Working Group. WRB. 2015. International union of soil science. World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106. FAO. Rome, Italy. 192 p.

Jafari, A.; Khademi, H.; Finke, P. A.; Van de Wauw, J. and Ayoubi, S. 2014. Spatial prediction of soil great groups by boosted regression trees using a limited point dataset in an arid region, southeastern Iran. Geoderma. 232-234:148-163.  

Kozlova, N. D. and Konyushkova, V. M. 2009. State of the art and prospects of digital soil mapping: the results of the third global workshop (Logan, USA, 2008). Eurasian Soil Science. 42(6):699-702.

Lytle, D. J. 2000. United States soil survey database. In: hand book of soil science. Sumner, M. E. (Ed.). New York, USA. H53-H67 pp.

McBratney, B. A.; Mendonca-Santos, L. M. and Minasny, B. 2003. On digital soil mapping. Geoderma. 117(1-2):3-52.

Nachtergaele, F. O.; Spaargaren, O.; Deckers, J. A. and Ahrens, B. 2000. New developments in soil classification world reference base for soil resources. Gerodermia. 96(4):345-357.

Ortiz, S. C.; Pájaro, H. D. y Gutiérrez, C. M. C. 1994. Introducción a la leyenda del mapa mundial de suelos FAO/UNESCO, versión 1988. Programa de Edafología. Instituto de Recursos Naturales. Colegio de Postgraduados. Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México. 40 p.

Porta, C. J.; López, A. R. M. y Roquero, D. C. 2003. Edafología. Para la agricultura y el medio ambiente. 3a (Ed.). Ediciones Mundi-Prensa. México, DF. 929 p.

Rosa, A. S.; Heuvelink, G. B. M.; Vasques, G. M. and Anjos, L. H. C. 2015. Do more detailed environmental covariates deliver more accurate soil maps?. Geoderma. 243-244:214-227.

SEMARNAP. 1999. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca. Mapas de suelos dominantes de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. SEMARNAP. México, DF. 22 p.

Shi, X.; Long, R.; Dekett, R. and Philippe, J. 2009. Integrating different types of knowledge for digital soil mapping. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73(5):1682-1692.

SIAP. 2019. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. Cierre de la producción agrícola 2019 por municipios para el Estado de México. http://www.siap.gob.mx/cierre-de-la-produccion-agricola-por-estado/.

Soil Survey Staff. 1960. Soil conservation service. Soil classification. A comprehensive system. 7th Approximation. United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). Washington, DC. USA. 265 p.

Soil Survey Staff. 1998. Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for marking and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd (Ed.). United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Washington, DC. USA. 326 p.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th (Ed.). United State Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Washington, DC. USA. 360 p.

Sotelo, R. E. D.; González, H. A.; Cruz, B. G.; Moreno, S. F. y Cruz, C. G. 2011. Los suelos del Estado de México y su actualización a la base referencial mundial del recurso suelo. Re. Mex. Cienc. Fores. 2(8):71-84.

Sotelo, R. E. D.; González, H. A.; Cruz, B. G.; Moreno, S. F. y Ochoa, E. S. 2010. La clasificación FAO-WRB y los suelos del Estado de México. INIFAP. Zinacantepec, Estado de México. 159 p.

Spaargaren, C. O. 2000. Other systems of soil classification. In: hand book of soil science. Sumner, M. E. (Ed.). New York, USA. E137-E174 pp.

USDA. 2000. United States Department of Agriculture. World Soil Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Washington, DC. www.nhq.usda.gov/WSR/.

Wilding, L. P. 2000. Classification of soil. In: hand book of soil science.  Sumner, M. E. (Ed.). New York, USA. E175-E392 pp.

Zhu, X. A.; Hudson, B.; Burt, J.; Lubich, K. and Simonson, D. 2001. Soil mapping using GIS, expert knowledge, and fuzzy logic. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65(5):1463-1472.