The meeting commenced on Tuesday, September 21 from 18:00 to 18:50, and continued on Thursday, September 23 from 15:30 to 16:40.

1.0 Opening/Introduction
Geoff Humphreys called the meeting to order and introduced the members of Subcommission B: Georges Stoops, Shoba Sergey, Fabio Terribile, Selim Kapur and himself. The opportunity was taken to formally close Subcommission B, an event that had been overshadowed by the comprehensive changes introduced by the new IUSS organization. In our terms this officially ended Subcommission B, which is now replaced by IUSS Commission 1.1 Soil Morphology and Micromorphology: Geoff Humphreys (Chairperson), Alaxander Tsatskin (1st Vice Chairperson), Brenda Buck (2nd Vice Chairperson).

2.0 Activities
2.1 Discussion regarding web site

As some people present were unaware that our commission has a web site: (http://geoscience.unlv.edu/pub/IUSS/IUSS.html), Geoff Humphreys informed the group about it. Geoff Humphreys suggested that we need not duplicate the existing SSSA web site on micromorphology created by Richard Drees, and he suggested that we should ask their permission to access their site. Geoff suggested that we send Richard Drees an official letter asking permission. Marie-Agnes Courty expressed concern that most young micromorphologists are going to become separated from our group if we cannot coordinate an active web site, because of the many other web sites available. Geoff Humphreys suggested that we write Keith Tovey informing of what we are doing and extend a letter of thanks for his efforts. There was additional discussion regarding how to set up the web site, including suggestions to put the minutes of business meetings, the newsletter, advertise short courses, and photos on the web site. Ahmet Mermut cautioned that all information put on the web site has to be linked to the main IUSS web page. Brenda Buck asked all attendees to send photos to her at buckb@unlv.nevada.edu to be put on the web page. Geoff Humphreys asked Brenda Buck to put on the web page a list of symposia from the 18th World Congress that use or may use soil micromorphology. Georges Stoops also asked that a list of the soil micromorphologists that have passed away since our last meeting be posted on the web page.

2.2 Newsletter

Karl Stahr suggested preparing our newsletter for IUSS, Selim Kapur agreed to work with Brenda Buck to do this. Maria Gerasimova suggested that we should renovate the mailing list.

2.3 Publications

Georges Stoops explained various options that we have to publish the papers from the 12th International Meeting on Soil Micromorphology – either a special issue in a peer reviewed journal, or a book. The suggestion was that a special issue in a journal would be better for all involved, and Georges cautioned that we do not want to use a special issue that is published outside the regular volumes of the journal because it is then not included in citation indexes. Catena was suggested.

2.4 General Discussions regarding Activities
The following account records this discussion as it took place. Three recurring themes are evident: the new Commission and the role of micromorphology within it; the current status of micromorphology; and future marketing strategies
Concern was expressed by several members that we need to be more inclusive and active
if we are to remain viable in today’s world where soil micromorphology is consistently being used by other types of scientists who are not aware of us. Fabio Terribile suggested that we join with archaeological groups and bring them into our Commission. He suggested that we could write a special paper or booklet that shows what micromorphology can do – all the opportunities micromorphology can provide to various different disciplines. Geoff Humphreys suggested that we advertise all of the symposia at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science in Philadelphia (USA) that will be using soil micromorphology because many folk are unaware of its importance to different fields of soil science. Ahmet Mermut reiterated that all sub-commissions in ISSS no longer exist, and that we should not be dismayed that micromorphology has been placed into Commission 1.1 with Soil Morphology. As an example, he mentioned Pedometrics as a vibrant new commission that could provide a strong role model.. He also suggested that if anyone was unhappy with the new commission arrangement that they were welcome to express this in a letter addressed to him (as Chairperson of Division 1) or to the Secretary General of IUSS. Rienk Miedema expressed his pleasure with the new commission, especially because it embraced all scales of investigations typically covered during investigations of soils. Marie-Agnes Courty expressed concern that broadening micromorphology to other scales (as per the new commissions title) could act in a negative way by deterring would be members from becoming involved. Selim Kapur mentioned that he did try to contact and invite the archaeology groups to attend this meeting and be involved, but they were not interested. Winfred Blum gave some background information on why the structure of IUSS was changed. He mentioned that none of the techniques used by soil micromorphologists were developed by soil scientists. Instead, early soil scientists used microscopy techniques developed by geologists and optical physists to forward soil science. He argued that in order to increase cooperation with other sciences we need an approach that can be understood from people outside of soil science. He encouraged soil micromorphologists to interact with other disciplines to find a common vocabulary rather than create a new language. He encourages using languages of other sciences that already exist and being proactive not reactive. Our commission should communicate with the Secretary General of IUSS about everything we do – the Secretary General has connections with the ICS (International Council of Sciences) and can advertise to other sciences to improve our image. E.A.FitzPatrick reiterated that other scientists think poorly of soil micromorphologists and ignore our work. Winfred Blum disagreed with E. A. Fitzpatrick because the International Geologic Congress invited soil scientists to their 32nd Meeting in Italy (2004) for a special symposium and during that meeting there was much interest in soil science. Jan van Mourik agreed with Winfred Blum and is optimistic about our future. Joselito Arocena mentioned the new issue of Science that was devoted to soil science, but was unhappy that many of the articles were written by people other than soil scientists. He agreed that we need to be more proactive in selling our skills and products. Geoff Humphreys gave a personal example citing that geologists were the main group of scientists that praised his book on soils, and added that the lesson is to use a common language where we can market ourselves. Pavel Kabanov mentioned that soil micromorphology is becoming increasingly more important for studing paleosols, diagenetic changes, compaction in sediments and other geologic phenomenon. Karl Stahr argued that since our subcommission B is now upgraded to Commission 1.1, our future is studying morphology at all scales. Marie-Agnes Courty thought that the problem with the lack of interaction between us and archaeologists was one of politics and not science. Marcello Pagliai cited the recent interest from geologists on how geology affects the quality of wine, yet soil scientists have known this for years. He encourages us to invite geologists to the 18th World Congress to see how impressive our work is, and he agrees that it is important for us to cooperate with other scientific disciplines. E.A.FitzPatrick suggested that for the 18th World Congress that our Commission 1.1 create special posters to advertise what we have achieved in Soil Micromorphology and have these on permanent display. Geoff Humphreys said that we need to gather information on where soil micromorphology is being used in each of the different symposia of the World Congress and maybe highlight that in a poster. Peter Kuehn argued strongly that we need to write a position paper to define where we want to direct our efforts for the future of soil micromorphology. Geoff Humphreys seconded Peter and pointed out that in other research ‘tools’ (he used the example of XRD specialists) they do not have special groups like we do. He argued that our success is that our ‘tools’ are being used all of the time in many disciplines, thus we have soil micromorphology as a Commission, but we do not have XRD analysis as a Commission. Peter Kuehn encouraged everyone to agree on writing a position paper to lead the future of Commission 1.1.

2.5 Future Meeting

Geoff Humphreys introduced the presentations of proposals for the 13th International Meeting of Soil Micromorphology to be held in 2008. Nominations were received from Brazil, China and Poland. . Carlos Schaefer presented the proposal from Brazil, Xiubin He presented the proposal from China, and Przemyslaw Mroczek presented the proposal from Poland. Geoff Humphreys opened the floor to questions and discussion. Nicolas Fedoroff argued that most of the previous meetings have been held in Europe, and therefore we should favor either Brazil or China over Poland. Hari Eswaran argued that if this meeting were held in China, it would increase participation of scientists across the entire region of Asia and increase our numbers significantly. He also said that choosing between China and Brazil would be very difficult because both proposals were excellent. Rienk Miedema said that this is a difficult choice and asked how the vote will be taken. He argued that if the vote is by a show of hands, then the proposers should be asked to leave the room so that there would be no peer pressure on those voting. Geoff proposed that the vote would be taken using paper. Ahmet Mermut said that this vote is always taken on a secret ballot. Jan van Mourik said that receiving good proposals are rare, and yet we have 3 excellent proposals. He suggested that the group choose more than one proposal, and also choose the site for the 2012 meeting. Karl Stahr agreed with Nicolas Fedoroff that the meeting should be taken to a site other than Europe. He compared the proposals of Brazil and China: exciting/interesting soils in Brazil to the promised financial support that China offered. Carlos Schaefer, the presenter of the proposal for Brazil announced that the Brazilian government would support the costs of the meeting for all students, and that China has had international meetings whereas Brazil has not. Hari Eswaran reminded Carlos that this was not true, as Brazil hosted the 2nd International Meeting on Soil Degradation and Desertification in 2000. A vote by secret ballot was then taken. Results of the vote: 23 in favor of China; 13 in favor of Brazil; 5 in favor for Poland; 2 abstain. The 13th International Meeting on Soil Micromorphology will be held in Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China.

2.6 Kubiena Award

Georges Stoops and Winfred Blum explained that our new Commission 1.1 will make the decision for the Kubiena Award and for the first time this will be given at the 18th World Congress in Philadelphia USA. Georges Stoops announced that he received zero complete nominations for the Kubiena Award by the July deadline. Therefore, Geoff Humphreys suggested that the nominations be extended to January 15, 2005. Rienk Miedema officially made this proposal and Joselito Arocena seconded the motion. A discussion period ensued and Ahmet Mermut argued that he was not in favor of extending the deadline, he wondered if there would be any response anyway by extending the deadline. Geoff Humphreys argued that since this award will be presented at the World Congress in Philadelphia (for the first time) that this is a great opportunity to showcase Micromorphology. In addition, he argued that our group does not have a hard set of rules regarding how we run things, therefore we can decide to do whatever we want. Georges Stoops said that he sent out emails asking people to submit nominations. He did not receive any complete nominations by the deadline. He did receive a few letters, but CV’s were not attached. Selim Kapur suggested that we could nominate people for the award at this meeting and then give the award in Philadelphia. He argued that this has been done this way in the past. Ahmet Mermut reminded the group that the IUSS web site has a special reference to the Kubiena Award and thus nominations are open to the rest of the micromorphology community around the world. Joselite Arocena said that since this award is not given until July 2006, that we should support the motion to extend the deadline to January 15, 2005. Fabio Terribile also argued for support of the motion. He said that we never have had fixed rules and thus we are flexible to do as needed according to the situation. Since we have many months until the award is given, he argued that we should emphasize substance over formality and support the motion. Karl Stahr said that under normal conditions we should stick to the assigned deadlines, however since there were no complete proposals then we should set a new deadline. He argued that January 15th may be too short of deadline and suggested that we should extend the deadline until the next IUSS Bulletin. Ahmet Mermut said that we do not need to wait until the next IUSS Bulletin. Geoff Humphreys said that the award is decided by the Medal Committee which is composed of all past recipients of the award, the chairman of the commission, and the secretary of the previous subcommission. These members could make the decision to extend the deadline for nominations without asking permission of the remaining members of the commission. However, the Award Committee thought it was appropriate and fair to ask all the members present. In the future we can write up a set of specific rules to follow if this is what the group wants. The discussion thus ended and a vote was taken: 29 in support of the motion, 3 against, 0 abstain. The motion was passed, the deadline is extended to January 15, 2005, and all nominations (complete packages please) are requested to be sent to Georges Stoops.

2.7 Closing Statements

Geoff Humphreys closed the business meeting by reminding attendees of the symposia offered by Commission 1.1 at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science to be held in Philadelphia July 2006 (listed below). Hari Eswaran mentioned that there are many more symposia that use micromorphology, in particular he announced the symposium that he is co-chairing: Soil Change in Anthropocence. Hari Eswaran encouraged members to present papers at the World Congress that suit specific themes, but to highlight the use of micromorphology. Jan van Mourik reminded members that many soil restoration projects also need and use soil micromorphology.

Geoff Humphreys ended the business meeting at which time Ahmet Mermut presented awards to several people who have made a significant contribution to soil micromorphology: Georges Stoops, Nicolas Fedoroff, Tatiana Tursina, Hari Eswaran, and E.A. FitzPatrick.

Symposia to be held at the 18th World Congress of Soil Science, 2006
Commission 1.1 Soil Morphology & Micromorphology
Oral Symposia
1.1A Hydropedology: Fundamental Issues and Practical Applications
Symposium will address spatial-temporal patterns of soil and water properties and processes from pedon to landscape and from annual to geological time scales, integrated studies of the vadose zone/groundwater systems in understanding the role of hydrology in soils, state-of-the-art techniques in studying landscape-soil-water systems, quantitative scaling relationships, and fundamental mechanisms and practical enhancements of pedotransfer functions and how they can improve the value of soil survey databases.
Convenor: Henry Lin (USA) email: henrylin@psu.edu
Co-convenor: Johan Bouma (The Netherlands) email: johan.bouma@planet.nl

1.1B Site Disturbance: The Role of Soil Morphology in its Assessment
The potential of morphology, including micromorphology, to assess and differentiate natural pedogenic processes from anthropogenic site disturbance is not well appreciated. This symposium will emphasize morphological markers of changes induced by soil disturbance and consequences on soil use, management, and behavior.
Convenor: Geoff Humphreys (Australia) email: ghumphre@els.mq.edu.au
Co-convenor: Brenda Buck (USA) email: buckb@unlv.nevada.edu

1.1C Soil Micromorphology, Archaeometry, and Archaeology
Micromorphological concepts and approaches for the interpretation of soil, sediment and landscape evolution have been widely used by disciplines in earth sciences and engineering. There is a need to link conventional archaeological information obtained
from field and excavation with microscopic interpretations to document paleo/archaeo environmental conditions and ancient and indigenous land and raw material use.
Convenor: Selim Kapur (Turkey) email: kapur@cu.edu.tr
Co-convenor: Alexander Tstskin (Israel) email: tsatskin@research.haifa.ac.il

Poster Symposia
1.1P Soil Geomorphology: Concept Theory and Practices
Symposium will address: theoretical and technical issues of soil geomorphology; soil geomorphological classification and regolith taxonomy; measurements and assessment soil geomorphic processes and the regolith; concepts and issues concerning soil stratigraphy and soil layering processes; development of analytical (pedometric) tools including digital terrain analysis and soil-landscape models; relationships between terrain analysis and soil geomorphological landscape analysis; and geomorphology in soil and land resource survey.
Convenor: Robin Thwaites (Australia) email: R.Thwaites@qut.edu.au
Co-convenor: Brian Slater (USA) email: slater.39@osu.edu