Benefits of hierarchical predictions for digital soil mapping-An approach to map bimodal soil pH

被引:6
|
作者
Nussbaum, Madlene [1 ]
Zimmermann, Stephan [2 ]
Walthert, Lorenz [2 ]
Baltensweiler, Andri [2 ]
机构
[1] Bern Univ Appl Sci BFH, Sch Agr Forest & Food Sci HAFL, Langgasse 85, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
[2] Swiss Fed Inst Forest Snow & Landscape Res WSL, Zurcherstr 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland
关键词
Digital soil mapping; Hierarchical predictions; Bimodal response; Soil pH; Acidity buffer ranges; Prediction uncertainty; ORGANIC-CARBON; HIGH-RESOLUTION; GLOBALSOILMAP; SUPPORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116579
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Maps of soil pH are an important tool for making decisions in sustainable forest management. Accurate pH mapping, therefore, is crucial to support decisions by authorities or forest companies. Soil pH values typically exhibit a distinct distribution characterized by two frequently encountered pH ranges, wherein aluminium oxides (Al2O3) and carbonates (CaCO3) act as the primary buffer agents. Soil samples with moderately acid pH values (pH CaCl2 of 4.5-6) are less commonly observed due to their weaker buffering capacity. The different strength of buffer agents results in a distinct bimodal distribution of soil pH values with peaks at pH of around 4 and 7.5. Commonly used approaches for spatial mapping neglect this often observed characteristic of soil pH and predict unimodal distributions with too many moderately acid pH values. For ecological map applications this might result in misleading interpretations.This article presents a novel approach to produce pH maps that are able to reproduce pedogenic processes. The procedure is suitable for bimodal responses where the response distribution is naturally inherent and needs to be reproduced for the predictions. It is model-agnostic, namely independent from the used statistical prediction method. Calibration data is optimally split into two parts corresponding each to a data culmination, i.e. for soil pH values belonging to the ranges of the two principal buffer agents (Al2O3 and CaCO3). For each subset a separate model is then built. In addition, a binary model is fitted to assign every new prediction location a probability to belong either to Al2O3 or CaCO3 buffer range. Predictions are combined by weighted mean. Weights are derived from probabilities predicted by the binary model. Degree of smoothness is chosen by sigmoid transform which allows for optimal continuous transition of the pH values between Al2O3 and CaCO3 buffer ranges. For each location uncertainty distributions may be combined by using the same weights.We illustrated application of the new approach to a medium and strong bimodal distributed response (1) pH in 0-5 cm and (2) pH in 60-100 cm of forest soils in Switzerland (2530 calibration sites). While model performance measured at 354 validation sites slightly dropped compared to a common modelling approach (drop of R2 of 0.02-0.03) distributional properties of the predictions are much more meaningful from a pedogenic point of view. We were able to demonstrate the benefits of considering specific distributional properties of responses within the prediction process and expanded model assessment by comparing observed and predicted distributions.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] National Scale 3D Mapping of Soil pH Using a Data Augmentation Approach
    Roudier, Pierre
    Burge, Olivia R.
    Richardson, Sarah J.
    McCarthy, James K.
    Grealish, Gerard J.
    Ausseil, Anne-Gaelle
    REMOTE SENSING, 2020, 12 (18) : 1 - 22
  • [32] Operationalising digital soil mapping - Lessons from Australia
    Kidd, Darren
    Searle, Ross
    Grundy, Mike
    McBratney, Alex
    Robinson, Nathan
    O'Brien, Lauren
    Zund, Peter
    Arrouays, Dominique
    Thomas, Mark
    Padarian, Jose
    Jones, Edward
    Bennett, John McLean
    Minasny, Budiman
    Holmes, Karen
    Malone, Brendan P.
    Liddicoat, Craig
    Meier, Elizabeth A.
    Stockmann, Uta
    Wilson, Peter
    Wilford, John
    Payne, Jim
    Ringrose-Voase, Anthony
    Slater, Brian
    Odgers, Nathan
    Gray, Jonathan
    van Gool, Dennis
    Andrews, Kaitlyn
    Ben Harms
    Stower, Liz
    Triantafilis, John
    GEODERMA REGIONAL, 2020, 23
  • [33] Digital soil mapping in Germany - a review
    Behrens, Thorsten
    Scholten, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE, 2006, 169 (03) : 434 - 443
  • [34] Mapping soil pH and bulk density at multiple soil depths in Denmark
    Adhikari, K.
    Kheir, R. Bou
    Greve, M. B.
    Greve, M. H.
    Malone, B. P.
    Minasny, B.
    McBratney, A. B.
    GLOBALSOILMAP: BASIS OF THE GLOBAL SPATIAL SOIL INFORMATION SYSTEM, 2014, : 155 - 160
  • [35] Digital soil mapping algorithms and covariates for soil organic carbon mapping and their implications: A review
    Lamichhane, Sushil
    Kumar, Lalit
    Wilson, Brian
    GEODERMA, 2019, 352 : 395 - 413
  • [36] Defining fertility management units and land suitability analysis using digital soil mapping approach
    Dharumarajan, S.
    Kalaiselvi, B.
    Lalitha, M.
    Vasundhara, R.
    Hegde, Rajendra
    GEOCARTO INTERNATIONAL, 2022, 37 (20) : 5914 - 5934
  • [37] A plant ecology approach to digital soil mapping, improving the prediction of soil organic carbon content in alpine grasslands
    Ballabio, Cristiano
    Fava, Francesco
    Rosenmund, Alexandra
    GEODERMA, 2012, 187 : 102 - 116
  • [38] Hyper-scale digital soil mapping and soil formation analysis
    Behrens, Thorsten
    Schmidt, Karsten
    Ramirez-Lopez, Leonardo
    Gallant, John
    Zhu, A-Xing
    Scholten, Thomas
    GEODERMA, 2014, 213 : 578 - 588
  • [39] Digital soil mapping outputs on soil classification and sugarcane production in Brazil
    Mendes, Wanderson de Sousa
    Dematte, Jose A. M.
    JOURNAL OF SOUTH AMERICAN EARTH SCIENCES, 2022, 116
  • [40] Soil pH Mapping with an On-The-Go Sensor
    Schirrmann, Michael
    Gebbers, Robin
    Kramer, Eckart
    Seidel, Jan
    SENSORS, 2011, 11 (01): : 573 - 598