|
|
|
|
|
| Spatial Interpolation of Soil Texture Using Compositional Kriging and Regression Kriging with Consideration of the Characteristics of Compositional Data and Environment Variables |
| ZHANG Shi-wen, SHEN Chong-yang, CHEN Xiao-yang, YE Hui-chun, HUANG Yuan-fang , LAI Shuang |
1.China Agricultural University/Key Laboratory of Arable Land Conservation (North China), Minstry of Agriculture/Key Laboratory of Agricultural Land Quality Monitoring, Ministry of Land and Resources, Beijing 100193, P.R.China
2.School of Earth and Environment, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Huainan 232001, P.R.China
3.Afforestation Management Office, Sichuan Forestry Department, Chengdu 610081, P.R.China |
|
|
|
摘要 The spatial interpolation for soil texture does not necessarily satisfy the constant sum and nonnegativity constraints. Meanwhile, although numeric and categorical variables have been used as auxiliary variables to improve prediction accuracy of soil attributes such as soil organic matter, they (especially the categorical variables) are rarely used in spatial prediction of soil texture. The objective of our study was to comparing the performance of the methods for spatial prediction of soil texture with consideration of the characteristics of compositional data and auxiliary variables. These methods include the ordinary kriging with the symmetry logratio transform, regression kriging with the symmetry logratio transform, and compositional kriging (CK) approaches. The root mean squared error (RMSE), the relative improvement value of RMSE and Aitchison’s distance (DA) were all utilized to assess the accuracy of prediction and the mean squared deviation ratio was used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the theoretical estimate of error. The results showed that the prediction methods utilized in this paper could enable interpolation results of soil texture to satisfy the constant sum and nonnegativity constraints. Prediction accuracy and model fitting effect of the CK approach were better, suggesting that the CK method was more appropriate for predicting soil texture. The CK method is directly interpolated on soil texture, which ensures that it is optimal unbiased estimator. If the environment variables are appropriately selected as auxiliary variables, spatial variability of soil texture can be predicted reasonably and accordingly the predicted results will be satisfied.
Abstract The spatial interpolation for soil texture does not necessarily satisfy the constant sum and nonnegativity constraints. Meanwhile, although numeric and categorical variables have been used as auxiliary variables to improve prediction accuracy of soil attributes such as soil organic matter, they (especially the categorical variables) are rarely used in spatial prediction of soil texture. The objective of our study was to comparing the performance of the methods for spatial prediction of soil texture with consideration of the characteristics of compositional data and auxiliary variables. These methods include the ordinary kriging with the symmetry logratio transform, regression kriging with the symmetry logratio transform, and compositional kriging (CK) approaches. The root mean squared error (RMSE), the relative improvement value of RMSE and Aitchison’s distance (DA) were all utilized to assess the accuracy of prediction and the mean squared deviation ratio was used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the theoretical estimate of error. The results showed that the prediction methods utilized in this paper could enable interpolation results of soil texture to satisfy the constant sum and nonnegativity constraints. Prediction accuracy and model fitting effect of the CK approach were better, suggesting that the CK method was more appropriate for predicting soil texture. The CK method is directly interpolated on soil texture, which ensures that it is optimal unbiased estimator. If the environment variables are appropriately selected as auxiliary variables, spatial variability of soil texture can be predicted reasonably and accordingly the predicted results will be satisfied.
|
|
Received: 16 October 2012
Accepted:
|
| Fund: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41071152), the Special Fund for Land and Resources Scientific Research in the Public Interest, China (201011006-3), and the Special Fund for Agro-Scientific Research in the Public Interest, China (201103005- 01-01). |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Correspondence HUANG Yuan-fang, Tel: +86-10-62732963, Fax: +86-10-62733596, E-mail:yfhuang@china.com
E-mail: yfhuang@china.com
|
| About author: ZHANG Shi-wen, Tel: +86-554-6668430, E-mail: mamin1190@126.com |
Cite this article:
ZHANG Shi-wen, SHEN Chong-yang, CHEN Xiao-yang, YE Hui-chun, HUANG Yuan-fang , LAI Shuang.
2013.
Spatial Interpolation of Soil Texture Using Compositional Kriging and Regression Kriging with Consideration of the Characteristics of Compositional Data and Environment Variables. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 12(9): 1673-1683.
|
| [1]Aitchison J. 1986. The Statistical Analysis ofCompositional Data. Chapman and Hall, London.Bishop T F A, McBratney A B. 2001. A comparison ofprediction methods for the creation of field-extent soilproperty maps. Geoderma, 103, 149-160[2]Bishop T F A, Lark R M. 2008. Reply to “Standardized vs.customary ordinary cokriging…” by A. Papritz.Geoderma, 146, 397-399[3]Cambardella C A, Moorman T B, Novak J M, Parkin T B,Karlen D L, Turco R F, Konopka A E. 1994. Field-scalevariability of soil properties in central low a soils. SoilScience Society of America Journal, 58, 1501-1511[4]Chai X R, Shen C Y, Yuan X Y, Huang Y F. 2008. Spatialprediction of soil organic matter in the presence ofdifferent external trends with REML-EBLUP. Geoderma,148, 159-166[5]Chaplot V. 2005. Impact of DEM mesh size and soil mapscale on SWAT runoff, sediment and NO3-N loadspredictions. Journal of Hydrology, 312, 207-222[6]Egozcue J J, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Mateu-Figueras G,Barceló-Vidal C. 2003. Isometric logratio transformationsfor compositional data analysis. MathematicalGeology, 35, 279-300[7]de Gruijter J J, Walvoort D J J, van Gaans P F M. 1997.Continuous soil maps - a fuzzy set approach to bridgethe gap between aggregation levels of process anddistribution models. Geoderma, 77, 169-195[8]Gobin A, Campling P, Feyen J. 2001. Soil-landscapemodeling to quantify spatial variability of soil texture.Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (Part B, Hydrology,Oceans and Atmosphere), 26, 41-45[9]Goovaerts P. 1999. Geostatistics in soil science: state-ofthe-art and perspectives. Geoderma, 89, 1-45[10]Hengl T, Heuvelink G B M, Alfred Stein A. 2004. A genericframework for spatial prediction of soil variables basedon regression-kriging. Geoderma, 120, 75-93[11]Isaaks E H, Srivastava R M. 1989. An Introduction toApplied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, NewYork. p. 561.Journel A G, Huijbregts C J. 1978. Mining Geostatistics.Academic Press, London. p. 600.Kerry R, Oliver M A. 2007. Comparing sampling needs forvariograms of soil properties computed by the methodof moments and residual maximum likelihood.Geoderma, 140, 383-396[12]Lark R M. 2000. A comparison of some robust estimators ofthe variogram for use in soil survey. European Journalof Soil Science, 51, 137-157[13]Lathrop Jr R G, Aber J D, Bognar J A. 1995. Spatial variabilityof digital soil maps and its impact on regional ecosystemmodeling. Ecological Modelling, 82, 1-10[14]Ließ M, Glaser B, Huwe B. 2012. Uncertainty in the spatialprediction of soil texture comparison of regression treeand Random Forest models. Geoderma, 170, 70-79[15]Lilburne L R, Webb T H. 2002. Effect of soil variability,within and between soil taxonomic units, on simulatednitrate leaching under arable farming, New Zealand.Australian Journal of Soil Research, 40, 1187-1199[16]Martin-Fernandez J A, Barcelo-Vidal C, Pawlowsky-GlahnV. 1998. Measures of difference for compositional dataand hierarchical clustering methods. In: Buccianti A,Nardi G, Potenza R, eds., Proceedings of IAMG’98.Italy. pp. 526-539[17]McBratney A B, de Gruijter J J, Brus D J. 1992. Spatialprediction and mapping of continuous soil classes.Geoderma, 54, 39-64[18]McBratney A B, Mendonca Santos M L, Minasny B. 2003.On digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 117, 3-52[19]McBratney A B, Odeh I O A, Bishop T F A, Dunbar M S,Shatar T M. 2000. An overview of pedometrictechniques for use in soil survey. Geoderma, 97, 293-327[20]Meul M, Meirvenne M V. 2003. Kriging soil texture underdifferent types of nonstationarity. Geoderma, 112, 217-233[21]NSS (National Soil Survey Office). 1995. Chinese Soil GenusRecords. vol. 1-6[22]China Agriculture Press, Beijing. (inChinese).Odeh I O A, McBratney A B, Chittleborough D J, 1995.Further results on prediction of soil properties fromterrain attributes: heterotopic cokriging and regressionkriging.Geoderma, 67, 215.Pang S, Li T X, Wang Y D, Yu H Y, Li X. 2009. Spatialinterpolation and sample size optimization for soil copper(Cu) investigation in cropland soil at county scale usingcokriging. Agricultural Sciences in China, 8, 1369-1377[23](in Chinese)Simbahan G C, Dobermann A, Goovaerts P, Ping J, HaddixM L. 2006. Fine-resolution mapping of soil organiccarbon based on multivariate secondary data.Geoderma, 132, 471-489[24]SPSS Institute. 2012. SPSS Software. ver. 20. SPSS, NewYork, Armonk.Sumfleth K, Duttmann D. 2008. Prediction of soil propertydistribution in paddy soil landscapes using terrain dataand satellite information as indicators. EcologicalIndicators, 8, 485-501[25]Tan M Z, Mi S X, Li K L, Chen J. 2009. Influences of differentinterpolation methods on spatial prediction ofcompositional data -A case of fuzzy membership valuesof soil continuous classification. Soils, 41, 998-1003[26](in Chinese)Theil H, van De Panne C. 1960. Quadratic programming asan extension of classical quadratic maximization.Management Science, 7, 1-20[27]Walvoort D J J, de Gruijter J J. 2001. Compositional kriging:A spatial interpolation method for compositional data.Mathematical Geology, 33, 951-966[28]Wismer D A, Chattergy R. 1978. Introduction to NonlinearOptimization: A Problem Solving Approach. ElsevierNorth-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. p. 395.Zhang S W, Huang Y F, Shen C Y, Ye H C, Du Y C. 2012.Spatial prediction of soil organic matter using terrainindices and categorical variables as auxiliaryinformation. Geoderma, 171-172, 35-43[29]Zhang S W, Wang S T, Liu N, Ye H C, Huang Y F. 2011.Comparison of spatial prediction method for soil texture.Transactions of the Chinese Society of AgriculturalEngineering, 27, 333-339 (in Chinese)[30]Zhao Z, Chow T L, Rees H W, Yang Q, Xing Z, Meng F R.2009. Predict soil texture distributions using an artificialneural network model. Computers and Electronics inAgriculture, 65, 36-48. |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
