Advertisement

In-situ recommendation of alternative soil samples during field sampling based on environmental similarity

  • Tianwu Ma
  • Tengfei Wei
  • Cheng-Zhi QinEmail author
  • A-Xing ZhuEmail author
  • Feng Qi
  • Junzhi Liu
  • Fanghe Zhao
  • Haobo Pan
Research Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Field sampling is an essential step for digital soil mapping and various sampling strategies have been designed for achieving desirable mapping results. Some unpredictable complex circumstances in the field, however, often prevent some samples from being collected based on the pre-designed sampling strategies. Such circumstances include inaccessibility of some locations, change of land surface types, and heavily-disturbed soil at some locations, among others. This may result in the missing of some essential samples, which could impact the quality of digital soil mapping. Previous studies have attempted to design alternative samples for the selected ones beforehand to address this issue. It cannot solve the problem completely as those pre-designed alternative samples could also be inaccessible. In this paper, we propose a dynamic method to recommend alternative samples for those unavailable samples in the field. The identification of alternative samples is based on the environmental similarity between an unavailable soil sample and its alternative candidates, as well as the spatial accessibility of these candidates. For the convenience of fieldwork, the proposed method was implemented to be a mobile application on the Android platform. A simulated soil sampling study in Xuancheng county, Anhui province of China was used to evaluate its performance. From a sample set for the study are, 30 samples were assumed to be inaccessible. For each of them, an alternative soil sample from the set was recommended using the proposed method. A deviation analysis of silt and sand content at the depth of 20 ~ 40 cm between the soil samples and their alternatives shows that the deviation on silt content is less than 20% for half of the soil samples. A larger deviation on sand content might be attribute to the limited alternative candidates in this virtual experiment. In a second experiment, we randomly selected a number of existing soil samples and replaced them with their corresponding alternative soil samples. This created 1000 hybrid sample sets. Each hybrid sample set was then used for digital soil mapping with iPSM. An evaluation using 59 independent soil samples indicated that the RMSE and MAE with the hybrid sample sets were close to that with the original sample set. The proposed method proved to be able to recommend effective alternative samples for those unavailable samples in the field.

Keywords

Soil sampling Alternative soil samples Environmental similarity Accessibility Android Mobile computing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which improved the quality of our paper. The work reported here was supported by grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No.: 41431177, 41871300), National Basic Research Program of China (Project No.: 2015CB954102), PAPD, and Outstanding Innovation Team in Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province. Supports to A-Xing Zhu through the Vilas Associate Award, the Hammel Faculty Fellow Award, and the Manasse Chair Professorship from the University of Wisconsin-Madison are greatly appreciated.

References

  1. Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of “least-cost” modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64:233–247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behrens T, Schmidt K, Ramirez-Lopez L, Gallant J, Zhu AX, Scholten T (2014) Hyper-scale digital soil mapping and soil formation analysis. Geoderma 213:578–588.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brus DJ (2014) Statistical sampling approaches for soil monitoring. Eur J Soil Sci 65:779–791.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter MR, Gregorich E (2006) Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Measurement. 44:437.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479708006546 Google Scholar
  5. Chai T, Draxler RR (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7:1247–1250.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clifford D, Payne JE, Pringle MJ, Searle R, Butler N (2014) Pragmatic soil survey design using flexible Latin hypercube sampling. Comput Geosci 67:62–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2014.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Donald MR, Hazelton PA, Clements A (2013) Potential for using soil particle-size data to infer geological parent material in the Sydney region. Soil Res. 51:301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Florinsky I, Eilers R, Manning G, Fuller L (2002) Prediction of soil properties by digital terrain modelling. Environ Model Softw 17:295–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00067-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Godinho Silva SH, Owens PR, Duarte de Menezes M, Reis Santos WJ, Curi N (2014) A technique for low cost soil mapping and validation using expert knowledge on a watershed in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:1310.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.09.0382 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2528823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kidd D, Malone B, McBratney A, Minasny B, Webb M (2015) Operational sampling challenges to digital soil mapping in Tasmania, Australia. Geoderma Reg. 4:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2014.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lagacherie P (2008) Digital soil mapping: a state of the art. In: Digital soil mapping with limited data, pp 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8592-5_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liang Z, Yuguo Z, Decheng L (2007) Digital soil mapping by extracting quantitative relationships between soil properties and terrain factors based on fuzzy set theory. Acta Pedol Sin 44:967Google Scholar
  14. Louis BP, Saby NPA, Orton TG, Lacarce E, Boulonne L, Jolivet C, Ratié C, Arrouays D (2014) Statistical sampling design impact on predictive quality of harmonization functions between soil monitoring networks. Geoderma 213:133–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McBratney A, Mendonça Santos M, Minasny B (2003) On digital soil mapping. Geoderma 117:3–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00223-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Minasny B, McBratney AB (2006) A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information. Comput Geosci 32:1378–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielsen GA, Peterson GA (1993) Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57, NP.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.572NPb
  18. Mulder VL, de Bruin S, Schaepman ME (2012) Representing major soil variability at regional scale by constrained Latin hypercube sampling of remote sensing data. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 21:301–310.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Qin CZ, Zhu AX, Pei T, Li BL, Scholten T, Behrens T, Zhou CH (2011) An approach to computing topographic wetness index based on maximum downslope gradient. Precis Agric 12:32–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9152-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roudier P, Hewitt A, Beaudette D (2012) A conditioned Latin hypercube sampling algorithm incorporating operational constraints. In: Digital soil assessments and beyond, pp 227–231.  https://doi.org/10.1201/b12728-46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sanchez PA, Ahamed S, Carré F, Hartemink AE, Hempel J, Huising J, Lagacherie P, McBratney AB, McKenzie NJ, De Lourdes Mendonça-Santos M, Minasny B, Montanarella L, Okoth P, Palm CA, Sachs JD, Shepherd KD, Vågen TG, Vanlauwe B, Walsh MG, Winowiecki LA, Zhang GL (2009) Digital soil map of the world. Science. 325:680–681.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sun XL, Zhao YG, Qin CZ, Li DC, Zhao L, Zhang G (2008) Effects of DEM resolution on multi-factor linear soil, landscape models and their application in predictive soil mapping. Acta Pedol Sin 45:971–977 (in Chinese with English abstractGoogle Scholar
  23. Tegelmark DO (1999) Prediction of stem properties based on climate and soil factors in naturally regenerated Pinus sylvestris stands. Scand J For Res 14:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thomas M, Odgers N, Ringrose-Voase A, Grealish G, Glover M, Dowling T (2012) Soil survey design for management-scale digital soil mapping in a mountainous southern Philippine catchment. In: Digital soil assessments and beyond. CRC Press/Balkema, London, pp 233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vašát R, Heuvelink GBM, Borůvka L (2010) Sampling design optimization for multivariate soil mapping. Geoderma 155:147–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Willmott CJ, Matsuura K (2005) Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim Res 30:79–82.  https://doi.org/10.3354/cr030079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Xu S, Shi X, Wang M, Zhao Y (2016) Effects of subsetting by parent materials on prediction of soil organic matter content in a hilly area using Vis-NIR spectroscopy. PLoS One 11:e0151536.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151536 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang L, Zhu AX, Qi F, Qin CZ, Li B, Pei T (2013) An integrative hierarchical stepwise sampling strategy for spatial sampling and its application in digital soil mapping. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 27:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2012.658053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang L, Zhu AX, Zhao Y, Li D, Zhang G, Zhang S, Band LE (2017) Regional soil mapping using multi-grade representative sampling and a fuzzy membership-based mapping approach. Pedosphere 27:344–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60322-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang L, Brus DJ, Zhu AX, Li X, Shi J (2018) Accounting for access costs in validation of soil maps: a comparison of design-based sampling strategies. Geoderma 315:160–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zeng C, Yang L, Zhu AX (2017) Construction of membership functions for soil mapping using the partial dependence of soil on environmental covariates calculated by random Forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 81:341.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.06.0195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang SJ, Zhu AX, Liu J, Yang L, Qin CZ, An YM (2016) An heuristic uncertainty directed field sampling design for digital soil mapping. Geoderma 267:123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.12.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhu AX (1997) A similarity model for representing soil spatial information. Geoderma. 77:217–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(97)00023-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhu AX, Liu J, Du F, Zhang SJ, Qin CZ, Burt J, Behrens T, Scholten T (2015) Predictive soil mapping with limited sample data. Eur J Soil Sci 66:535–547.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Virtual Geographic Environment (Nanjing Normal University)Ministry of EducationNanjingChina
  2. 2.School of GeographyNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Jiangsu Center for Collaborative Innovation in Geographical Information Resource Development and ApplicationNanjingChina
  4. 4.State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources ResearchChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  5. 5.College of Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  6. 6.Department of GeographyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  7. 7.Center for Social SciencesSouthern University of Science and TechnologyShenzhenChina
  8. 8.School of Environmental and Sustainability SciencesKean UniversityUnionUSA

Personalised recommendations