Use of Geostatistics in the Description of Salt-Affected Lands

  • S. R. Yates
  • R. Zhang
  • P. J. Shouse
  • M. Th. van Genuchten
Part of the Advanced Series in Agricultural Sciences book series (AGRICULTURAL, volume 20)

Abstract

Geostatistical methods are increasingly popular tools in the anaylysis of a variety of agricultural problems. The methods are typically used to determine various spatially related quantities which, in turn, characterize the variability of one or more parameters in space and/or time. Simple, ordinary and universal kriging methods produce linear estimators which are useful for obtaining estimates of a spatially distributed property over a region, especially at locations for which no data are available. For the most part, the final result of an analysis is a map showing the spatial distribution of the property of interest. Many examples appear in the literature (Burgess and Webster 1980a, b; Webster and Burgess 1980; Vieira et al. 1981; Vauclin et al. 1983; Warrick et al. 1986; Yates et al.1986a; Yates and Warrick 1987; ASCE 1990a, b). At other times, descriptors such as variograms and correlation scales are the ultimate goal of a geostatistical investigation.

Keywords

Covariance Radionuclide Silt Autocorrelation Stein 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramowitz M, Stegun A (1970) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover Publ., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Sanabani M (1982) Spatial variability of salinity and sodium adsorption ratio in a typic Haplarigid soil. M. S. Thesis, University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE (1990a) Review of geostatistics in geohydrology. 1. Basic concepts. ASCE task committee geostatistical techniques in geohydrology. J Hydraul Eng 116: 612–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASCE (1990b) Review of geostatistics in geohydrology. 2. Applications. ASCE task committee geostatistical techniques in geohydrology. J Hydraul Eng 116: 633–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burgess TM, Webster R (1980a) Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties. I. The semivariogram and punctual kriging. Soil Sci 31: 315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess TM, Webster R (1980b) Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties. II. Block kriging. Soil Sci 31: 333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgess TM, Webster R, McBratney AB (1981) Optimal interporation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties. IV. Sampling strategy. Soil Sci 31: 643–659Google Scholar
  8. Burrough PA (1983a) Multiscale sources of spatial variation in soil. I. The application of fractal concepts to nested levels of soil variation. Soil Sci 34: 577–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burrough PA (1983b) Multiscale sources of spatial variation in soil. II. A non-brownian fractal model and its application in soil survey. Soil Sci 34: 599–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr JR, Myers DE (1984) Applications of the theory of regionalized random variables to the spatial analysis of landsat data. In: IEEE computer society proceedings of the Pecora 9 spatial technologies for remote sensing today and tomorrow. IEEE Computer Society Press, Silver Spring, MD, pp 55–61Google Scholar
  11. Clark I, Basinger KL, Harper WV (1989) MUCK — a novel approach to cokriging. In: Buxton BE (ed) Proceedings of conference on geostatistical, sensitivity and uncertainty methods for ground-water flow and radionuclide transport modeling. Battelle, Columbus, pp 473–494Google Scholar
  12. Journel AG, Huijbregts ChJ (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, New York. 600 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Matheron G (1976) A simple substitute for conditional expectation: the disjunctive kriging. In: Reidel D (ed) Proceedings NATO ASI Geostat 75, Hingham, MassGoogle Scholar
  14. McBratney AB, Webster R (1983) Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties. V. Coregionalization and multiple sampling strategy. Soil Sci 34: 137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mulla DJ (1988) Estimating spatial patterns in water content, matric suction, and hydraulic conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52: 1547–1553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Myers DE (1982) Matrix formation of co-kriging. Math Geol 14: 249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Myers DE (1991) Pseudo-cross variograms, positive-definiteness, and co-kriging. Math Geol 23: 805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rao PV, Rao PSC, Davidson JM, Hammond LC (1979) Use of goodness-of-fit tests for characterizing the spatial variability of soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43: 274–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rohlf FJ, Sokal R (1981) Stastistical tables, 2nd edn, WH Freeman, New York, 219 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Russo D (1984a) Design of an optimal sampling network for estimating the variogram. Soil Sci Soc Am J 48: 708–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russo D (1984b) A geostatistical approach to solute transport in heterogeneous fields and its applications to salinity management. Water Resour Res 20: 1260–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry, 2nd edn. WH Freeman, New York, 859 ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Stein A, Hoogerwerf M, Bouma J (1988) Use of soil-map delineations to improve (co-kriging of point data on moisture deficits. Geoderma 43: 163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vauclin M, Vieira SR, Vachaud G, Nielson DR (1983) The use of cokriging with limited field soil observations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47: 175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vieira SR, Nielsen DR, Biggar JW (1981) Spatial variability of field-measured infiltration rate. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45: 1040–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Warrick AW, Myers DE (1987) Optimization of sampling locations for variogram calculations. Water Resour Res 23: 496–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warrick AW, Myers DE, Nielsen DR (1986) Geostatistical methods applied to soil science. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd edn. Agronomy 9: 53–82Google Scholar
  28. Warrick AW, Musil SA, Artiola JF, Hendricks DM, Myers DE (1991) Sampling strategies for hydrological properties and chemical constituents in the upper vadose zone. Final technical report, Water Resour Res Grand Program, US Dept InteriorGoogle Scholar
  29. Webster R (1991) Local disjunctive kriging of soil properties with change of support. Soil Sci 42: 301–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Webster R, Burgess TM (1980) Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties. III. Changing drift and universal kriging. Soil Sci 31: 505–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yates SR (1986) Disjunctive kriging. III. Cokriging. Water Resour Res 22: 1371–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yates SR, Warrick AW (1987) Estimating soil water content using cokriging. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51: 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yates MV, Yates SR, Warrick AW, Gerba CP (1986a) Use of geostatistics to predict virus decay rates for determination of septic tank setback distances. Appl Environ Microbiol 52: 479–483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yates SR, Warrick AW, Myers DE (1986b) Disjunctive kriging. I. Estimation and conditional probability. Water Resour Res 22: 615–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yates SR, Warrick AW, Myers DE (1986c) Disjunctive kriging. II. Examples. Water Resour Res 22: 623–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang R, Warrick AW, Myers DE (1991) Improvement of soil textural estimates using spectral properties. Geoderma 52: 223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zirschky J (1985) Geostatistics for environmental monitoring and survey design. Environ Int 11: 515–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zirschky J, Harris DJ (1986) Geostatistical analysis of hazardous waste site data. J Environ Eng 112: 770–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zirschky J, Keary GP, Gilbert RO, Middlebrooks EJ (1985) Spatial estimation of hazardous waste site data. J Environ Eng 111: 777–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. R. Yates
  • R. Zhang
  • P. J. Shouse
  • M. Th. van Genuchten
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA-ARSUS Salinity LaboratoryRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations