Fine Scale Soil Texture Estimation Using Soil Maps and Profile Descriptions

  • D. D’or
  • P. Bogaert
Conference paper
Part of the Quantitative Geology and Geostatistics book series (QGAG, volume 11)


Soil scientists have often to face problems of accurate data scarcity. More than the amount of available data, limitations may occur from the estimation algorithms that are used. Classical methods like Simple Kriging (SK) are not able to take into account the soft information provided by a soil map without making approximations. An example of such approximation would be to take as hard value the middle of the intervals derived from the texture class, yielding very poor results. In this paper, the advantages of using a new approach called the Bayesian Maximum Entropy (BME) are investigated. In order to take into account the complex definition of the texture classes that are intimately linked to the soil mapping context, a modification of the method (called BMF/MC) has been implemented. Based on a realistic simulated example and using standard statistical criteria (e.g., ME, RMSE, spatial correlation of the errors, etc.), BMFJMC is found to be the most efficient method compared to SK, SKMI and BME in the soil texture estimation context.


Root Mean Square Error Texture Class Nugget Effect Soft Information Soft Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bogaert P. and D’Or D. Generating sets of three values under summation constraint. 2000 (In preparation).Google Scholar
  2. Christakos G. A Bayesian/maximum-entropy view to the spatial estimation problem. Math. Geol. 1990; 22(7): 763–777MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christakos G. Random fields models in earth sciences. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 1992.Google Scholar
  4. Christakos G. While God is raining brains, are we holding umbrellas? The role of modem geostatistics in spatiotemporal analysis and mapping. Keynote Speaker, International Conference on Time-Space Systems in Environmental Sciences, Ischia, Italy, October 5–9, 1998a.Google Scholar
  5. Christakos G. Spatiotemporal information systems in soil and environmental sciences. Geoderma 1998b; 85(2–3): 141–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christakos G. Modem Sparioremporal Geosuuistics. Oxford Univ. Press. New York. N.Y. 2000.Google Scholar
  7. Goovaerts P. and Joumel A.G. Integrating soil map information in modelling the spatial variation of continuous soil properties. Eur. J. of Soil Sci. 1995; 46: 397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heuvelink G.B.M. and Bierkens M.F.P. Combining soil maps with interpolations from point observations to predict quantitative soil properties. Geoderma 1992; 55: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Legros J.P. Cartographic des sols; de l’analyse spatiale à la gestion des territoires (in french). Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes. 321 pp. 1996Google Scholar
  10. Oberthür T., Goovaerts P. and Dobermann A. Mapping soil texture classes using field texturing. panicle size distribution and local knowledge by both conventional and geostatistical methods. Eur. J. of Soil Sci. 1999; 50: 457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stein A., Hoogewerf M. and Bouma J. Use of soil-map delineations to improve (co-) kriging of point data on moisture deficits. Geoderma 1998; 43: 163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. D’or
    • 1
  • P. Bogaert
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Sciences and Landuse Planning —EnvironmetricsUniversité catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations