A comparison of country-scale subsoil predictions between a numeric and a taxonomic soil classification system

IF 3.1 2区 农林科学 Q2 SOIL SCIENCE
Trevan Flynn , Catherine Clarke , Rosana Kostecki , Ansa Rebi
{"title":"A comparison of country-scale subsoil predictions between a numeric and a taxonomic soil classification system","authors":"Trevan Flynn ,&nbsp;Catherine Clarke ,&nbsp;Rosana Kostecki ,&nbsp;Ansa Rebi","doi":"10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Traditional soil classification systems are designed to communicate information; however, surveyor biases and tacit knowledge can lead to subjective soil class designations. Consequently, different soil scientists may classify the same soil differently. This becomes a critical issue when mapping soil classes, as there could be multiple interpretations for the same observation. To address this problem, numerical soil classification systems have been developed. However, little is known about how well they compare to taxonomic systems when spatially predicted on a national scale. This study aimed to compare a previously developed, unsupervised numeric classification system and South Africa's taxonomic soil classification system in terms of their spatial predictions across the country. The taxonomic system of South Africa has 19 defined subsoil horizons, which were aggregated into eight horizons and compared to a nine horizon numeric classification as well as South Africa's profile (soil form) classification comprising of 73 different soil groupings, which was used as a control. The comparison was conducted from predictions through gradient tree boosting in Google Earth Engine at a 30 m resolution. The numerical system (kappa = 0.30, accuracy = 0.57) exhibited poor spatial predictions, with a kappa 22% lower and accuracy 2% lower than the control (kappa = 0.52, accuracy = 59%). On the other hand, the taxonomic system performed well, with a kappa of 0.57 and an accuracy of 67%, exhibiting a 5% increase in kappa and an 8% increase in accuracy compared to the control. It was hypothesized that the overpredictions of the predominant horizon contributed to the numeric system's poor performance. Nevertheless, both systems showed the highest maximum entropy in arid regions of the Karoo and savannah biomes, albeit in spatially distinct ecoregions. It was thought that the divergence in the two systems' maximum entropy was due to their association with precipitation differences (amount and seasonality) as well as vegetation type and cover (woodlands vs. shrublands). To map the country in more detail, further soil sampling should be conducted in arid regions and optimisation of the predictive algorithm for each soil category should be performed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56001,"journal":{"name":"Geoderma Regional","volume":"40 ","pages":"Article e00902"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoderma Regional","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352009424001494","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traditional soil classification systems are designed to communicate information; however, surveyor biases and tacit knowledge can lead to subjective soil class designations. Consequently, different soil scientists may classify the same soil differently. This becomes a critical issue when mapping soil classes, as there could be multiple interpretations for the same observation. To address this problem, numerical soil classification systems have been developed. However, little is known about how well they compare to taxonomic systems when spatially predicted on a national scale. This study aimed to compare a previously developed, unsupervised numeric classification system and South Africa's taxonomic soil classification system in terms of their spatial predictions across the country. The taxonomic system of South Africa has 19 defined subsoil horizons, which were aggregated into eight horizons and compared to a nine horizon numeric classification as well as South Africa's profile (soil form) classification comprising of 73 different soil groupings, which was used as a control. The comparison was conducted from predictions through gradient tree boosting in Google Earth Engine at a 30 m resolution. The numerical system (kappa = 0.30, accuracy = 0.57) exhibited poor spatial predictions, with a kappa 22% lower and accuracy 2% lower than the control (kappa = 0.52, accuracy = 59%). On the other hand, the taxonomic system performed well, with a kappa of 0.57 and an accuracy of 67%, exhibiting a 5% increase in kappa and an 8% increase in accuracy compared to the control. It was hypothesized that the overpredictions of the predominant horizon contributed to the numeric system's poor performance. Nevertheless, both systems showed the highest maximum entropy in arid regions of the Karoo and savannah biomes, albeit in spatially distinct ecoregions. It was thought that the divergence in the two systems' maximum entropy was due to their association with precipitation differences (amount and seasonality) as well as vegetation type and cover (woodlands vs. shrublands). To map the country in more detail, further soil sampling should be conducted in arid regions and optimisation of the predictive algorithm for each soil category should be performed.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Geoderma Regional
Geoderma Regional Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Soil Science
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.30%
发文量
122
审稿时长
76 days
期刊介绍: Global issues require studies and solutions on national and regional levels. Geoderma Regional focuses on studies that increase understanding and advance our scientific knowledge of soils in all regions of the world. The journal embraces every aspect of soil science and welcomes reviews of regional progress.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信