源沉积物指纹识别对示踪剂选择方法的敏感性

IF 5.8 2区 农林科学 Q1 SOIL SCIENCE
Soil Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.5194/soil-10-109-2024
Thomas Chalaux-Clergue, Rémi Bizeul, Pedro V. G. Batista, Núria Martínez-Carreras, J. Patrick Laceby, Olivier Evrard
{"title":"源沉积物指纹识别对示踪剂选择方法的敏感性","authors":"Thomas Chalaux-Clergue, Rémi Bizeul, Pedro V. G. Batista, Núria Martínez-Carreras, J. Patrick Laceby, Olivier Evrard","doi":"10.5194/soil-10-109-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. In a context of accelerated soil erosion and sediment supply to water bodies, sediment fingerprinting techniques have received an increasing interest in the last 2 decades. The selection of tracers is a particularly critical step for the subsequent accurate prediction of sediment source contributions. To select tracers, the most conventional approach is the three-step method, although, more recently, the consensus method has also been proposed as an alternative. The outputs of these two approaches were compared in terms of identification of conservative properties, tracer selection, modelled contributions and performance on a single dataset. As for the three-step method, several range test criteria were compared, along with the impact of the discriminant function analysis (DFA). The dataset was composed of tracer properties analysed in soil (three potential sources; n = 56) and sediment core samples (n = 32). Soil and sediment samples were sieved to 63 µm and analysed for organic matter, elemental geochemistry and diffuse visible spectrometry. Virtual mixtures (n = 138) with known source proportions were generated to assess model accuracy of each tracer selection method. The Bayesian un-mixing model MixSIAR was then used to predict source contributions on both virtual mixtures and actual sediments. The different methods tested in the current research can be distributed into three groups according to their sensitivity to the conservative behaviour of properties, which was found to be associated with different predicted source contribution tendencies along the sediment core. The methods selecting the largest number of tracers were associated with a dominant and constant contribution of forests to sediment. In contrast, the methods selecting the lowest number of tracers were associated with a dominant and constant contribution of cropland to sediment. Furthermore, the intermediate selection of tracers led to more balanced contributions of both cropland and forest to sediments. The prediction of the virtual mixtures allowed us to compute several evaluation metrics, which are generally used to support the evaluation of model accuracy for each tracer selection method. However, strong differences or the absence of correspondence were observed between the range of predicted contributions obtained for virtual mixtures and those values obtained for actual sediments. These divergences highlight the fact that evaluation metrics obtained for virtual mixtures may not be directly transferable to models run for actual samples and must be interpreted with caution to avoid over-interpretation or misinterpretation. These divergences may likely be attributed to the occurrence of a not (fully) conservative behaviour of potential tracer properties during erosion, transport and deposition processes, which could not be fully reproduced when generating the virtual mixtures with currently available methods. Future research should develop novel metrics to quantify the conservative behaviour of tracer properties during erosion and transport processes. Furthermore, new methods should be designed to generate virtual mixtures closer to reality and to better evaluate model accuracy. These improvements would contribute to the development of more reliable sediment fingerprinting techniques, which are needed to better support the implementation of effective soil and water conservation measures at the catchment scale.","PeriodicalId":48610,"journal":{"name":"Soil","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity of source sediment fingerprinting to tracer selection methods\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Chalaux-Clergue, Rémi Bizeul, Pedro V. G. Batista, Núria Martínez-Carreras, J. Patrick Laceby, Olivier Evrard\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/soil-10-109-2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. In a context of accelerated soil erosion and sediment supply to water bodies, sediment fingerprinting techniques have received an increasing interest in the last 2 decades. The selection of tracers is a particularly critical step for the subsequent accurate prediction of sediment source contributions. To select tracers, the most conventional approach is the three-step method, although, more recently, the consensus method has also been proposed as an alternative. The outputs of these two approaches were compared in terms of identification of conservative properties, tracer selection, modelled contributions and performance on a single dataset. As for the three-step method, several range test criteria were compared, along with the impact of the discriminant function analysis (DFA). The dataset was composed of tracer properties analysed in soil (three potential sources; n = 56) and sediment core samples (n = 32). Soil and sediment samples were sieved to 63 µm and analysed for organic matter, elemental geochemistry and diffuse visible spectrometry. Virtual mixtures (n = 138) with known source proportions were generated to assess model accuracy of each tracer selection method. The Bayesian un-mixing model MixSIAR was then used to predict source contributions on both virtual mixtures and actual sediments. The different methods tested in the current research can be distributed into three groups according to their sensitivity to the conservative behaviour of properties, which was found to be associated with different predicted source contribution tendencies along the sediment core. The methods selecting the largest number of tracers were associated with a dominant and constant contribution of forests to sediment. In contrast, the methods selecting the lowest number of tracers were associated with a dominant and constant contribution of cropland to sediment. Furthermore, the intermediate selection of tracers led to more balanced contributions of both cropland and forest to sediments. The prediction of the virtual mixtures allowed us to compute several evaluation metrics, which are generally used to support the evaluation of model accuracy for each tracer selection method. However, strong differences or the absence of correspondence were observed between the range of predicted contributions obtained for virtual mixtures and those values obtained for actual sediments. These divergences highlight the fact that evaluation metrics obtained for virtual mixtures may not be directly transferable to models run for actual samples and must be interpreted with caution to avoid over-interpretation or misinterpretation. These divergences may likely be attributed to the occurrence of a not (fully) conservative behaviour of potential tracer properties during erosion, transport and deposition processes, which could not be fully reproduced when generating the virtual mixtures with currently available methods. Future research should develop novel metrics to quantify the conservative behaviour of tracer properties during erosion and transport processes. Furthermore, new methods should be designed to generate virtual mixtures closer to reality and to better evaluate model accuracy. These improvements would contribute to the development of more reliable sediment fingerprinting techniques, which are needed to better support the implementation of effective soil and water conservation measures at the catchment scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soil\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soil\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-109-2024\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-109-2024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在水土流失和水体沉积物供应加速的背景下,沉积物指纹识别技术在过去 20 年中受到越来越多的关注。选择示踪剂是随后准确预测沉积物来源的关键步骤。为了选择示踪剂,最传统的方法是三步法,不过最近也提出了共识法作为替代方法。我们对这两种方法的输出结果进行了比较,包括对保守特性的识别、示踪剂的选择、模拟贡献以及在单一数据集上的性能。至于三步法,则比较了几个范围测试标准以及判别函数分析(DFA)的影响。数据集由土壤(三个潜在来源;n = 56)和沉积物岩心样本(n = 32)中的示踪特性分析组成。土壤和沉积物样本筛分至 63 微米,并进行有机物、元素地球化学和漫射可见光谱分析。生成已知来源比例的虚拟混合物(n = 138),以评估每种示踪剂选择方法的模型准确性。然后使用贝叶斯非混合模型 MixSIAR 预测虚拟混合物和实际沉积物的源贡献。目前研究中测试的不同方法可根据其对属性保守行为的敏感性分为三组,发现这些属性保守行为与沿沉积岩芯的不同预测源贡献趋势有关。选择示踪剂数量最多的方法与森林对沉积物的主要和恒定贡献有关。与此相反,选择最少示踪剂的方法则与耕地对沉积物的主要和恒定贡献有关。此外,中间选择示踪剂的方法可使耕地和森林对沉积物的贡献更加均衡。通过对虚拟混合物的预测,我们可以计算出几个评价指标,这些指标通常用于支持对每种示踪剂选择方法的模型准确性进行评价。然而,虚拟混合物的预测贡献值范围与实际沉积物的预测贡献值范围之间存在很大差异或不一致。这些差异凸显了一个事实,即虚拟混合物的评估指标可能无法直接应用于实际样品的模型运行,因此必须谨慎解释,以避免过度解读或误读。这些差异很可能是由于在侵蚀、迁移和沉积过程中潜在示踪剂特性的不 (完全)保守行为造成的,在用现有方法生成虚拟混合物时无法完全再现。未来的研究应开发新的指标来量化侵蚀和迁移过程中示踪剂特性的保守行为。此外,还应设计新的方法来生成更接近现实的虚拟混合物,并更好地评估模型的准确性。这些改进将有助于开发更可靠的沉积物指纹识别技术,从而更好地支持在流域范围内实施有效的水土保持措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensitivity of source sediment fingerprinting to tracer selection methods
Abstract. In a context of accelerated soil erosion and sediment supply to water bodies, sediment fingerprinting techniques have received an increasing interest in the last 2 decades. The selection of tracers is a particularly critical step for the subsequent accurate prediction of sediment source contributions. To select tracers, the most conventional approach is the three-step method, although, more recently, the consensus method has also been proposed as an alternative. The outputs of these two approaches were compared in terms of identification of conservative properties, tracer selection, modelled contributions and performance on a single dataset. As for the three-step method, several range test criteria were compared, along with the impact of the discriminant function analysis (DFA). The dataset was composed of tracer properties analysed in soil (three potential sources; n = 56) and sediment core samples (n = 32). Soil and sediment samples were sieved to 63 µm and analysed for organic matter, elemental geochemistry and diffuse visible spectrometry. Virtual mixtures (n = 138) with known source proportions were generated to assess model accuracy of each tracer selection method. The Bayesian un-mixing model MixSIAR was then used to predict source contributions on both virtual mixtures and actual sediments. The different methods tested in the current research can be distributed into three groups according to their sensitivity to the conservative behaviour of properties, which was found to be associated with different predicted source contribution tendencies along the sediment core. The methods selecting the largest number of tracers were associated with a dominant and constant contribution of forests to sediment. In contrast, the methods selecting the lowest number of tracers were associated with a dominant and constant contribution of cropland to sediment. Furthermore, the intermediate selection of tracers led to more balanced contributions of both cropland and forest to sediments. The prediction of the virtual mixtures allowed us to compute several evaluation metrics, which are generally used to support the evaluation of model accuracy for each tracer selection method. However, strong differences or the absence of correspondence were observed between the range of predicted contributions obtained for virtual mixtures and those values obtained for actual sediments. These divergences highlight the fact that evaluation metrics obtained for virtual mixtures may not be directly transferable to models run for actual samples and must be interpreted with caution to avoid over-interpretation or misinterpretation. These divergences may likely be attributed to the occurrence of a not (fully) conservative behaviour of potential tracer properties during erosion, transport and deposition processes, which could not be fully reproduced when generating the virtual mixtures with currently available methods. Future research should develop novel metrics to quantify the conservative behaviour of tracer properties during erosion and transport processes. Furthermore, new methods should be designed to generate virtual mixtures closer to reality and to better evaluate model accuracy. These improvements would contribute to the development of more reliable sediment fingerprinting techniques, which are needed to better support the implementation of effective soil and water conservation measures at the catchment scale.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Soil
Soil Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Soil Science
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
44
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: SOIL is an international scientific journal dedicated to the publication and discussion of high-quality research in the field of soil system sciences. SOIL is at the interface between the atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere. SOIL publishes scientific research that contributes to understanding the soil system and its interaction with humans and the entire Earth system. The scope of the journal includes all topics that fall within the study of soil science as a discipline, with an emphasis on studies that integrate soil science with other sciences (hydrology, agronomy, socio-economics, health sciences, atmospheric sciences, etc.).
×
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