Kai-hua LIAO , Shao-hui XU , Ji-chun WU , Shu-hua JI , Qing LIN
{"title":"利用由土壤理化性质导出的第一主成分计算土壤阳离子交换容量","authors":"Kai-hua LIAO , Shao-hui XU , Ji-chun WU , Shu-hua JI , Qing LIN","doi":"10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60116-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a vital indicator of soil quality and pollutant sequestration capacity, a study was conducted to evaluate cokriging of CEC with the principal components derived from soil physico-chemical properties. In Qingdao, China, 107 soil samples were collected. Soil CEC was estimated by using 86 soil samples for prediction and 21 soil samples for test. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) together explained 60.2% of the total variance of soil physico-chemical properties. The PC1 was highly correlated with CEC <em>(r</em>=0.76, <em>P</em><0.01), whereas there was no significant correlation between CEC and PC2 (<em>r</em>=0.03). The PC1 was then used as an auxiliary variable for the prediction of soil CEC. Mean error (ME) and root mean square error (RMSE) of kriging for the test dataset were −1.76 and 3.67 cmol<sub>c</sub> kg<sup>−1</sup>, and ME and RMSE of cokriging for the test dataset were −1.47 and 2.95 cmol<sub>c</sub> kg<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The cross-validation <em>R</em><sup>2</sup> for the prediction dataset was 0.24 for kriging and 0.39 for cokriging. The results show that cokriging with PC1 is more reliable than kriging for spatial interpolation. In addition, principal components have the highest potential for cokriging predictions when the principal components have good correlations with the primary variables.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7475,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Sciences in China","volume":"10 8","pages":"Pages 1246-1253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60116-8","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cokriging of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Using the First Principal Component Derived from Soil Physico-Chemical Properties\",\"authors\":\"Kai-hua LIAO , Shao-hui XU , Ji-chun WU , Shu-hua JI , Qing LIN\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60116-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a vital indicator of soil quality and pollutant sequestration capacity, a study was conducted to evaluate cokriging of CEC with the principal components derived from soil physico-chemical properties. In Qingdao, China, 107 soil samples were collected. Soil CEC was estimated by using 86 soil samples for prediction and 21 soil samples for test. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) together explained 60.2% of the total variance of soil physico-chemical properties. The PC1 was highly correlated with CEC <em>(r</em>=0.76, <em>P</em><0.01), whereas there was no significant correlation between CEC and PC2 (<em>r</em>=0.03). The PC1 was then used as an auxiliary variable for the prediction of soil CEC. Mean error (ME) and root mean square error (RMSE) of kriging for the test dataset were −1.76 and 3.67 cmol<sub>c</sub> kg<sup>−1</sup>, and ME and RMSE of cokriging for the test dataset were −1.47 and 2.95 cmol<sub>c</sub> kg<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The cross-validation <em>R</em><sup>2</sup> for the prediction dataset was 0.24 for kriging and 0.39 for cokriging. The results show that cokriging with PC1 is more reliable than kriging for spatial interpolation. In addition, principal components have the highest potential for cokriging predictions when the principal components have good correlations with the primary variables.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural Sciences in China\",\"volume\":\"10 8\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1246-1253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1671-2927(11)60116-8\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural Sciences in China\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1671292711601168\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Sciences in China","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1671292711601168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
摘要
土壤阳离子交换容量(CEC)是土壤质量和污染物固存能力的重要指标,本文研究了土壤阳离子交换容量与土壤理化性质衍生的主成分之间的关系。在中国青岛,收集了107份土壤样品。采用86个预测土样和21个试验土样估算土壤CEC。前两个主成分(PC1和PC2)共同解释了土壤理化性质总方差的60.2%。PC1与CEC高度相关(r=0.76, P<0.01),而PC2与CEC无显著相关(r=0.03)。将PC1作为预测土壤CEC的辅助变量。测试数据集的克里格均值误差(ME)和均方根误差(RMSE)分别为- 1.76和3.67 cmolc kg - 1,测试数据集的共克里格均值误差(ME)和RMSE分别为- 1.47和2.95 cmolc kg - 1。预测数据集的交叉验证R2为kriging为0.24,cokriging为0.39。结果表明,用PC1进行空间插值比用克里格法进行空间插值更可靠。此外,当主成分与主变量具有良好的相关性时,主成分具有最高的共克里格预测潜力。
Cokriging of Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Using the First Principal Component Derived from Soil Physico-Chemical Properties
As soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) is a vital indicator of soil quality and pollutant sequestration capacity, a study was conducted to evaluate cokriging of CEC with the principal components derived from soil physico-chemical properties. In Qingdao, China, 107 soil samples were collected. Soil CEC was estimated by using 86 soil samples for prediction and 21 soil samples for test. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) together explained 60.2% of the total variance of soil physico-chemical properties. The PC1 was highly correlated with CEC (r=0.76, P<0.01), whereas there was no significant correlation between CEC and PC2 (r=0.03). The PC1 was then used as an auxiliary variable for the prediction of soil CEC. Mean error (ME) and root mean square error (RMSE) of kriging for the test dataset were −1.76 and 3.67 cmolc kg−1, and ME and RMSE of cokriging for the test dataset were −1.47 and 2.95 cmolc kg−1, respectively. The cross-validation R2 for the prediction dataset was 0.24 for kriging and 0.39 for cokriging. The results show that cokriging with PC1 is more reliable than kriging for spatial interpolation. In addition, principal components have the highest potential for cokriging predictions when the principal components have good correlations with the primary variables.