Anda di halaman 1dari 13

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES

Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)


Published online 26 August 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.7413
Test of statistical means for the extrapolation of soil depth
point information using overlays of spatial
environmental data and bootstrapping
techniques
Helen E. Dahlke,
1
* Thorsten Behrens,
2
Jan Seibert
3,4
and Lotta Andersson
5
1
Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, 165 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, New York, 14853, USA
2
Physical Geography, Institute of Geography, University of Tuebingen, Ruemelinstrasse 19-23, 72070 T ubingen, Germany
3
Department of Geography, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland
4
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
5
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Department of Research and Development, SE-601 76 Norrk oping, Sweden
Abstract:
Hydrological modelling depends highly on the accuracy and uncertainty of model input parameters such as soil properties.
Since most of these data are eld surveyed, geostatistical techniques such as kriging, classication and regression trees or
more sophisticated soil-landscape models need to be applied to interpolate point information to the area. Most of the existing
interpolation techniques require a random or regular distribution of points within the study area but are not adequate to
satisfactorily interpolate soil catena or transect data. The soil landscape model presented in this study is predicting soil
information from transect or catena point data using a statistical mean (arithmetic, geometric and harmonic mean) to calculate
the soil information based on class means of merged spatial explanatory variables. A data set of 226 soil depth measurements
covering a range of 065 m was used to test the model. The point data were sampled along four transects in the Stubbetorp
catchment, SE-Sweden. We overlaid a geomorphology map (8 classes) with digital elevation model-derived topographic index
maps (29 classes) to estimate the range of error the model produces with changing sample size and input maps. The accuracy
of the soil depth predictions was estimated with the root mean square error (RMSE) based on a testing and training data set.
RMSE ranged generally between 073 and 083 m 0013 m depending on the amount of classes the merged layers had, but
were smallest for a map combination with a low number of classes predicted with the harmonic mean (RMSE D 046 m).
The results show that the prediction accuracy of this method depends on the number of point values in the sample, the value
range of the measured attribute and the initial correlations between point values and explanatory variables, but suggests that
the model approach is in general scale invariant. Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS soil-landscape modelling; hydrological modelling; soil depth; bootstrapping; soil attributes; soil attribute
prediction; statistical mean; root mean square error
Received 18 November 2008; Accepted 16 June 2009
INTRODUCTION
Digital high-resolution soil information and new app-
roaches to obtain landscape heterogeneities face still a
growing demand for improvements of existing hydro-
logical models and to capture the spacetime variability
of hydrological processes. Soil depth is seen as one of
the essential input parameters for distributed hydrologi-
cal and environmental modelling. Soil depth, or the depth
from the ground surface to the surface of the bedrock
or an impermeable layer, is seen as a major control
on soil water storage and availability in many envi-
ronments (Tromp-van Meerveld and McDonnell, 2006a).
Soil depth signicantly affects spatial soil moisture pat-
terns (Burt and Butcher, 1985; Freer et al., 2002; Tromp-
van Meerveld and McDonnell, 2006b) as well as subsur-
face and groundwater ow (Buttle and McDonald, 2002;
Freer et al., 2002; Stieglitz et al., 2003). Soil depth or
* Correspondence to: Helen E. Dahlke, Biological and Environmental
Engineering, Cornell University, 165 Riley-Robb Hall, Ithaca, New York,
14853, USA. E-mail: hed23@cornell.edu
depth to bedrock is thus a standard variable used in
many hydrological models such as soil & water assess-
ment tool (SWAT) (Arnold and Fohrer, 2005), distributed
hydrology soil vegetation model (DHSVM) (Wigmosta
et al., 1994), soil moisture distribution and routing model
(SMDR) (Frankenberger et al., 1999) or TOPMODEL
(Beven et al., 1984). To face the growing demand for
high-resolution spatial soil information, so-called quan-
titative soil-landscape methods are applied to extend
conventional soil survey point observations to the land-
scape scale (Ryan et al., 2000; McBratney et al., 2003).
Approaches applied to predict continuous soil attributes
such as soil depth comprise simple linear regression,
kriging and co-kriging (Odeh et al., 1994, 1995; Ryan
et al., 2000), generalized linear models (McKenzie and
Ryan, 1999), discriminant analysis (Sinowski and Auer-
swald, 1999) and landform evolution models (Saco et al.,
2006).
The development of these models has especially been
facilitated by the achieved advances in geographical
information systems (GIS), digital elevation models
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3018 H. E. DAHLKE ET AL.
(DEM), terrain analysis, statistical analysis and the
increasing computing capacity during the last decade.
Based on differences in the quality and type of eld
measurements of soil properties and the availability of
additional spatial environmental explanatory variables,
the available methods can be categorized into continu-
ous and discrete approaches (Burrough, 1993). Common
continuous approaches analyze the spatial continuity of
a specic soil variable based on the variance of their
distribution using geostatistical methods (e.g. kriging)
or they include known environmental information (e.g.
topographic, land use and substrate information) for the
spatial distribution of the soil variable based on a regres-
sion model (Mertens et al., 2002). Discrete approaches
such as Bayesian expert systems model categorical (nom-
inal, ordinal or interval) soil attributes or soil classes
through the integration of soil and landscape information
into a semantic net and/or the denition of logical rules
(Skidmore et al., 1996). Other methods that predict con-
ventionally mapped soil-landscape units are fuzzy logic
approaches (Zhu, 2000) and neural networks (Lehmann
et al., 1999; Behrens et al., 2005) that use learning algo-
rithms to train a network that predicts the desired output
units based on mapped soil units.
Despite the great variety and advances that have been
made in the development of continuous and discrete soil-
landscape models, the approaches have limitations in
their applicability to provide input parameters for dis-
tributed hydrological models. Discrete approaches pro-
vide soil information for spatial entities and provide
hence the data structure required in most of the distributed
or hydrological response units (HRU)-based hydrological
models. HRUs describe areas of homogeneous hydro-
logical response based on similar topographical, pedo-
logical and geomorphological characteristics, which are
extracted from an overlay of topographic, soil and land
use data. The concept is based on the assumption that
hydrological processes within a delineated hydrological
response unit show a certain degree of homogeneity and
therefore less variability as compared with surrounding
area units. In comparison to raster-based hydrological
models, it aims to reduce parameterization complexity
and computing time, especially at regional and catchment
scale applications (Fl ugel, 1995; Leavesley and Stannard,
1995). Following the HRU concept, discrete soil model
approaches effectively facilitate the reduction of the spa-
tial variability of hydrological processes in the landscape
and reduce the time and effort to collect necessary soil
attribute data in a study area (Park and van de Giesen,
2004). However, they bear the risk that the hydrologi-
cal model application is bound to the scale of the pre-
existing conventional soil surveys, which exist mostly in
the range of 1 : 50 000 to 1 : 1 000 000 (e.g. 1 : 1 000 000
in Sweden) and are rather inexible to scaling of the soil
information (Olsson, 1999; Behrens and Scholten, 2007).
Moreover, the development of soil unit-based quantita-
tive soil models reached a degree of complexity in user
expertise and user knowledge, both on the soil survey
and on the model side that challenges their short-term
applicability as simple tools to generate soil input data
for hydrological models and modeller.
Continuous approaches have the advantage that they
are easy applicable, have little demands in computation
software (e.g. implemented in common GIS) and user
expertise. However, most of the geostatistical methods
require a large number of samples or frequent sam-
pling for accurate predictions and bear the problem that
even with established model functions, the capabilities to
extrapolate the results outside the study area or catch-
ment remain limited (Kravchenko, 2003). Geostatistical
methods also assume a certain data structure such as a
regular grid or uniform distribution (Odeh et al., 1994,
1995; Lane, 2002; Kravchenko, 2003; Lyon et al., 2006).
Methods such as kriging and inverse distance weighting
(IDW) and regression trees require a regular or random
distribution of the point data that are scattered over the
observation area. However, transect or catena data are
usually not object of interpolation techniques, because
their spatial representation for a dened area of inter-
est is limited to the proximate surrounding of the catena
and the incremental distance of the points along the
catena. The application of common interpolation tech-
niques (e.g. kriging and IDW) to catena point data results
in a decrease of the predictive capacity the farther a
point/cell needs to be predicted from the eld-measured
points. Typical artefacts such as stripes or facets are pro-
duced in the prediction maps showing the decreasing
ability of the interpolation algorithm to predict in areas,
which lack point observations.
The interpolation of soil information sampled with the
catena approach remains therefore a challenge for geosta-
tistical methods and soil-landscape modelling techniques.
Most studies that use catena soil information are, thus,
limited to small-scale applications such as single hill-
slopes and avoid predictions of larger landscape areas.
Most of the interpolation of catena-sampled soil infor-
mation is facilitated through the integration of digital
terrain analysis into the interpolation process (Moore
et al., 1993; Sommer and Schlichting, 1997; Gessler
et al., 2000; Chamran et al., 2002). Statistical correla-
tions among soil properties such as soil moisture, net
primary productivity, soil organic carbon, soil texture
classes and especially soil depths and terrain attributes
generated from a DEM have been investigated since
the end-1970s and have greatly enhanced the quanti-
tative investigation of hydrological processes in soils
(Beven and Kirkby, 1979; OLoughlin, 1986; Moore
et al., 1991). These studies contribute to the under-
standing of relations between topography, water move-
ment and ecosystem processes and support quantitative
and dynamic modelling of eco-hydrological processes
through the integration of GIS-based terrain analysis and
eld observations (Chamran et al., 2002).
This study presents a soil-modelling technique to
extrapolate soil-depth information from four transects
(soil depth as understood as depth to bedrock) to a
small catchment in Sweden based on different maps of
explanatory variables. Three statistical means (arithmetic,
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF TRANSECT SOIL DEPTH POINT INFORMATION 3019
geometric and harmonic) are tested to predict soil depths
based on class means derived from an overlay of the
point observations with each class of a geomorphology
and different terrain maps. Using bootstrapping, the
capability of the statistical means to predict soil depths
and the model uncertainty is estimated for different
spatial disaggregation.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Stubbetorp catchment (58

44
0
N, 16

21
0
E) is located
about 120 km southwest of Stockholm in the eastern part
of central South Sweden (Figure 1). The hilly catchment
belongs to the upper part of the Kolm arden mountain
ridge, a region dominated by low-weathering gneissic
granites that bounds the northern shore of the deeply
incised bay Br aviken of the Baltic Sea (Wikstr om,
1979). The main valley and the two side valleys of
Stubbetorp catchment, which covers an area of 094 km
2
,
are northwest southeast orientated following the major
fault line in this region. Altitude in the catchment ranges
from 80 m above sea level (asl) at the gauge to 130 m asl.
The Stubbetorp catchment was completely covered with
water after the last deglaciation period (Persson, 1982).
Both glacial ice movements and the action of ocean
waves, which left the top of the hills with little soil cover,
inuenced the present geomorphology and topography.
In large parts of the catchment (46%), the bedrock is
covered with till on which usually rather conductive, very
stony and in ne materials depleted soils are developed.
The eroded gravel and ne sediments have accumulated
in depressions and in the main valley where ombrotrophic
peatlands and swamp forests (in total 105%) with a
maximum peat depth of 65 m occur. The catchment
is largely dominated by podzolic forest soils, whereas
lithosols with rocky outcrops are especially occurring in
the southeast part of the catchment. The mean slope of the
catchment is 59

with a maximum slope of 26

in the area
of the catchment outlet. Most of the catchment is forested
(83%) with Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies of different
age, deciduous tree species are less important and occur
only in the wetland areas. The climate in the catchment is
characterized by a mean annual precipitation of 666 mm
and an annual potential evaporation of 432 mm (period
19851994). Mean annual runoff measured for the same
time period was 230 mm (Pettersson, 1995).
MATERIALS
Soil depth measurements
Soil depth measurements (depth to bedrock) were
available for two longer transects (485 m length) crossing
the main valley in the upper part of the catchment
and in two shorter transects in the central (210 m
length) and lower part (120 m length) of the catchment
(Figure 1). These soil depth measurements were obtained
in 1994 using Georadar (Olofsson and Fleetwood, 1994).
The derived data set consists of 226 points with an
incremental distance of 5 m with soil depths varying
between zero and 65 m (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Study area: Stubbetorp catchment, central-southeast Sweden. Dots indicate locations of soil depth measurements used in this study. Grey
areas indicate wetland areas, mapped in July 2005 in the catchment
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3020 H. E. DAHLKE ET AL.
Figure 2. Histogram and univariate statistics of the soil depth measure-
ments in Stubbetorp catchment
Geomorphology and wetland areas
Geomorphological information about the catchment
comprises different types of till, i.e. differentiations of the
amount of boulders in the till, sediment deposits (sand,
gravel) and bare rock areas mapped by the Department
of Land and Water Resources of the Royal Institute of
Technology (Olofsson and Fleetwood, 1994). This geo-
morphology layer originally included 13 classes, but was
reclassied into 8 classes (Table I). The geomorphology
information was extended by a more detailed map of wet-
land areas, which was derived using a differential GPS
(Trimble TSC1, horizontal accuracy <05 m) during a
eld survey in July 2005. Areas were classied as wet-
lands, if they showed signs of surface saturation or water
tables close to the ground surface (e.g. bootprints would
ll with water), hydric soils (Histosols, redox or gleyed
soils) as well as hydrophytic vegetation (e.g. sedges,
rushes and hydrophytic grass species). Both data sets,
the wetland map and the geomorphology map, were com-
bined in GIS using an overlay analysis known as Merge.
DEM
A DEM of 10 m resolution was generated in ArcInfo
(ESRI Inc.) using the TOPOGRID function and 5 m iso-
line data of the Swedish land surveying ofce. This DEM
was used to compute terrain maps of different topo-
graphic indices. All other data sets were converted to
the same raster.
Table I. Class-ids and descriptions of the geomorphology map
used in the soil model
ID Class Description
1 Sand, gravel
2 Till, washed till, less amount of boulders
3 Till washed till, normal amount of boulder
4 Till washed till, rich in boulders, large boulders
5 Bare rock
6 Swamp forests
7 Bogs and fens
8 Wet depressions
METHODS
Digital terrain analysis
On the basis of the assumed interrelation between
topography and soil depth (Gessler et al., 1995; Mitasova
et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1991), we calculated 49 dif-
ferent terrain parameters (Table II) ranging from local
parameters such as slope, curvature and aspect to more
complex parameters such as distance to drainage divides
or hillslope position based on equations found in Zeven-
bergen and Thorne (1987), Dikau (1989), Wood (1996),
Shary et al. (2002) and Behrens (2003).
Terrain attribute selection
To select relevant terrain attributes, the Pearson
product moment correlation coefcients between each
terrain parameter and observed soil depth were cal-
culated. These correlation coefcients varied between
058 and 035. The four terrain attributes, which were
strongest correlated to the observed soil depth, were
selected for further processing (Table II). These were
the vertical distance to channel network (vd; r D 058)
(Olaya, 2004), the elevation above channel (eac; r D
054) (McQuire et al., 2005), the relative prole curva-
ture (rpc; r D 052) (Behrens et al., 2005) and the rel-
ative hillslope position (rhp; r D 042) (Behrens et al.,
2005). The vd is based on the height difference between a
certain cell and the stream-channel base-level elevation.
The latter is computed by interpolation of the elevation
values of stream cells to the surrounding area (Olaya,
2004). The eac describes the elevation of a cell above
a cell in the stream channel. The elevation difference is
obtained depending on where cells of the same ow path
or steepest gradient ow path enter the stream (McGuire
et al., 2005). The rpc is estimated using the moving
window approach. Within a moving window of three-by-
three cells, rst the inclination of the cell in the centre to
the surrounding cells is calculated and secondly the rpc
is obtained as the average inclination of all cells higher
than the cell in the centre divided by the average inclina-
tion of all cells with lower elevation than the central cell
(Behrens, 2003). The rhp is based on the subtraction of
the distance to the ridges and the distance to channel. For
the distance to channel (Behrens, 2003), the ow accu-
mulation in square meters is used and for the distance to
ridges, the inverse of the ow accumulation. Thus, values
of zero indicate mid slope areas.
As these indices quantify terrain features by continuous
values, we classied these values into a certain number
of classes to extract classaverage soil depths for the
conceptual model. A k-means cluster algorithm was used
to achieve an objective reclassication of the terrain
attributes into a user-specied number of 2 to 9 classes.
K-means clustering is an algorithm that attempts to
nd the centres of a user-specied number of natural
clusters in a data set by minimizing the total intra-cluster
variance through iterative shifting of the cluster centroids
(Hartigan and Wong, 1979).
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF TRANSECT SOIL DEPTH POINT INFORMATION 3021
Table II. Terrain parameters calculated for Stubbetorp catchment
and Pearson product moment correlation coefcients (r) esti-
mated between soil depths and terrain attributes, respectively
Terrain Attributes r
Vertical distance to channel network (Olaya,
2004)
058
Elevation above channel (McGuire et al., 2005) 054
Relative prole curvature (Behrens, 2003) 052
Relative hillslope position (Hateld, 1999) 042
Minimum curvature (Wood, 1996) 041
Waxing/waning slopes (Huber, 1994) 036
Longitudinal curvature (Wood, 1996) 035
Mean curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 033
Mean curvature (Zevenbergen and Thorne, 1987) 033
Mean curvature (Bolstad et al., 1998) 033
Mean curvature high pass lter (Behrens,
2003)
033
Mean curvature (Mc Nab, 1989) 032
True surface distance from streams (Behrens,
2003)
031
Relative aspect curvature (Lehmeier and K othe,
1992)
028
Prole curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 027
Minimum curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 025
Height above channel (Behrens, 2003) 023
Maximum curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 023
Maximum curvature (Wood, 1996) 016
Horizontal curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 016
Plan curvature (Zevenbergen and Thorne, 1987) 014
Difference curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 012
Solar insolation (Shary et al., 2002) 012
Vertical excess curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 012
Plan curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 009
Surface volume above minimum elevation
(Nogami, 1995)
006
Topographic roughness (Behrens, 2003) 006
Surface area (Jenness, 2004) 003
Unsphericity (Shary et al., 2002) 002
Ring-curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 002
Aspect (Moore et al., 1993) 001
Gaussian curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 002
Slope (Horn, 1981) 004
Surface runoff velocity (Moore et al., 1991) 004
Gradient Factor (Shary et al., 2002) 004
Gradient Factor (Behrens, 2003) 004
Total accumulation curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 004
Horizontal excess curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 007
Cross-curvature (Wood, 1996) 009
Rotor curvature (Shary et al., 2002) 011
Reectance map (Florinsky, 1998) 012
Topographic index (Beven and Kirkby, 1979) 013
Slope-length-factor (Moore et al., 1991) 016
Relative height curvature (Behrens, 2003) 017
Cross-curvature (Moore et al., 1991) 024
Hemispherical dispersion (Hodgson and Gaile,
1999)
026
Longitudinal curvature (Moore et al., 1991) 027
Steepest downslope (Tarboton, 1997) 028
Prole curvature (Zevenbergen and Thorne,
1987)
035
For the nal selection of the terrain attributes as
input data sets for the soil model, both a clustering
of the four single terrain parameters in a number of 2
to 9 classes and parameter combinations of two, three
and all four terrain parameters were tested, resulting in
104 data sets. Parameter combinations were tested in
the sense to articially generate terrain maps with a
varying number of classes whose spatial disaggregation
could explain best the spatial variability of the measured
soil depths. Since one of the aims of this study is to
test the models applicability to predict soil depth for
various spatially disaggregated input data sets, the lack
of sufcient environmental data sets as input data in
the model was substituted by terrain maps of variable
number of classes generated through the combination
of different terrain parameters. To extract the terrain
parameters or parameter combination that showed the
highest class dissimilarity, the F-value of a one-way
analysis of variance was calculated for each terrain data
set. The F-value is a measure for how representative the
spatial variance of the fractioned terrain maps for the
distribution of soil depth in the catchment is and whether
the terrain map can be selected as input data set in the
conceptual soil model or not (Table III).
Soil model approach
The soil model approach is aimed to allow generating
spatial maps of soil characteristics (in this study: soil
depth) based on catena point information. The approach
is applicable to generate either user-dened discrete
landscape units like entities used in HRUs or semi-
continuous raster maps. The general approach is based
on class means resulting from an overlay of the soil-
depth measurements with each class of any nominal
data set (e.g. geomorphology and terrain layer). The
approach assumes that each environmental data set used
in the model represents actual differences in the soil
characteristic to be modelled in an area of interest. The
class means are calculated as arithmetic means over
all points located in spatial units with the same class-
id. Assuming that the catena of soil depths points is
crossing several spatial units in each spatial data layer,
the information of each class can be spread over the study
site, if overlaid with other spatial data sets and their
class means. Analogue to the regionalization concept
(Diekkr ueger et al., 1999), the overlay of two or more
spatial data sets results, thus, in the disaggregation of
the study site into smaller discrete units whose real soil
depth will be approached, the more data sets are used in
the model, the higher the explanatory variables correlate
with the measured soil attribute.
In this study, we tested three statistical means (arith-
metic, geometric and harmonic mean) to predict the soil
depth for Stubbetorp catchment from class means of the
generated terrain maps and the geomorphology map.
Model tting and validation
The set of 226 soil depth points was split into training
and testing data sets of pre-dened size to evaluate the
spatial soil depths predictions and the model error of the
different soil models. To estimate the model performance,
we applied a bootstrapping technique. Bootstrapping is a
statistical method to estimate standard errors by sampling,
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3022 H. E. DAHLKE ET AL.
Table III. Variability of F-values as measure of class dissimilarity in mean soil depth tested for all possible terrain parameters and
parameter combinations of the cluster analysis
Terrain Parameter Combinations Number of Classes
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 vd 1127 986 818 810 684 811 730 751
rhp 3728 2754 1714 1766 1310 1646 1072 961
eac 4685 2413 1933 1707 1741 1686 1929 1712
rpc 3881 5578 2428 2036 2375 1890 1568 1337
2 eac/rhp 4685 2413 2194 1707 2166 2545 2762 1487
eac/rpc 4010 5291 3056 2846 2582 2545 2762 2564
eac/vd 4618 2574 2176 1685 1782 1589 1533 1359
rhp/rpc 3953 5921 2598 2364 2481 1945 1514 1630
vd/rhp 2218 1141 1961 1992 2072 1114 1016 945
vd/rpc 3953 5320 2680 2181 2513 1946 1623 1504
3 eac/vd/rpc 4010 5315 3056 2599 2589 2629 2318 2402
eac/vd/rhp 4618 2574 2251 1999 1999 1773 1778 1499
eac/rhp/rpc 3974 5291 3056 2599 2589 2545 2558 2168
4 eac/rhp/rpc/vd 895 5291 3056 2694 2844 2166 2318 2169
Note: Vd, vertical distance to channel network; eac, elevation above channel; rpc, relative prole curvature; rhp, relative hillslope position. The higher
the F-value, the better is the class separation of the arithmetic class means. The highest F-value reached for each group of classes is highlighted in
bold.
Table IV. Number of soil depth points in each class of the raster maps
Number of Classes Raster Maps Used Class id Total
in the Overlay
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2 eac 33 193 226
3 rhp rpc 24 55 147 226
4 eac rpc 101 80 11 34 226
5 eac rpc 71 94 34 7 20 226
6 eac vd rhp rpc 5 17 69 45 12 80 226
7 eac vd rpc 86 30 15 68 5 7 17 226
8 eac rpc 49 47 0 20 67 22 14 7 226
9 eac rpc 64 14 11 15 45 53 4 0 20 226
8 geomorphology 12 3 40 83 37 17 30 4 226
Note: Vd, vertical distance to channel network; eac, elevation above channel; rpc, relative prole curvature; rhp, relative hillslope position.
where the samples are repeatedly replaced (Efron, 1981).
In this study, we used bootstrapping to estimate the root
mean square error (RMSE) between predicted soil depths
calculated of the training set and the soil depths of the
testing data set, used as expected values. Although the
original data set was split into equally sized training and
testing data sets (113/113 points), we expected the RMSE
to be largely inuenced by the sample size of some of
the raster map classes. Some of the terrain maps with
a high number of classes contain a low number of soil
depth points or even no soil depth points (empty classes)
(Table IV). Due to the large data range of measured soil
depths, the sample mean of these classes and the RMSE
are greatly inuenced by the values picked during the
bootstrapping.
We calculated the RMSE for different scenarios to
estimate the quality of the predicted soil depth maps
using bootstrapping and 5000 iterations for each test. In
detail we tested three different scenarios for validation
and calculated the RMSE as follows:
RMSE D

1
n

n

iD1
x
i
y
i

where x
i
is the estimated soil depth calculated of the
arithmetic class means of two classes when combining
two input maps using one of the statistical means and
y
i
is a soil depth point of the testing data set. The three
measures for validation were the following:
1. The RMSE was calculated between the estimated
soil depth (x
i
) of a certain class combination of the
training data set and each of the respectively soil
depth points of the testing set (y
i
) of exactly the same
class combination, in the following referred to as the
RMSE
single value
.
2. The RMSE was calculated based on the estimated soil
depth (x
i
) of a class combination of the training data set
and the class average of the soil depth points of either
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF TRANSECT SOIL DEPTH POINT INFORMATION 3023
the geomorphology or the terrain map class (y
i
) that
the class combination is consisting of, in the following
referred to as the RMSE
class value
.
3. The RMSE calculated on class level averaged to
a total RMSE of a given map combination (e.g.
Geomorphology and 2-classes terrain map) to compare
the quality of the different dissolved soil depth maps,
for the remainder of this article dened as RMSE
total
.
RESULTS
Terrain layer selection and classication
F-values were calculated for all combinations of ter-
rain attributes. For each class category (number of
classes), the highest F-value was estimated and the ter-
rain map among all raster maps selected that showed the
best class separation. Table III shows F-values obtained
for all single terrain parameters and terrain parameter
combinations. The best F-value reached for each class
category is highlighted in bold. In case that more than
one terrain map reached the best F-value, we chose the
terrain map with the lowest number of combined ter-
rain parameters on the basis of Ockhams razor (Wolpert,
1990).
Variability of soil depth measurements and class
combinations
Table V summarizes the available number of soil depth
points for each class combination, when the geomorphol-
ogy map is merged with a terrain map assuming all 226
soil depth points in the model. However, with respect
to the three validation scenarios stated in section model
tting and validation, the best validation method of the
estimated soil depths is to compare the estimated soil
depth of an area to soil depth points that are exactly
located in the same area. Since the soil depth points in our
study show a non-uniform distribution over the catchment
(see Figure 1), the estimated soil depth can only directly
be veried for a few class combinations with soil depth
points located in exactly the same area. Table III sum-
marizes the number of maximal available points for each
class combination to estimate the soil depths that can be
directly or indirectly validated with soil depths from the
testing data set. The 8-classes and the 9-classes terrain
maps both have empty classes (class 3 of eac rpc8; class
8 of eac rpc9) and contain no representative soil depth
points for the calculation of a class mean (Table IV).
Soil model test using bootstrapping
Results of the total RMSE averaged over 5000 boot-
strapping iterations using the harmonic mean are shown
in Figure 3. Tests of the arithmetic and geometric mean
to predict soil depths for each geomorphology and ter-
rain map class combination were also performed. How-
ever, the results of the total RMSE, RMSE
class value
and
RMSE
single value
indicated a poorer performance of the
statistical means as predictors, compared with the har-
monic mean. Both statistical means showed in general
higher RMSE in all validation scenarios and predicted
lower soil depth ranges in the output maps compared
with the original measurements and the predictions made
with the harmonic mean. The 226 point observations of
soil depth ranged from 0 to 65 m. The use of the arith-
metic mean to calculate class means would have resulted
in non-zero values and would have caused a bias of pre-
dicted soil depth in areas (e.g. bare soil areas) where the
majority of soil depth points is zero. Initial test comput-
ing the coefcient of determination between the predicted
soil depth maps and class means of the original soil depth
measurements resulted in lowest coefcients for the maps
predicted with the arithmetic mean (max. R
2
D 060)
and highest coefcients for the maps predicted with the
harmonic mean (max. R
2
D 073). Consequently, only
assessments based on the harmonic means were selected
for further analyses.
The different map combinations shown in Figure 3
resulted in similar mean RMSE values for the compared
statistical means with slightly decreasing RMSE values
with increasing number of classes. The means of the cal-
culated total RMSE values decrease from approximately
082 m (126% of the total data range) for the 2-classes
terrain map combination to about 073 m (111% of total
data range) for the 9-classes terrain map combination.
For convenience, the number of classes in the respec-
tive terrain maps is used in the remaining sections to
distinguish the tested map combinations in further inter-
pretations.
Validation results of the single-RMSE
(RMSE
single values
), class-RMSE (RMSE
class values
) and a
comparison of estimated and predicted soil depths are
shown for the harmonic mean in Figure 4. For the
majority of the estimated soil depths, the single and
Figure 3. Box-and-whisker plot of total RMSE reached for the harmonic
mean and different map combinations. The RMSE are sorted according
to the number of classes of the terrain map used in the overlay with
the geomorphology map. The diagram shows for each map combination
the median, the upper and lower quartile and the smallest and largest
observed RMSE during the 5000 bootstrapping iterations
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3024 H. E. DAHLKE ET AL.
Table V. Maximum number and number of exactly located soil depth points available for the prediction of soil depths for each
geomorphology-terrain map combination based on all 226 points
Maximal Available Number of Points Exactly Located Points
Number of Terrain
Classes Maps Geomorphology Geomorphology
Class id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
N 12 3 40 83 37 17 30 4
2 eac
1 33 45 36 73 116 70 50 63 37 3 7 19 4
2 193 205 196 233 276 230 210 223 197 12 3 37 76 18 17 3
3 rhp rpc
1 24 36 27 64 107 61 41 54 28 16 8
2 55 67 58 95 138 92 72 85 59 12 5 4 2 6 26
3 147 159 150 187 230 184 164 177 151 3 35 63 27 11 4 4
4 eac rpc
1 101 113 104 141 184 138 118 131 105 4 1 23 4 3 13 16 1
2 80 92 83 120 163 117 97 110 84 2 13 31 31 3
3 11 23 14 51 94 48 28 41 15 9 2
4 34 46 37 74 117 71 51 64 38 8 4 3 1 4 14
5 eac rpc
1 71 83 74 111 154 108 88 101 75 13 28 28 2
2 94 106 97 134 177 131 111 124 98 4 3 21 37 13 16
3 34 46 37 74 117 71 51 64 38 8 4 3 1 4 14
4 7 19 10 47 90 44 24 37 11 5 2
5 20 32 23 60 103 57 37 50 24 2 1 6 2
6 eac vd rhp rpc
1 5 17 8 45 88 42 22 35 9 2 1
2 17 29 20 57 100 54 34 47 21 6 1 2 8
3 69 81 72 109 152 106 86 99 73 6 1 19 1 13 2
4 45 57 48 85 128 82 62 75 49 7 19 17 2
5 12 24 15 52 95 49 29 42 16 2 2 6 2
6 80 92 83 120 163 117 97 110 84 2 12 5 12 2 2
7 eac vd rpc
1 86 98 89 126 169 123 103 116 90 2 15 55 1 2 2
2 30 42 33 70 113 67 47 60 34 4 18 8
3 15 27 18 55 98 52 32 45 19 6 1 2 6
4 68 80 71 108 151 105 85 98 72 6 1 18 8 13 22
5 5 17 8 45 88 42 22 35 9 2 1
6 7 19 10 47 90 44 24 37 11 3 3 1
7 17 29 20 57 100 54 34 47 21 14 3
8 eac rpc
1 49 61 52 89 132 86 66 79 53 2 13 23 11
2 47 59 50 87 130 84 64 77 51 5 1 7 6 8 2
3 0 12 17
4 20 32 23 60 103 57 37 50 24 2 14 4
5 67 79 70 107 150 104 84 97 71 1 17 38 7 4
6 22 34 25 62 105 59 39 52 26 14 8
7 14 26 17 54 97 51 31 44 18 6 2 6
8 7 19 10 47 90 44 24 37 11 3 4
9 eac rpc
1 64 76 67 104 147 101 81 94 68 1 17 33 9 4
2 14 26 17 54 97 51 31 44 18 6 2 6
3 11 23 14 51 94 48 28 41 15 9 2
4 15 27 18 55 98 52 32 45 19 2 7 4 2
5 45 57 48 85 128 82 62 75 49 5 1 7 6 6 2
6 53 65 56 93 136 90 70 83 57 2 13 23 15
7 4 16 7 44 87 41 21 34 8 1 3
8 0 12 17
9 20 32 23 60 103 57 37 50 24 14 6
3 40 83 37 30 4
3 40 83 37 30 4
Note: N is the maximum number of soil depths points located in each class of each map. Light grey highlighted cells show class combinations those
estimated soil depths can directly be validated with soil depths points that are exactly located in the same class combination. Dark grey highlighted
cells indicate class combinations that do not comprise direct validation points, but that can be compared with the class mean of the testing data
set. Black cells highlight class combinations that occur in the nal prediction maps, but those soil depths cannot be calculated due to a lack of soil
depth points located in one or both of the combined classes (empty classes). White cells highlight class combinations that do not occur in the nal
prediction maps.
class RMSE stay in the range of the calculated total
RMSE and the data sets standard deviation of 109 m.
The single and class RMSE exceed the mean total
RMSE for estimated soil depth greater than 1 m. This
was expected considering the value range of mea-
sured (01 m) and predicted soil depths (0054m)
(Figure 4b). RMSE
class values
are generally larger than
RMSE
single values
because of the greater data range result-
ing from the comparison of an estimated soil depth
point to the mean soil depth of a layer class. The small
RMSE
single values
indicate that the estimated soil depths
predicted with the harmonic mean differ only little from
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF TRANSECT SOIL DEPTH POINT INFORMATION 3025
Figure 4. Comparison of RMSE and estimated soil depths calculated with the harmonic mean. Diagram (a) shows the estimated soil depths (black
dots), results of the two validation scenarios RMSE
single value
(black crosses) and RMSE
class value
(grey diamonds). The RMSE
single value
result from
a comparison of the estimated soil depth of a certain class combination to validation points located in areas with the same class combination and
RMSE
class value
show the comparison of the estimated soil depth of a certain class combination to all validation points of either one of the combined
classes in a map combination. Diagram (b) shows a comparison of minimum and maximum estimated soil depths predicted with the testing and
training data set
the soil depths actually measured in the area of a certain
class.
Predicted soil depths maps
Maps of estimated soil depth were generated with the
harmonic mean for each map combination (Figure 5).
The predicted soil depth maps show an increasing degree
of spatial disaggregation the more classes the spatial
data sets in the overlay process have. The number
of entities increases in the prediction maps from 128
to 1438 for the overlay of the geomorphology with
a terrain map consisting of minimum two classes to
maximum 9 classes. Similarly, the size of the largest
spatial entity in the predicted soil maps decreases from
maximum 160 800 m
2
to 32 300 m
2
. Soil depth maps
predicted with the 8- or 9-classes terrain layer exhibit
empty or no-data areas, where the soil depth cannot
be modelled. Both terrain layer lack soil depth points
in one of the classes to calculate the class mean. The
size of the no data areas in the geomorphology/8-
terrain classes map covers 0034 km
2
and 0031 km
2
in the geomorphology/9-terrain classes map. The areas
equal 39% and 33% of the catchment area (0942 km
2
),
respectively.
Soil depth maps with a higher degree of spatial
disaggregation show also a greater range of predicted
soil depths. Minimum, maximum and average soil depths
increased from 050 m to 031 m, 224 m to 304 m and
12 m to 168 m, respectively with increasing number of
included terrain classes in the predicted soil depth map
(Figure 6).
RMSE were calculated between the soil catena points
and the cell values in the soil depth prediction maps
to estimate the most suitable soil depth prediction map
(Table VI). The map combinations of the geomorphology
map with the 2-terrain-classes map reached the best
coefcients among all map combinations and tested
statistical means. The lowest RMSE (RMSE D 046 m)
was reached for the geomorphology/2-terrain classes map
predicted with the harmonic mean, which also showed
the highest R
2
. The second lowest RMSE (RMSE D
061 m) was reached for the geomorphology/5-terrain
classes map. The prediction error of these two map
combinations was less than 10% of the overall soil depth
range measured in the catchment.
DISCUSSION
The R
2
reached in the soil depth prediction maps agrees
well with accuracies achieved for most quantitative
spatial soil models (Beckett and Webster, 1971; Ryan
et al., 2000). According to Beckett and Webster (1971),
R
2
greater than 07 are unusual for most spatial models
and R
2
of 05 or less are common. In this study, the
RMSE of the nal soil depth prediction maps showed
an error smaller than 10% of the data range. This shows
that the presented soil model approach provides an easy
applicable method in terms of computation requirements
that predict spatial variability of soil depth more accurate
than a single explanatory variable.
The fact that the geomorphology/2-terrain classes map
reached the lowest RMSE among all tested statistical
means was unexpected, because both the value range of
estimated soil depths and the degree of spatial disaggrega-
tion were smaller in the nal prediction map than in map
combinations with more classes. However, this fact can
be explained with the clustering approach that has been
used to reclassify the terrain attributes to generate second
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3026 H. E. DAHLKE ET AL.
Figure 5. Maps of estimated soil depths using the harmonic mean as prediction model. Each map shows a map combination of the geomorphology
layer consisting 8 classes and a terrain layer with varying number of classes (29 terrain classes). Grey areas indicate empty classes, where soil
depths could not be estimated due to lacking point data in the training data set
Figure 6. Comparison of minimum, maximum and mean soil depth for
each produced soil depth map using the harmonic mean. Statistics is
sorted according to the number of classes in the terrain map used in the
overlay with the geomorphology map
input layer for the overlay process. The k-means cluster-
ing algorithm used in this study randomly generates k
clusters from the continuous terrain attribute maps. The
nal location and size of the clusters are, however, statis-
tically determined by the convergence criterion that needs
to be met for each cluster (Hartigan and Wong, 1979).
The terrain classes resulting from the clustering depend
on statistical differences in topography, but might not
reect the actual soil depth variability in the watershed.
An expert-based differentiation and reclassication of the
terrain attributes as input layer are therefore suggested for
future applications.
Although the best RMSE suggests that the soil depth
map with the lowest disaggregation is the best choice for
further applications, if a higher spatial disaggregation is
desired, the user has to balance between the prediction
accuracy and the number of classes used in the overlay
process. The use of input layers with more classes may
lower the probability to calculate the layer class means
(e.g. soil depth). The overlay of several explanatory
variables with a low number of classes will likely
increase the probability to ensure complete coverage in
the prediction maps and higher prediction accuracies.
However, in case of the occurrence of unpredictable
areas, post-processing is needed to complete the soil
depth information. Several approaches can be applied
such as taking only the information from one of the
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF TRANSECT SOIL DEPTH POINT INFORMATION 3027
Table VI. Root mean square error (RMSE) calculated cell-based between predicted soil depths and point-measured soil depths
Number of Classes in Terrain Maps
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RMSE (m) 046 069 073 061 072 080 094 087
Error % 71 106 112 93 111 123 144 134
R
2
071 013 002 04 01 025 024 035
Note: The lowest RMSE was reached for the map combination of the geomorphology/2-terrain-classes map. Percentage values show RMSE in percent
of the soil depth range.
explanatory variables that exhibits a class mean for this
area (e.g. from the geomorphology classes in this study)
or interpolate the soil depth in the no-data areas using
a nearest neighbour interpolation algorithm in GIS.
In many hydrological modelling studies, heterogene-
ity and scaling of input variables signicantly affect
model outputs such as predicted outow or water bal-
ance (Quinn et al., 2005). Modelling success is to a great
extent inuenced by factors including heterogeneity of
climate and surface data, the presence of lateral connec-
tivity, but also by the mismatch between spatial resolu-
tion of measurements and models (Arrigo and Salvucci,
2005). According to Bl oschl and Sivapalan (1995), the
space dimensions of a measurement or a model can be
uniquely described using the scale triplet consisting of
spacing, extent and support. Spacing refers to the distance
between observations, extent refers to the overall cover-
age and support refers to the integration area (Bl oschl
and Sivapalan, 1995). Interpolation techniques and trend
surfaces provide useful methods to predict point data at
user-dened scales, however, interpolations depend on
spatial autocorrelation, a function of the spatial variance
of the distance (lag) between data points, which is to a
great extent inuenced by the spatial organization of mea-
surements. Thus, known interpolation techniques such as
kriging and inverse distance weighting requiring a more
or less uniform and organized distribution of the data
points over the area to meet the geostatistical assumption
of a spatially correlated random variable. In the case of
non-uniformly distributed data, these techniques need a
strategic sampling of missing data to achieve the desired
coverage, which is both expensive and time-consuming.
The presented soil-modelling approach is to a great extent
independent from the spacing of point observations under
the assumption that the extent of the explanatory vari-
ables is greater or equal to the spatial extent of the point
observations and the spacing between the point observa-
tions is smaller than the minimum size of the smallest
spatial entity of any explanatory variable. In this study,
the sampling distance between point observations was
5 m, however, this information is not used in an auto-
correlation variogram analysis since the data structure of
catena sampled point observations invalidates the spatial
variability represented by the variogram. The presented
approach bypasses the variogram analysis through the
overlay of the point observations with the maps of various
explanatory variables. It therefore provides a powerful
soil-modelling approach for areas with non-randomly or
organized distribution of point observations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, a method entirely based on the use of
non-uniform distributed point information (e.g. catena
or transect data) was developed and tested. The method
presents a simple way to predict soil attributes over larger
areas using environmental variables and statistical means.
First, class means for all points that fall into a class of
each explanatory layer are calculated and second, this
information is predicted for all merged layer classes using
a statistical mean. The method is applicable at all scales
and the nal resolution of the predicted map is adjustable.
In comparing the three statistical means used to predict
the soil attribute (soil depth) for merged classes of
two explanatory variables, several differences in the
predictability of the statistical means were identied. The
validation results suggest that soil depth maps predicted
with the harmonic mean showed the highest agreement
with the initial point data set. The prediction accuracy
of this method depends generally on the number of
point values in the sample, the value range of the
measured attribute (soil depth range: 065 m), and the
initial correlations between the point values and the
explanatory variables. Best results (RMSE D 046 m)
could be achieved, if the merged explanatory variables
had a low number of classes. The results indicate that
using several explanatory variables with only a few
classes in the merging process (e.g. terrain indices, land
use maps, geomorphology maps) increases the prediction
accuracy and the degree of spatial disaggregation.
Although the scale independence of the presented soil-
modelling approach supports its easy application in larger
catchments, regions and for different soil attributes (e.g.
soil texture, soil moisture and soil hydraulic properties),
further validation in other catchments is required. Results
from this study show that simpler soil-landscape models
can satisfactorily predict soil hydrological parameters
on the basis of non-uniformly distributed data. We nd
that this soil model approach provides a useful method
for generating spatial data for hydrological models in
regions with sparsely available data. This might help to
improve hydrological model predictions. Further analyses
of the effects of differently disaggregated prediction
maps on modelled runoff, assuming steady conditions
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
3028 H. E. DAHLKE ET AL.
for the residual model parameters, will help to quantify
uncertainties in hydrological modelling caused by the
misrepresentation of scale and landscape properties in the
model input data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The soil data were collected in a project carried out
at the Department of Water and Environmental Studies,
Link oping University, funded by the National Research
Foundation. Additional information was provided by the
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute and
the Swedish cadastral system. Many thanks also to G oran
Lindstr om for his valuable input.
REFERENCES
Arnold JG, Fohrer N. 2005. SWAT2000: current capabilities and research
opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrological Processes
19(3): 563572.
Arrigo JAS, Salvucci GD. 2005. Investigation hydrologic scaling:
observed effects of heterogeneity and nonlocal processes across
hillslope, watershed, and regional scales. Water Resources Research
41: W11417. DOI:10.1029/2005WR004032.
Beckett PHT, Webster R. 1971. Soil variability: a review. Soils and
Fertilizers 34: 115.
Behrens T. 2003. Digitale Reliefanalyse als Basis von Boden-
Landschaftsmodellen am Beispiel der Verbreitungssystematik
periglazi arer Lagen in deutschen Mittelgebirgen. Dissertation, Justus
Liebig Universit at, Giesen.
Behrens T, F orster H, Scholten T, Steinr ucken U, Spies E-D, Gold-
schmitt M. 2005. Digital soil mapping using articial neural networks.
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 168(1): 2133.
Behrens T, Scholten T. 2007. Digital soil mapping in Germanya
review. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 170(1): 181202.
Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ. 1979. A physically based, variable contributing
area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin 24(1):
4369.
Beven KJ, Kirkby MJ, Schoeld N, Tagg AF. 1984. Testing a physically-
based ood forecasting model (topmodel) for three U.K. catchments.
Journal of Hydrology 69(14): 119143.
Bl oschl G, Sivapalan M. 1995. Scale issues in hydrological modellinga
review. Hydrological Processes 9: 251290.
Bolstad PV, Swank W, Vose J. 1998. Predicting Appalachian overstory
vegetation with digital terrain data. Landscape Ecology 13: 271283.
Burrough P. 1993. Soil variability: a late 20th century view. Soils and
Fertilizers 56: 529562.
Burt TP, Butcher DP. 1985. Topographic controls of soil moisture
distributions. European Journal of Soil Science 36(3): 469486.
Buttle JM, McDonald DJ. 2002. Coupled vertical and lateral preferential
ow on a forested slope. Water Resources Research 38(5): 10601076.
Chamran F, Gessler PE, Chadwick OA. 2002. Spatially explicit treatment
of soil-water dynamics along a semiarid catena. Soil Sciences Society
of America Journal 66: 15711583.
Cook SE, Corner RJ, Grealish GJ, Gessler PE, Chartres CJ. 1996. A rule
based system to map soil properties. Soil Sciences Society of America
Journal 60: 18931900.
Diekkr uger B, Kirkby MJ, Schr oder U. 1999. Regionalization in
hydrology, IAHS Publication Nr. 254. IAHS Press, Institute of
Hydrology: Wallingford, Oxfordshire; 265.
Dikau R. 1989. The application of a digital relief model to landform
analysis in geomorphology. In Three Dimensional Application in
Geographic Information Systems, Raper J (ed.) Taylor & Francis:
London; 5177.
Efron B. 1981. Nonparametric estimates of standard error: the jackknife,
the bootstrap and other methods. Biometrika 68: 589599.
Florinsky IV. 1998. Accuracy of local topographic variables derived from
digital elevation models. Geographic Information Science 12: 4761.
Fl ugel W. 1995. Delineating hydrological response units by Geographical
Information System analyses for regional hydrological modelling using
PRMS/MMS in the drainage basin of the River Br ol, Germany.
Hydrological Processes 9: 423436.
Frankenberger JR, Brooks ES, Walter MT, Walter MF, Steenhuis TS.
1999. A GIS-based variable source area hydrology model.
Hydrological Processes 13: 805822.
Freer J, McDonnell J, Beven KJ, Peters NE, Burns DA, Hooper RP,
Aulenbach B, Kendall C. 2002. The role of bedrock topography on
subsurface storm ow. Water Resources Research 37(10): 26072618.
Gessler PE, Chadwick OA, Chamran F, Althouse L, Holmes K. 2000.
Modeling soil landscape and ecosystem properties using terrain
attributes. Soil Sciences Society of America Journal 64: 20462056.
Gessler PE, Moore ID, McKenzie NJ, Rayan PJ. 1995. Soil-landscape
modelling and spatial prediction of soil attributes. International Journal
of Geographic Information Systems 4: 421432.
Hartigan JA, Wong MA. 1979. Algorithm AS 136: a K-Means clustering
algorithm. Applied Statistics 28(1): 100108.
Hateld DC. 1999. TopoToolsA collection of topographic mod-
eling tools for ArcInfo.http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/pro
fessional/papers/PAP560/p560.htm.
Huber M. 1994. The digital geo-ecological mapconcepts, GIS-methods
and case studies. Physiogeographica 20: 1144.
Hodgson ME, Gaile G. 1999. A cartographic modeling approach for
surface orientation related applications. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing 65(1): 8595.
Horn BK. 1981. Hillshading and the reectance map. Proceedings of the
IEEE 69(1): 1447.
Jenness J. 2004. Calculating landscape surface areas from digital
elevation models. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3): 829839.
Kravchenko AN. 2003. Inuence of spatial structure on accuracy of
interpolation methods. Soil Sciences Society of America Journal 67:
15641571.
Lane PW. 2002. Generalized linear models in soil science. European
Journal of Soil Science 53: 241251.
Leavesley GH, Stannard LG. 1995. The precipitation-runoff modeling
systemPRMS. In Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology,
Singh VP (ed). Water Resources Publications; 281310.
Lehmann D, Billen N, Lenz R. 1999. Anwendung von Neuronalen
Netzen in der Landschafts okologiesynthetische Bodenkartierung
im GIS. In Anwendung von Neuronalen Netzen in der Land-
schafts okologieSynthetische Bodenkartierung im GISBook, Strobl J,
Blaschke T (eds). Wichmann: Heidelberg; 330336.
Lehmeier F, K othe R. 1992. Geomorphological data as component
of a geoscientic information system. Geologisches Jahrbuch 122:
371380.
Lindstr om G, Gardelin M, Johansson B, Persson M, Bergstr om S. 1996.
HBV-96a distributed hydrological model concept. Contribution to
the Nordic Hydrological Conference in Akureyri, 1315 August 1996,
NHP-Report No. 40, Iceland; 708717.
Lyon SW, Seibert J, Lembo AJ, Walter MT, Steenhuis TS. 2006.
Geostatistical investigation into the temporal evolution of spatial
structure in a shallow water table. Hydrology and Earth SystemSciences
10: 113125.
McBratney AB, Mendon ca Santos ML, Minasny B. 2003. On digital soil
mapping. Geoderma 117: 352.
McKenzie NJ, Austin MP. 1993. A quantitative Australian approach
to medium and small scale surveys based on soil stratigraphy and
environmental correlation. Geoderma 57: 329355.
McKenzie NJ, Ryan PJ. 1999. Spatial prediction of soil properties using
environmental correlation. Geoderma 89(12): 6794.
McGuire KJ, McDonnell JJ, Weiler M, Kendall C, McGlynn BL,
Welker JM, Seibert J. 2005. The role of topography on catchment-
scale water residence time. Water Resources Research 41: W05002.
DOI:10.1029/2004WR003657.
McGuire KJ, McDonnell JJ, Weiler M, Kendall C, McGlynn BL,
Welker JM, Seibert J. 2005. The role of topography on catchment-
scale water residence time. Water Resources Research 41: W05002.
DOI:10.1029/2004WR003657.
McNab HW. 1989. Terrain shape index: quantifying effect of minor
landforms on tree height. Forest Science 35(1): 91104.
Mertens M, Nestler I, Huwe B. 2002. GIS-based regionalization of soil
proles with Classication and Regression Trees (CART). Journal of
Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 165: 3943.
Mitasova H, Mitas L, Brown WM, Gerdes DP, Kosinovsky I, Baker T.
1995. Modeling spatially and temporally distributed phenomena:
new methods and tools for GRASS GIS. International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems 9(4): 433446.
Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielson GA. 1993. Soil attribute prediction using
terrain analysis. Soil Sciences Society of America Journal 57: 443452.
Moore ID, Ladson AR, Grayson R. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a
review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications.
Hydrological Processes 5: 330.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp
THE EXTRAPOLATION OF TRANSECT SOIL DEPTH POINT INFORMATION 3029
Nogami M. 1995. Geomorphometric measures for digital elevation
models. Zeitschrift f ur Geomorphologie, N.F. Suppl. Bd. 101: 5367.
Olofsson B, Fleetwood

A. 1994. Georadarunders okningar i Stubbetorp-
somr adet, Kolm arden. Avd f or mark-och vattenresurser, KTH.
OLoughlin EM. 1986. Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural
catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resources Research 22:
794804.
Odeh IOA, McBratney AB, Chittleborough DJ. 1994. Spatial prediction
of soil properties from landform attributes derived from a digital
elevation model. Geoderma 63(34): 197214.
Odeh IOA, McBratney AB, Chittleborough DJ. 1995. Further results
on prediction of soil properties from terrain attributes: heterotopic
cokriging and regression kriging. Geoderma 673: 215226.
Olaya V. 2004. A Gentle Introduction to SAGA GIS, 11 edn, 216.
Olsson M. 1999. Soil Survey in Sweden. In Soil Resources of Europe,
Bullock P, Jones RJA, Montanarella L (eds). European Soil Bureau
Research Report No.6, EUR 18991 EN. Ofce for Ofcial Publications
of the European Communities: Luxembourg; 202.
Park SJ, van de Giesen N. 2004. Soil-landscape delineation to dene
spatial sampling domains for hillslope hydrology. Journal of Hydrology
295: 2846.
Persson C. 1982. Beskrivning till jordartskartan Katrineholm SO, Serie
Ae, Nr 46. SGU (description of the soil map Katrineholm SO, in
Swedish).
Pettersson O. 1995. Vattenbalans f or f altforskningsomr aden. SMHI
Hydrologi, No 59. SMHI; 21 (Water balance for eld research areas,
in Swedish).
Quinn T, Zhu AX, Burt JE. 2005. Effects of detailed soil spatial informa-
tion on watershed modeling across different model scales. International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 7: 324338.
Ryan PJ, McKenzie NJ, OConnell D, Loughhead AN, Leppert PM,
Jacquier D, Ashton L. 2000. Integrating forest soils information across
scales: spatial prediction of soil properties under Australian forests.
Forest Ecology and Management 138: 139157.
Saco PM, Willgoose GR, Hancock GR. 2006. Spatial organization of
soil depths using a landform evolution model. Journal of Geophysical
Research 111: 14, F02016. DOI:10.1029/2005JF000351.
Shary PA, Sharaya LS, Mitusov AV. 2002. Fundamental quantitative
methods of land surface analysis. Geoderma 107: 135.
Sinowski W, Auerswald K. 1999. Using relief parameters in a
discriminant analysis to stratify geological areas with different spatial
variability of soil properties. Geoderma 89(12): 113128.
Skidmore AK, Watford F, Luckananurug P, Ryan PJ. 1996. An opera-
tional GIS expert system to map forest soils. Photogrammetric Engi-
neering and Remote Sensing 62: 501511.
Sommer M, Schlichting E. 1997. Archetypes of catenas in respect to
matter a concept for structuring and grouping catenas. Geoderma 76:
133.
Stieglitz M, Shaman J, McNamara J, Engel V, Shanley J, Kling GW.
2003. An approach to understanding hydrologic connectivity on
the hillslope and implications for nutrient transport. Global
Biogeochemical Cycles 17(4): 1105. DOI:10.1029/2003GB002041.
Tarboton DG. 1997. A new method for the determination of ow
directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water
Resources Research 33(2): 309319.
Tromp-van Meerveld HJ, McDonnell JJ. 2006a. Threshold relations in
subsurface stormow: 1. A 147-storm analysis of the Panola hillslope.
Water Resources Research 42: W02410.
Tromp-van Meerveld HJ, McDonnell JJ. 2006b. On the interrelations
between topography, soil depth, soil moisture, transpiration rates and
species distribution at the hillslope scale. Advances in Water Resources
29: 293310.
Wigmosta MS, Vail L, Lettenmaier DP. 1994. A distributed hydrology-
vegetation model for complex terrain. Water Resources Research 30:
16651679.
Wikstr om A. 1979. Beskrivning till berggrundskartan Katrineholm SO,
Serie Af, Nr 123. SGU (Description of the geological map,
Katrineholm SO, in Swedish).
Wolpert D. 1990. The relationship between Occams razor and
convergent guessing. Complex Systems 4: 319368.
Wood J. 1996. The Geomorphological Characterisation of Digital
Elevation Models. PhD Thesis. Department of Geography, University
of Leicester.
Zevenbergen LW, Thorne CR. 1987. Quantitative analysis of land surface
topography. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 12(1): 4756.
Zhu AX. 2000. Mapping soil landscape as spatial continua: the neural
network approach. Water Resources Research 36: 663677.
Copyright 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 23, 30173029 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/hyp

Anda mungkin juga menyukai