r1 MacMillan CLRN2012

History and Evolution of Digital
(Predictive) Soil Mapping
R. A. MacMillan
LandMapper Environmental Solutions Inc.
Outline
Unifying DSM Framework: Universal Model of Variation
Z(s) = Z*(s) + (s) +
Past: Early History of Development of DSM (pre 2003)

Theory, Concepts, Models, Software, Inputs, Developments
Examples of early methods and outputs
Key Recent Developments in DSM post 2003

Theory, Concepts, Models, Software, Inputs, Developments
Examples of recent methods and outputs
Future Trends: How do I See DSM Developing?

Theory, Concepts, Inputs, Models, Software, Developments
From Static Maps to Dynamic Real-Time Models
Discussion and Conclusions

Constraints and pitfalls to be avoided, technical/political
Introduction
Universal Model of Soil Variation

A Unifying Framework for DSM
Source: Burrough, 1986 eq. 8.14
Universal Model of Soil Variation

A Unifying Framework for Digital Soil Mapping
Z(s) = Z*(s) + (s) +

Predicted soil type or
soil property value
Deterministic part of
the predictive model
Stochastic part of the

predictive model
Pure Noise part of

Predicted spatial
pattern of some soil
property or class
including uncertainty
of the estimate
part of the variation

that is predictable by
means of some
statistical or heuristic
soil-landscape model

that shows spatial
structure, can be
modelled with a
variogram

that cant be predicted
at the current scale
with the available
data and models
Deterministic Part of Prediction Model:

Z*(s)
Conceptual Models
EOR Series
DYD Series
KLM Series
FMN Series
COR Series
15
Conceptual or mental soil-40

landscape models
60
Produce area-class maps
Statistical Models
Scorpan relate soils/soil
properties to covariates
Explain spatial distribution
of soils in terms of known
soil forming factors as
represented by covariates
In d ivid u a l sa lin ity h a za rd ra tin g s

for ea ch la ye r
10 0 x 10 0 m g rid
La ye r w e igh ting s
La nd sca pe
cu rva ture
2 x
Veg eta tion
1 x
R a infa ll
2 x
G e olo gy
1 x
S oils
3 x
La nd su rfa ce
To tal salin ity

ha za rd ra ting
S alin ity h az ard

m ap
Stochastic Part of Prediction Model:

(s)
Geostatistical Estimation
Predict soil properties
Point or block kriging
Predict soil classes

Indicator kriging
Predict error of estimate
Correct Deterministic Part

Error in deterministic part
is computed (residuals)
If structure exists in error
then krige error & subtract
Pure Noise Part of Prediction Model:

(s)
Some Variation not Predictable
Have to be honest about this
Should quantify and report it
Deterministic Prediction
Mental and Statistical Models
Not perfect often lack suitable
covariates to predict target variable
Lack covariates at finer resolution
Geostatistical Prediction
Insufficient point input data
Cant predict at less than the
smallest spacing of input point data
Range
Sill
Semi
Variance
Nugget
d1
d2
d3
Lag (distance)
d4
Past
Early History of DSM Development

(pre 2003)
On Digital Soil Mapping
McBratney et al., 2003
Early History of Development of DSM
Deterministic
Stochastic
Soil Classes
Soil Classes
Soil
Properties
Soil
Properties
Past Theory: Deterministic Component

Z*(s) Classed Conceptual Models
Jenny (1941)
CLORPT (Note no N=space)
Simonson (1959)
Process Model of additions,
removals, translocations,
transformations
Ruhe (1975)
Erosional -Depositional
surfaces, open/closed basins
Dalrymple et al., (1968)

Nine unit hill slope model
Milne (1936a, 1936b)

Catena concept, toposequences
Past Concepts: Deterministic Component

Z*(s) Classed Conceptual Models
Soil = f (C, O, R, P, T, )
Climate
Topography
Organisms
Parent
Material
Soil
Time
Source: Lin, 2005 Frontiers in Soil Science

http://www7.nationalacademies.org/soilfrontiers/
http://solim.geography.wisc.edu/index.htm
Past Models: Deterministic Component

Z*(s) Classed Statistical Predictions
Fuzzy Inference
Zhu, 1997, Zhu et al., 1996
MacMillan et al., 2000, 2005
Neural Networks
Zhu, 2000
Expert Knowledge (Bayesian)

Skidmore et al., 1991
Cook et al., 1996, Corner et al., 1997
In d ivid u a l sa lin ity h a za rd ra tin g s

for ea ch la ye r
10 0 x 10 0 m g rid
La ye r w e igh ting s
La nd sca pe
cu rva ture
2 x
Veg eta tion
1 x
R a infa ll
2 x
G e olo gy
1 x
S oils
3 x
La nd su rfa ce
Regression Trees
Moran and Bui, 2002, Bui and
Moran, 2003
To tal salin ity

ha za rd ra ting
S alin ity h az ard

m ap
Source: Jones et al., 2000
Past Software: Deterministic Component

Regression Trees
CUBIST
Rulequest Research , 2000
CART
Breiman et al., 1984
C4.5 & See5

Quinlin, 1992
JMP (SAS)
http://www.jmp.com/
R
http://www.r-project.org/
Fuzzy Logic
SoLIM
Zhu et al., 1996, 1997
LandMapR, FuzME
Bayesian Logic
Prospector
Duda et al., 1978
Expector
Netica
Norsys.com/netica
Past Inputs: Deterministic Component

C = Climate
Temp, Ppt, ET, Solar Rad
Mean, min, max, variance
Annual, monthly, indices
O = Organisms
Manual Maps
Land Use
Vegetation
Remotely Sensed Imagery

Classified RS imagery
NDVI, EVI, other ratios
R = Relief (topography)
Primary Attributes
Slope, aspect, curvatures
Slope Position, roughness
Secondary Attributes
CTI, WI, SPI, STC
P = Parent Material
Published geology maps
Gamma radiometrics
Thermal IR, RS Ratios
A = Age

Common Topo Inputs
Profile Curvature
Plan (Contour) Curvature
Slope Gradient (& Aspect)
CTI or Wetness Index
Profile Curvature
Plan Curvature
Slope Gradient
Wetness Index
Pit 2 Peak Relief
Divide 2 Channel
Sometimes, not always
Less Common Topo Inputs

Surface Roughness
Relief within a window
Relief relative to drainage
Pit, peak, Ridge, channel,
Source: MacMillan, 2005
Past Inputs: Non-DEM Airborne

Radiometrics
Radiometrics 4 Subsurface Infer Parent Material
Source: Mayr, 2005
Past Inputs: Non-DEM Satellite Imagery

Grassland Land Cover Types
Alpine Land Cover Types

Z*(s)
Examples of Predictions of Soil Class
Maps
Approaches to Producing Predictive AreaClass Maps
Knowledge-Based Classification In SoLIM
Source: Zhu, SoLIM Handbook
Knowledge-Based Classification Using

Boolean Decision Tree in USA
Component Soils
Gilpin
Pineville
Laidig
Guyandotte
Dekalb
Craigsville
Meckesville
Cateache
Shouns
Source: Thompson et al., 2010 WCSS
Knowledge-Based Classification In LandMapR
Source: Steen and Coup, 1997
Knowledge-Based Classification In Utah,

Knowledge-Based PURC Approach
Note: Not simple slope

elements but complex patterns
Source: Cole and Boettinger, 2004
Source: Zhou et al., 2004,

JZUS
Supervised Classification Using Regression Trees

Note similarity of supervised rules
and classes to typical soil-landform
conceptual classes
Note numeric estimate of
likelihood of occurrence of classes
Supervised Classification Using Bayesian

Analysis of Evidence/Classification Trees
Source: Zhou et al., 2004,

JZUS
Predicting Area-Class Soil Maps Using

Discriminant Analysis
Source: Scull et al., 2005, Ecological Modelling

Regression Trees
Extrapolation
Uncertainty of prediction
Bui and Moran (2003)
Geoderma 111:21-44
Source: Bui and Moran., 2003
Supervised Classification Using Fuzzy Logic

Shi et al., 2004
Fuzzy likelihood of being a broad ridge
Used multiple cases of reference

sites
Each site was used to establish
fuzzy similarity of unclassified
locations to reference sites
Used Fuzzy-minimum function to
compute fuzzy similarity
Harden class using largest (Fuzzymaximum) value
Considered distance to each
reference site in computing
Fuzzy-similarity
Source: Shi et al., 2004
Credit: J. Balkovi & G. emanov
Concept of Fuzzy K-means Clustering
Source: Sobock et al., 2003
Example of Application of Fuzzy K-means

Unsupervised Classification
From: Burrough et al.,

2001, Landscsape
Ecology
Note similarity of unsupervised
classes to conceptual classes
Example of Application of Disaggregation of

a Soil Map by Clustering into Components
Source: Faine, 2001
Developments: Deterministic Component

Z*(s) Classed Predictive Maps in Past
Characteristics of Models Characteristics of Models
Models largely ignored
Seldom estimate error
Rarely correct for error
Mainly use DEM inputs
Initially 3x3 windows

Slope, aspect, curvatures
Maybe wetness index
Later improvements were
measures of slope position
Rarely use ancillary data

Exceptions Bui, Skull, Zhu
Operate at single scale
Many use expert knowledge

Data mining is the exception
Training data seldom used
Specialty software prevails

Software for DEM analysis
SoLIM, TAPESG, TOPAZ,
TOPOG, TAS, LandMapR,
SAGA, ISRISI, 3dMapper
Software for extracting rules

Expector, Netica, CART,
See 5, Cubist, Prospector
Software for applying rules

ESRI, SoLIM, SIE, SAGA

Z*(s) for Continuous Soil Properties
Approaches Aimed at Predicting
Continuous Soil Properties
Past Concepts: Deterministic Component

Z*(s) Continuous Soil Properties
Same Theory-Concepts
as for Classed Maps
Soil = f (C, O, R, P, T, )
Except theory applied to

individual soil properties
Initially referred to as
environmental correlation
Soil properties related to
Landscape attributes
Climate variables
Geology, lithology, soil pm
Key Papers
Moore et al., 1993
Linear regression
McSweeney et al., 1994

McKenzie & Austin, 1993
Gessler at al, 1995
GLMs in S-Plus
McKenzie & Ryan, 1999

Regression Trees

Z*(s) Continuous Soil Properties
Regression Trees
McKenzie & Ryan, 1998, Odeh et
al., 1994
Fuzzy Logic-Neural Networks

Zhu, 1997
Bayesian Expert Knowledge

Cook et al., 1996, Corner et al., 1997
GLMs General Linear Models

McKenzie & Austin, 1993
Gessler et al., 1995
Source: McKenzie and Ryan, 1998

Similar to Classed Maps But:
Many innovations originated
with continuous modelers
Increased use of non-DEM
attributes
climate, radiometrics, imagery
Improved DEM derivatives

Wetness Index & CTI
Upslope means for slope, etc.
Inverted DEMs to compute
Down slope dispersal
Down slope means
New slope position data

Examples of Predictions of Soil
Property Maps

Z*(s) Continuous Maps
Aandahl, 1948 (Note Date!)
Regression model
Predicted
Average Nitrogen (3-24 inch)
Total Nitrogen by depth
Total Organic Carbon by
depth interval
Depth of profile to loess
Predictor (covariate)
Slope position as expressed by
length of slope from shoulder
Lost in the depths of time

Source: Aandahl, 1948

Moore et al., 1993
Seminal paper
Focus on topography
Small sites
Other covariates were
assumed constant
Got people thinking

About quantifying
environmental
correlation, especially
soil-topography
relationships
Source: Moore et al, 1993

McKenzie & Ryan, 1998
Regression Tree: Soil Depth

Gessler et al., 1995
GLMs
Largely based
Topo
CTI
Others held
Steady
Source: Gessler, 2005
Credit: Minasny & McBratney

Regression tree
2.17
160.1
Text: C
Text: S,LS,L,CL,LiC
1.18
2.84
54.61
27.45
BD<1.43 BD>1.43
Clay<46.5 Clay>46.5
0.64
15.65
2.21
13.00
2.97
14.59
BD<1.42
Source: Minasny and McBratney
3.37
1.83
2.04
5.50
BD>1.42
2.81
8.90
Developments: Deterministic Component

Z*(s) Predictive Maps up to 2003
Main Developments
Better DEM derivatives
More and better measures of
landform position or
context (Qin et al., 2012)
Some recognition of scale
and resolution effects
Different window sizes
Different grid resolutions
More non-DEM inputs

Increased use of imagery
New surrogates for PM
Main Developments
Integration of single models
into multi-purpose software
ArcGIS, ArcSIE, ArcView
SAGA, Whitebox, IDRISI
Improved processing ability

Bigger files, faster processing
Emergence of 2 main scales

Hillslope elements (series)
Quite similar across models
Landscape patterns (domains)

Similar to associations
Early History of Development of DSM
Deterministic
Stochastic
Soil Classes
Soil Classes
Soil
Properties
Soil
Properties
Past Theory: Stochastic Component

(s)
Waldo Tobler (1970)
First law of geography
Everything is related to
everything else, but near things
are more related than distant
things
Matheron (1971)
Theory of regionalized variables
Webster and Cuanalo (1975)

clay, silt, pH, CaCO3, colour
value, and stoniness on transect
Burgess and Webster (1980 ab)

Soil Property maps by kriging
Universal kriging (drift) of EC
Source: Oliver, 1989
Past Models: Stochastic Component

(s)
Universal Model of Variation
Matheron (1971)
Burgess and Webster (1980 ab)

Webster and Burrough (1980)
Burrough (1986)
Webster and McBratney (1987)
Oliver (1989)
Past Models: Stochastic Component

(s) Optimal Interpolation by Kriging
Irregular spatial distribution
(of observed point values)
6
Compute semi-variance
at different lag distances
7
7
8
7
x
Collect point sample observations
Estimate values and error

at fixed grid locations
Fit Semi-variogram to lag data
6.1
5.7
5.3
5.8
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.2
7.6
7.0
6.0
5.7
7.2
7.0
6.2
5.5
Past Software: Stochastic Component

(s)
Earlier Stand Alone
Later More Integrated
Pc-Geostat (PC-Raster)
Early version of GSTAT
VESPER
Variogram estimation and
spatial prediction with error
Minasny et al., 2005
http://sydney.edu.au/agricultu
re/pal/software/vesper
GEOEASE (DOS, 1991)

http://www.epa.gov/ada/csm
os/models/geoeas.html
GSTAT
Pebesma and Wesseling, 1998
Incorporated into ISRISI
Now incorporated into R and
S-Plus packages
Pebesma, 2004
http://www.gstat.org/index.ht
ml
ArcGIS
Geostatistical Analyst
SGeMS (Stanford Univ)

http://sgems.sourceforge.net/
Past Inputs: Stochastic Component (s)

Essentially Just x,y,z Values at Point Locations
1. Start with set of soil
property values
irregularly distributed in
x,y Cartesian space
3. Locate the n soil
property data points

within a search window
around the current grid
cell for which a value is
to be calculated
2. Locate the regularly

spaced grid nodes where
predicted soil property
values are to be
calculated
4. Compute a new value

for each location as the
weighted average of n
neighbor elevations with
weights established by
the semi-variogram
Past Models: Stochastic Component (s)

for Continuous Soil Properties
Examples of Predictions of Soil
Property Maps by Kriging
Continuous Soil Property Maps by

Kriging
19
LAG (1 LAG = 30 M)
17
15
13
11
Sand, Silt, Clay,

pH, OC, EC, others
3 depths (0-15, 15-50, 50-100)
Sampled soils on a 50 m grid
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Lacombe Research Station
SEMI-VARIOGRAM FOR A-HORIZON %SAND

SEMI-VARIANCE
Very Early Alberta Example
Used custom written software

Compute variograms
Interpolate using the variograms
Only visualised as contour maps

Only got 3D drapes in 1988
Used PC-Raster to drape
Saw strong soil-landscape pattern
Source: MacMillan, 1985 unpublished
LACOMBE SITE: A HORIZON %SAND (1985)

Kriging
Source: http://sydney.edu.au/agriculture/pal/software/vesper.shtml

Kriging
Yasribi et al., 2009
Simple ordinary kriging
of soil properties (OK)
No co-kriging
No regression prediction
Relies on presence of
Sufficient point samples
Spatial structure over
distances longer then the
smallest sampling
interval
Source: Yasribi et al., 2009

Kriging
Shi, 2009
Comparison of pH by
four different methods
a) HASM
b) Kriging
c) IWD
d) Splines
Source: Yasribi et al., 2009
Developments: Stochastic Component

(s) Predictive Maps up to 2003
Main Developments
Theory
Becomes better understood
and accepted
Concepts
Regression-kriging evolves
to include a separate part for
regression prediction
Models
Understanding and use of
universal model grows
Directional, local variograms
Main Developments
Software
From stand alone and single
purpose to integrated software
Improvements in
Visualization
Capacity to process large
data sets
Automated variogram fitting
Ease of use
Inputs
Developments in sampling
designs and sampling theory
Present and Recent Past
Key Developments in DSM Since 2003

(2003-2012)
On Digital Soil Mapping
Developments in DSM Since 2003

Increasing Convergence and Interplay
Deterministic
Stochastic
Soil Classes
Soil Classes
Soil
Properties
Soil
Properties
Scorpan (McBratney et al., 2003) elaborates and popularizes universal model of variation
Theory: Key Developments Since 2003

Deterministic Part
Pretty much unchanged
Still based on attempting to
elucidate quantitative
relationships between soils
& environmental covariates
But
Scorpan elaboration
highlights importance of
the spatial component (n)
and of spatially correlated
error (s)
Stochastic Part
Same underlying theory
Still based on theory of
regionalized variables
But
Increasing realization that
the structural part of
variation (non-stationary
mean or drift) can be better
modelled by a deterministic
function than by purely
spatial calculations
Concepts: Key Developments Since 2003

Deterministic Part
Scorpan Model
Explicitly recognizes soil data
(s) as a potential input to
predict other soil data
Factors as predictors
Factors explicitly seen as
quantitative predictors in
prediction function
Soil inputs can include soil

maps, point observations,
even expert knowledge
Explicitly recognizes space

(n) or location as a factor in
predicting soil data
Space as in x,y location
Space as in context, kriging
Scorpan (McBratney et al., 2003) elaborates and popularizes universal model of variation
Concepts: Key Developments Since 2003

Stochastic Part
Emergence of Regression
Kriging (RK)
Key difference to ordinary
kriging is that it is no longer
assumed that the mean of a
variable is constant
Local variation or drift can
be modelled by some
deterministic function
Local regression lowers
error, improves predictions
Local regression function
can even be a soil map
Source: Heuvelink, personal communication
Models: Key Developments Since 2003

Deterministic Part
Deterministic Part
Improvements in Data
Mining and Knowledge
Extraction
Supervised Classification
Training data obtained
from both points and maps
Sample maps at points
Ensemble or multiple
realization models (100 x)
Boosting, bagging
Random Forests
ANN, Regression tree
Improvements in Data
Mining and Knowledge
Extraction
Expert Knowledge Extraction
Bayesian Analysis of Evidence

Prototype Category Theory
Fuzzy Neural Networks
Tools for Manual Extraction
of Fuzzy Expert Knowledge
ArcSIE, SoLIM
Unsupervised classification
Fuzzy k-means, c-means
Models: Key Developments Since 2003

Stochastic Part
Regression Kriging
Recognized as equivalent to
universal kriging or kriging
with external drift
Use of external knowledge
and maps made easier
Incorporation of soft data
Made more accessible

through implementation in
commercial (ESRI) and
open source software (R)
Stochastic Part
Regression Kriging
Odeh et al., 1995
Hengl et al., 2004, 2007,
2003
Heuvelink, 2006
Hengl how to books
http://spatialanalyst.net/book/
http://www.itc.nl/library
/Papers_2003/misca/hen
gl_comparison.pdf
Software: Key Developments Since 2003

Commercial Software
JMP (SAS) (McBratney)
http://www.jmp.com/
S-Plus, Matlab,
Used by soil researchers
See5, CUBIST, CART

Regression Trees
Netica (Bayesian)
Norsys.com/netica
Improvements
Better visualization
Better interfaces
Non-commercial Software
Fuzzy Logic
SoLIM Zhu et al., 1996, 1997
ArcSIE Shi, FuzME
Bayesian Logic
Full Range of Options
R
http://www.r-project.org
Regression Kriging
Random Forests
Regression Trees
GLMs
GSTAT (in R)
Source: Schmidt and Andrew., 2005
Inputs: Key Developments Since 2003

Terrain Attributes
More and better measures
Primarily contextual and
related to landform position
Real advances related to

Multi-scale analysis
varying window size and
grid resolution
Window-based and flowbased hill slope context

Systematic examination of
relationships of properties
and processes to scale
Source: Smith et al., 2006

Terrain Attributes
Multi-scale analysis
Varying window size and
grid resolution
Identifies that some
variables are more useful
when computer over larger
windows or coarser grids
Finer resolution grids not
always needed or better
Drop off in predictive
power of DEMs after
about 30-50 m grid
resolution
Source: Deng et al., 2007
MrVBF: Multi-scale DEM Analysis

Smooth and subsample
Original: 25 m
Flatness
Bottomness
Valley Bottom
Flatness
Source: Gallant, 2012
Generalised 675 m
Generalised: 75 m
Flatness
Bottomness
Valley Bottom
Flatness
Multiple Resolution Landform Position

MrVBF Example Outputs
Broader Scale 9 DEM
MRVBF for 25 m DEM
Source: Gallant, 2012
Developments: Improved Measures of

Landform Position
SAGA-RHSP: relative
SAGA-ABC: altitude
hydrologic slope position above channel
Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished

Calculation based on: MacMillan, 2005
Source: C. Bulmer, unpublished

Landform Position
TOPHAT Schmidt
and Hewitt (2004)
Source: Schmidt & Hewitt, (2004)
Slope Position Hatfield

(1996)
Source: Hatfield (1996)

Landform Position - Scilands
Source: Rdiger Kthe , 2012
Measures of Relative Slope Length (L)

Computed by LandMapR
Percent L Pit to Peak
Percent L Channel to Divide
MEASURE OF REGIONAL CONTEXT
MEASURE OF LOCAL CONTEXT
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Measures of Relative Slope Position

Computed by LandMapR
Percent Diffuse Upslope Area Percent Z Channel to Divide
SENSITIVE TO HOLLOWS & DRAWS
RELATIVE TO MAIN STREAM CHANNELS
Image Data Copyright the Province of British Columbia, 2003
Developments: Improved Classification of

Landform Patterns Iwahashi & Pike (2006)
Iwahashi landform underlying 1:650k soil map
Terrain Series
Terrain Classes
Fine texture,
High convexity
Fine texture,
Low convexity
Coarse texture,
High convexity
Coarse texture,
Low convexity
steep
13
11
15
10
14
12
16
gentle
Source: Reuter, H.I. (unpublished)

Non-Terrain Attributes
Systematic analysis of
environmental covariates
Detect distances and scales
over which each covariate
exhibits a strong relationship
with a soil or property to be
predicted or just with itself
Vary window sizes and grid
resolutions and compute
regressions on derivatives
analyse range of variation
inherent to each covariate
Functional relationships
are dependent on scale
Source: Park, 2004

Non-Terrain Attributes
Systematic analysis of scale of
environmental covariates
Select and use input covariates
at the most appropriate scale
Explicitly recognize the
hierarchical nature of
environmental controls on
soils
Select variables at the scales,
resolutions or window sizes
with the strongest predictive
power for each property or
class to be predicted.
Source: Park, 2004

Harmonization of soil profile depth data through spline fitting
Source: David Jacquier, 2010

From discrete soil classes to continuous soil properties
Clearfield soil series

Wapello County, Iowa
Mukey: 411784
Musym: 230C
Modal
profile
Fit masspreserving
spline
Source: Sun et al., (2010)
Harmonization of soil profile

data through spline fitting
Fitted
Spline
Estimate
averages for
spline at
standardised
depth
ranges, e.g.,
globalsoilmap
depth ranges
Spline
averages
at
specified
depth
ranges
Source: Hempel et al., 2011
Outputs: Key Developments Since 2003

From Classes to Properties
Non-disaggregated soil maps
Weighted averages by polygon
by soil property and depth
Calling version 0.5
Disaggregated Soil Class Maps

Estimate soil property values at
every grid cell location & depth
Based on weighted likelihood
value of occurrence of each of
n soils times property value for
that soil at that depth
Likelihood value can come
from various methods
Source: Sun et al, 2010
Outputs: Key Developments Since 2003

From Classes to Properties
Disaggregated Soil Class Maps
Estimate soil property values at
every grid cell location
Source: Zhu et al., 1997
Recent Models
Recent Examples of Predictions of

Soil Class Maps
Predicting Area-Class Soil Maps

Clovis Grinand, Dominique
Arrouays,Bertrand Laroche, and Manuel
Pascal Martin. Extrapolating regional soil
landscapes from an existing soil map:
Sampling intensity, validation procedures, and
integration of spatial context. Geoderma 143,
180-190
Source: Grinand et al., 2008
Recent Knowledge-Based Classification In

Africa, Multi-scale, Hierarchical Landforms
Elevation + Slope + UPA + Catena
( 2 km support)
SOTER Soil and landforms

(1:1 million 1.5 million
Source: Park et al, 2004
Digital Soil Mapping

in England & Wales
using Legacy Data
DEM
TOPAZ
TAPES-G
Predicted
soil series
LandMapR
TRAINING DATA
MODELLING
(NETICA)
OUTPUTS
Point Data
Detailed soil maps
Covariates
Accuracy
assessment
Expert
knowledge
Source: Mayr, 2010

Multiple Regression Trees (100 x)
Prepare a database and tables of mapping units & soil
series, and covariates
Select 1/n of the points systematically (n=100)

Repeat n
times
Sample soil series randomly from the multinomial

distribution of mapping unit composites
Used See 5, (RuleQuest

Research, 2009
Construct decision tree

Predict soil series at all pixels
Calculate the soil series statistics based on the n

predictions for each pixel
Calculate the probability for each soil series
Generate soil series maps
Source: Sun et al., 2010

Multiple Regression Trees (100 x)
A closer look at the junction point in the middle of 4 combined maps,
(a) the original map units, and
(b) the most likely soil series map and its associated probability.
The length of the image is approximately 14 km.
Legend
(a)
monr_comppct
Value
High : 100
Low : 7
(b)
Source: Sun et al., 2010
Recent Models
Recent Examples of Predictions of

Continuous Soil Property Maps
Source: Hengl et al., 2004

Kriging & RK
Hengl et al., 2004
Comparison of topsoil
thickness by four
different methods
a) Point locations
b) Soil Map only
c) Ordinary Kriging
d) Plain Regression
e) Regression-kriging
Evidence supports RK
Source: Minasny et al., 2010
Recent Example: Regression-Kriging

(scorpan + )
300 soil point data
Assemble
field data

(scorpan + )
Assemble covariates for


(scorpan + )
Perform regression to
build a predictive model
Linear Model
OC = f(x) + e
Predictors
Elevation
Aspect
Landsat band 6
NDVI
Land-use
Soil-Landscape
Unit

scorpan + )
Predict both
property value
and standard
error over the
entire area

(scorpan + )
Fit a variogram to the
residuals

scorpan + )
Krige the residuals

scorpan + )
Linear Model
Residuals
Add interpolated
residuals to the
prediction from
regression
Final Prediction

(scorpan + )
Add regression variance

and kriging variance to
get total variance
(Std.err. of
regression)2
(Std. err. of
kriging)2
(Total
Variance)1/2
C predicted for
sampled locations
Residuals
C=
Regression
model
100-1.2EC-5.2REF-0.6REF2-2.1EL
C predicted for
all grid locations
Mg C/ha
95
85
75
65
55
Kriging
45
35
25
15
Final C map
Mean
Min
Max
CV%
RMSE
RI (%)
64.0
27.0
87.9
18.4
9.8
19.7
Source: Mayr et al., 2010

Hybrid Bayesian Analysis
Future Trends
Personal View of Likely Future DSM

Development
(Post 2012)
Possibility to move from single snapshot mapping of static

soil properties to continuous update and improvement of
maps of both static and dynamic properties within a
structured and consistent framework.
Source: Heuvelink et al., 2004
The Future: Lets Go Back and Talk About

the Universal Model of Variation Again
Z(s) = Z*(s) + (s) +
Lots of things
qualify as regression!
Deterministic part of
Regression just
means minimizing
variance
Stochastic part of the

predictive model
What is all this talk
about optimization?
Source: Zhu et al., 2010
The Future: Maybe Progress Towards True

Regression will be Stepwise
Z(s) = Z*(s) + (s) +
Lots of things
qualify as regression!
Regression depends on
having enough point data
The Future: A Conceptual Framework for

GSIF A Global Soil Information Facility
Collaborative and
open production,
assembly and sharing
of covariate data
(World Grids)
Collaborative and
open collection,
input and sharing of
geo-registered field
evidence
(Open Soil Profiles)
Collaborative and
open and modelling
on an inter-active,
web-based serverside platform
Everything is
accessible,
transparent and
repeatable
Maps we can all contribute to, access, use, modify and

update, continuously and transparently
The Future: Functionality for GSIF A

Global Soil Information Facility
Possibility of making
use of existing
legacy soil maps
(even new soil maps)
needed for soil
prediction anywhere
Possibility to
develop and use
global models (even
for local mapping)
Possibility to assess
error and correct for
it everywhere
Possibility of
rescuing, sharing,
harmonizing and
archiving soil
profile point data
needed for soil
prediction anywhere
Possibility to
develop and use
multi-scale and
multi-resolution
hierarchical models
The Future: Conceptual Framework for

GSIF Open Soil Profiles

GSIF World Grids

GSIF World Grids
The Future: Collaborative Global, MultiScale Mapping through GSIF
Possibility for combining

Top-Down and Bottom-up
mapping through weighted
averaging of 2 or more sets
of predictions
)
Possibility to
develop and use
global models (even
for local mapping)
The Future: Global, Multi-Scale Modeling

of Soil Properties through GSIF
Possibility to
develop and use
multi-scale and
multi-resolution
hierarchical models
Possibility to
develop and use
global models (even
for local mapping)
The Future: Global, Multi-Scale Modeling

of Soil Properties through GSIF
Global Models
inform and
improve local
mapping

Anyone can
access and
display the
maps

With Google
Earth everyone
has a GIS to
view free soil
maps and data
Slide credit: Tom Hengl,

2011
The Future: Collaborative Global, MultiScale Mapping through GSIF

A Global
Collaboratory!
Working together
we can map the
world one tile at a
time!
The next generation

of soil surveyors is
everyone!

r1 MacMillan CLRN2012

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

r1 MacMillan CLRN2012

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

History and Evolution of Digital

(Predictive) Soil Mapping

Past: Early History of Development of DSM (pre 2003)

Key Recent Developments in DSM post 2003

Future Trends: How do I See DSM Developing?

Discussion and Conclusions

Universal Model of Soil Variation

Source: Burrough, 1986 eq. 8.14

Universal Model of Soil Variation

Z(s) = Z*(s) + (s) +

Stochastic part of the

Pure Noise part of

part of the variation

part of the variation

part of the variation

Deterministic Part of Prediction Model:

Conceptual or mental soil-40

In d ivid u a l sa lin ity h a za rd ra tin g s

To tal salin ity

S alin ity h az ard

Stochastic Part of Prediction Model:

Predict soil classes

Predict error of estimate

Correct Deterministic Part

Pure Noise Part of Prediction Model:

Early History of DSM Development

Early History of Development of DSM

Past Theory: Deterministic Component

Dalrymple et al., (1968)

Milne (1936a, 1936b)

Past Concepts: Deterministic Component

Source: Lin, 2005 Frontiers in Soil Science

Past Models: Deterministic Component

Expert Knowledge (Bayesian)

In d ivid u a l sa lin ity h a za rd ra tin g s

To tal salin ity

S alin ity h az ard

Source: Jones et al., 2000

Past Software: Deterministic Component

C4.5 & See5

Past Inputs: Deterministic Component

Remotely Sensed Imagery

Past Inputs: Deterministic Component

Pit 2 Peak Relief

Sometimes, not always

Less Common Topo Inputs

Past Inputs: Non-DEM Airborne

Source: Mayr, 2005

Past Inputs: Non-DEM Satellite Imagery

Alpine Land Cover Types

Past Models: Deterministic Component

Approaches to Producing Predictive AreaClass Maps

Knowledge-Based Classification In SoLIM

Source: Zhu, SoLIM Handbook

Knowledge-Based Classification Using

Source: Thompson et al., 2010 WCSS

Knowledge-Based Classification In LandMapR

Source: Steen and Coup, 1997

Source: MacMillan, 2005

Knowledge-Based Classification In Utah,

Note: Not simple slope

Source: Cole and Boettinger, 2004

Approaches to Producing Predictive AreaClass Maps

Source: Zhou et al., 2004,