Maria Eliza Turek , Laura Poggio , Niels H. Batjes , Robson André Armindo , Quirijn de Jong van Lier , Luis de Sousa , Gerard B.M. Heuvelink
{"title":"100、330和15时体积保水率的全球绘图 000 cm吸力,使用WoSIS数据库","authors":"Maria Eliza Turek , Laura Poggio , Niels H. Batjes , Robson André Armindo , Quirijn de Jong van Lier , Luis de Sousa , Gerard B.M. Heuvelink","doi":"10.1016/j.iswcr.2022.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Present global maps of soil water retention (SWR) are mostly derived from pedotransfer functions (PTFs) applied to maps of other basic soil properties. As an alternative, ‘point-based’ mapping of soil water content can improve global soil data availability and quality. We developed point-based global maps with estimated uncertainty of the volumetric SWR at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm suction using measured SWR data extracted from the WoSIS Soil Profile Database together with data estimated by a random forest PTF (PTF-RF). The point data was combined with around 200 environmental covariates describing vegetation, terrain morphology, climate, geology, and hydrology using DSM. In total, we used 7292, 33 192 and 42 016 SWR point observations at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm, respectively, and complemented the dataset with 436 108 estimated values at each suction. Tenfold cross-validation yielded a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 6.380, 7.112 and 6.485 10<sup>−2</sup>cm<sup>3</sup>cm<sup>−3</sup>, and a Model Efficiency Coefficient (MEC) of 0.430, 0.386, and 0.471, respectively, for 100, 330 and 15 000 cm. The results were also compared to three published global maps of SWR to evaluate differences between point-based and map-based mapping approaches. Point-based mapping performed better than the three map-based mapping approaches for 330 and 15 000 cm, while for 100 cm results were similar, possibly due to the limited number of SWR observations for 100 cm. Major sources or uncertainty identified included the geographical clustering of the data and the limitation of the covariates to represent the naturally high variation of SWR.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48622,"journal":{"name":"International Soil and Water Conservation Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global mapping of volumetric water retention at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm suction using the WoSIS database\",\"authors\":\"Maria Eliza Turek , Laura Poggio , Niels H. Batjes , Robson André Armindo , Quirijn de Jong van Lier , Luis de Sousa , Gerard B.M. Heuvelink\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.iswcr.2022.08.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Present global maps of soil water retention (SWR) are mostly derived from pedotransfer functions (PTFs) applied to maps of other basic soil properties. As an alternative, ‘point-based’ mapping of soil water content can improve global soil data availability and quality. We developed point-based global maps with estimated uncertainty of the volumetric SWR at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm suction using measured SWR data extracted from the WoSIS Soil Profile Database together with data estimated by a random forest PTF (PTF-RF). The point data was combined with around 200 environmental covariates describing vegetation, terrain morphology, climate, geology, and hydrology using DSM. In total, we used 7292, 33 192 and 42 016 SWR point observations at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm, respectively, and complemented the dataset with 436 108 estimated values at each suction. Tenfold cross-validation yielded a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 6.380, 7.112 and 6.485 10<sup>−2</sup>cm<sup>3</sup>cm<sup>−3</sup>, and a Model Efficiency Coefficient (MEC) of 0.430, 0.386, and 0.471, respectively, for 100, 330 and 15 000 cm. The results were also compared to three published global maps of SWR to evaluate differences between point-based and map-based mapping approaches. Point-based mapping performed better than the three map-based mapping approaches for 330 and 15 000 cm, while for 100 cm results were similar, possibly due to the limited number of SWR observations for 100 cm. Major sources or uncertainty identified included the geographical clustering of the data and the limitation of the covariates to represent the naturally high variation of SWR.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Soil and Water Conservation Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Soil and Water Conservation Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095633922000636\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Soil and Water Conservation Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095633922000636","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Global mapping of volumetric water retention at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm suction using the WoSIS database
Present global maps of soil water retention (SWR) are mostly derived from pedotransfer functions (PTFs) applied to maps of other basic soil properties. As an alternative, ‘point-based’ mapping of soil water content can improve global soil data availability and quality. We developed point-based global maps with estimated uncertainty of the volumetric SWR at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm suction using measured SWR data extracted from the WoSIS Soil Profile Database together with data estimated by a random forest PTF (PTF-RF). The point data was combined with around 200 environmental covariates describing vegetation, terrain morphology, climate, geology, and hydrology using DSM. In total, we used 7292, 33 192 and 42 016 SWR point observations at 100, 330 and 15 000 cm, respectively, and complemented the dataset with 436 108 estimated values at each suction. Tenfold cross-validation yielded a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 6.380, 7.112 and 6.485 10−2cm3cm−3, and a Model Efficiency Coefficient (MEC) of 0.430, 0.386, and 0.471, respectively, for 100, 330 and 15 000 cm. The results were also compared to three published global maps of SWR to evaluate differences between point-based and map-based mapping approaches. Point-based mapping performed better than the three map-based mapping approaches for 330 and 15 000 cm, while for 100 cm results were similar, possibly due to the limited number of SWR observations for 100 cm. Major sources or uncertainty identified included the geographical clustering of the data and the limitation of the covariates to represent the naturally high variation of SWR.
期刊介绍:
The International Soil and Water Conservation Research (ISWCR), the official journal of World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWAC) http://www.waswac.org, is a multidisciplinary journal of soil and water conservation research, practice, policy, and perspectives. It aims to disseminate new knowledge and promote the practice of soil and water conservation.
The scope of International Soil and Water Conservation Research includes research, strategies, and technologies for prediction, prevention, and protection of soil and water resources. It deals with identification, characterization, and modeling; dynamic monitoring and evaluation; assessment and management of conservation practice and creation and implementation of quality standards.
Examples of appropriate topical areas include (but are not limited to):
• Conservation models, tools, and technologies
• Conservation agricultural
• Soil health resources, indicators, assessment, and management
• Land degradation
• Sustainable development
• Soil erosion and its control
• Soil erosion processes
• Water resources assessment and management
• Watershed management
• Soil erosion models
• Literature review on topics related soil and water conservation research