CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Australian Journal of Soil Research
  An international journal for soil research
You are here: Journals > Australian Journal of Soil Research   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Committee
Editorial Contacts
Print Publication Dates
Sites of Interest
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How to Order

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 

Field level digital soil mapping of cation exchange capacity using electromagnetic induction and a hierarchical spatial regression model

John Triantafilis A C, Scott Mitchell Lesch B, Kevin La Lau A and Sam Mostyn Buchanan A

A School of Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Sydney, Australia.
B Statistical Consulting Collaboratory, U.C. Riverside, 2683 Stat-Comp, 900 University Ave, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: j.triantafilis@unsw.edu.au


Abstract

At the field level the demand for spatial information of soil properties is rapidly increasing owing to its requirements in precision agriculture and soil management. One of the most important properties is the cation exchange capacity (CEC, cmol(+)/kg) because it is an index of the shrink–swell potential and hence is a measure of soil structural resilience to tillage. However, CEC is time-consuming and expensive to measure. Various ancillary datasets and statistical methods can be used to predict CEC, but there is little scientific literature which implements this approach to map CEC or addresses the issue of the amount of ancillary data required to maximise precision and minimise bias of spatial prediction at the field level. We compare a standard least-squares multiple linear regression (MLR) model which includes 2 proximally sensed (EM38 and EM31), 3 remotely sensed (Red, Green and Blue spectral brightness), and 2 trend surface (Easting and Northing) variables as ancillary data or independent variables, and a stepwise MLR model which only includes the statistically valid EM38 signal data and the Easting trend surface vector. The latter is used as the basis for developing a hierarchical spatial regression model to predict CEC. The reliability of the model is analysed by comparing prediction precision (root mean square error) and bias (mean error) using degraded EM38 transect spacing (i.e. 96, 144, 192, 240, and 288 m) and comparing these with predictions achieved with the 48-m spacing. We conclude that the EM38 data available on the 96- and 144-m spacing are suitable at a reconnaissance level (i.e. broad-scale farming) and 24- or 48-m spacing are suitable at smaller levels where detailed information is necessary for siting the location of water reservoirs. In terms of soil management, CEC predictions determine where suitable subsoil exists for the purpose of soil profile inversion to improve the structural resilience of a topsoil that is susceptible to dispersion and surface crusting.

Keywords: electromagnetic (EM) induction, EM38, EM31, digital soil mapping, multiple linear regression (MLR), hierarchical spatial regression (HSR), ordinary kriging (OK).

Australian Journal of Soil Research 47(7) 651–663    doi:10.1071/SR08240
Submitted: 26 October 2008    Accepted: 7 July 2009    Published: 6 November 2009





   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (1.1 MB) $25
Export Citation
Cited by
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010