Potential for using soil particle-size data to infer geological parent material in the Sydney Region
Margaret R. Donald A B D , Pamela A. Hazelton C and AnneMarie Clements AA Anne Clements & Associates Pty Ltd, PO Box 1623, North Sydney, NSW 2059, Australia.
B University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
C University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: merricks.merricks@gmail.com
Soil Research 51(4) 301-310 https://doi.org/10.1071/SR12289
Submitted: 27 September 2012 Accepted: 20 June 2013 Published: 2 September 2013
Abstract
Ecological communities are more than assemblages of species. In assessing the presence of many ecological communities, interpretation of soil properties and associated parent material has become a definitive component under environmental legislation worldwide, and particularly in Australia. The hypothesis tested here is that the geological parent material of a soil sample can be determined from particle size fraction data of the Marshall soil texture diagram. Supervised statistical classifiers were built from data for four particle-size fractions from four soil landscape publications. These methods were modified by taking into account possible autocorrelation between samples from the same site. The soil samples could not be classified with certainty as being derived from Wianamatta Group Shale or Hawkesbury Sandstone parent material. The classification of alluvial/fluvial-derived soils was no better than chance alone. A good classifier using four-fraction compositional data could not be built to determine geological parent material. Hence, the three size fractions of the Marshall soil texture diagram are insufficient to determine the geological parent material of a soil sample.
Additional keywords: area under the curve (AUC), classifier, compositional data, geological parent material, receiver operating curve (ROC), soil particle size.
References
Aitchison J (1982) The statistical analysis of compositional data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B. Methodological 44, 139–177.Aitchison J, Egozcue JJ (2005) Compositional data analysis: Where are we and where should we be heading? Mathematical Geology 37, 829–850.
| Compositional data analysis: Where are we and where should we be heading?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values. British Medical Journal 309, 102
| Diagnostic tests 2: Predictive values.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK2czht12htQ%3D%3D&md5=211438aabb6abeab3aad123dd762294fCAS | 8038641PubMed |
Anscombe F (1948) The transformation of Poisson, binomial and negative-binomial data. Biometrika 35, 246–254.
Australian Standards (2000) ‘AS 1289–2000 Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes—General requirements and list of methods.’ (Standards Australia: Strathfield, NSW) Available at: www.standards.com.au
Bagnold R (1954) ‘The physics of blown sand and desert dunes.’ (Methuen: London)
Bannerman S, Hazelton P (1990) ‘Soil landscapes of the Penrith 1 : 100 000 sheet.’ (Soil Conservation Service of NSW: Sydney)
Barndorff-Nielsen O (1977) Exponentially decreasing distributions for the logarithm of particle size. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 353, 401–419.
Ben-Dor E, Chabrillat S, Dematte JAM (2009) Using imaging spectroscopy to study soil properties. Remote Sensing of Environment 113, s38–s55.
| Using imaging spectroscopy to study soil properties.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Box GE, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B. Methodological 26, 211–252.
Chapman G, Atkinson G (2007) Soil survey and mapping. In ‘Soils: Their properties and management’. (Eds P Charman, B Murphy) pp. 106–132. (Oxford University Press: Melbourne)
Chapman G, Murphy C (1989) ‘Soil landscapes of the Sydney 1 : 100 000 sheet’ (Soil Conservation Service of NSW: Sydney)
Charman P, Murphy B (2007) ‘Soils: their properties and management.’ 3rd edn (Oxford University Press: Melbourne)
Egozcue JJ, Pawlowsky-Glahn V (2005) Groups of parts and their balances in compositional data analysis. Mathematical Geology 37, 795–828.
| Groups of parts and their balances in compositional data analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fawcett T (2006) An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters 27, 861–874.
| An introduction to ROC analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics 7, 179–188.
| The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman JH (2001) ‘The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction.’ Springer Series in Statistics. (Springer: New York)
Hazelton P, Murphy B (2007) ‘Interpreting soil test results: What do all the numbers mean?’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)
Hazelton P, Tille P (1990) ‘Soil landscapes of the Wollongong–Port Hacking 1 : 100000 sheet.’ (Soil Conservation Service of NSW: Sydney)
Keith DA, Rodrguez JP, Rodrguez-Clark KM, Nicholson E, Aapala K, Alonso A, Asmussen M, Bachman S, Basset A, Barrow EG, Benson JS, Bishop MJ, Bonifacio R, Brooks TM, Burgman MA, Comer P, Comn FA, Essl F, Faber-Langendoen D, Fairweather PG, Holdaway RJ, Jennings M, Kingsford RT, Lester RE, Nally RM, Mc-Carthy MA, Moat J, Oliveira-Miranda MA, Pisanu P, Poulin B, Regan TJ, Riecken U, Spalding MD, Zambrano-Martnez S (2013) Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e62111
| Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXnvVyisb4%3D&md5=66cece98f9418df3b53e2c5c555cd27dCAS | 23667454PubMed |
Lilja H, Nevalainen R (2006) Developing a digital soil map for Finland. In ‘Developments in soil science, Vol. 31’. Ch. 5. (Eds P Lagacherie, AB McBratney, M Voltz) pp. 67–74. (Elsevier: Amsterdam)
Marshall T (1947) Soil in relation to field descriptions of texture. CSIR, Australia Bulletin #24.
McBratney AB, Minasny B, Cattle SR, Vervoort RW (2002) From pedotransfer functions to soil inference systems. Geoderma 109, 41–73.
| From pedotransfer functions to soil inference systems.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McDonald R, Isbell R, Speight J, Walker J, Hopkins M (1990) ‘Australian soil and land survey handbook.’ 2nd edn (Inkata Press: Melbourne)
Murphy C (1993) ‘Soil landscapes of the Gosford–Lake Macquarie 1 : 100000 sheet.’ (Soil Conservation Service of NSW: Sydney)
Nicholson E, Keith DA, Wilcove D (2009) Assessing the threat status of ecological communities. Conservation Biology 23, 259–274.
| Assessing the threat status of ecological communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19245533PubMed |
NSW Scientific Committee (2012) ‘Guidelines for interpreting listing criteria for species, populations and ecological communities under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act.’ NSW Government. Available at: www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/listingCriteriaGuidelines.pdf
Preston B, Adam P (2004) Describing and listing Threatened Ecological Communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW): Part 2-the role of supplementary descriptors and the listing process. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 21, 372–390.
Rizak S, Hrudey S (2007 Strategic water quality monitoring for drinking water safety. Technical Report No. 37, CRC for Water Quality and Treatment, Australia.
SAS Institute (2010) ‘SAS Version 9.2.2.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC) Available at: http://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat
