doi:

DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2012.00305

Journal of Geo-information Science (地球信息科学学报) 2012/14:3 PP.305-312

Analysis and Comparison in Stabilities and Related Influence Factors for Several Common Methods Used in Soil Property Mapping


Abstract:
Total 870 soil samples were collected from the north of Henan Province over a 27 955 km2 area. Two subgroups with 435 samples were respectively used in soil property map-making, i.e. the content of exchangeable cations (CEC) and the total nitrogen (TN). The difference of map-making results between two subgroups was calculated. The stability among Kriging method, inverse distance weight method (IDW) and polygon value represented by point value method (PRP) were compared and its' influencing factors were discussed. The results showed that: (i) RMSE(Root Mean Square Error)and R (correlation coefficient) between measured data and predicted data could not represent the stability of map-making, namely, the returning probability of the spatial pattern of soil properties. And the result was differential in precision validation when using different ways. (ii) The stability of Kriging and IDW were significantly superior to the PRP. The area with relative difference lower than 0.3 didn't achieved 20% of the total area in Kriging and IDW mapping methods, but it achieved 51.57% in PRP mapping method. The area with a high difference level was scattered in the difference map when using the former two methods, but it was centralized and showed by big polygons when using PRP. (iii) The stability of soil property map-making results was disturbed by both sample distribution and high variability of soils in local area. Sample distribution was much important in keeping stability in Kriging method than that in IDW and PRP methods. In the two latter ways high variability among data values showed much impressive effects.

Key words:stability,precision,Kriging,IDW,PRP

ReleaseDate:2014-07-24 09:21:29



[1] Price DT, M cKenney DW, Nalder IA, et al. A comparison of two statistical methods for spatial interpolation of Canadian monthly mean climate data[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2000, (101): 81-94.

[2] Goovaerts P. Geostatistical approaches for incorporating elevation into the spatial interpolation of rainfall[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2000, 228: 113-129.

[3] Narushige Shiode , Shino Shiode. Street-level spatial interpolation using network-based IDW and ordinary kriging[J].Transactions in GIS, 2011,15(4): 457-477.

[4] 徐丽华,谢德体,李兵. 距离倒数和克里克方法在土壤养分制图中的比较研究[J].农机化研究,2011(11):57-61.

[5] 全国农业技术推广服务中心.耕地地力评价指南[M].北京:中国农业科学技术出版社, 2006.

[6] Newlands N K, Davidson A, Howard A,et al.Validation and inter-comparison of three methodologies for interpolating daily precipitation and temperature across Canada [J]. Environmetrics,2010,22(2):205-223.

[7] 赵彦锋,孙志英,陈杰. Kriging插值和序贯高斯条件模拟算法的对比分析[J]. 地球信息科学学报,2010,12(6):768-772.

[8] 彭彬,周艳莲,高苹,等. 气温插值中不同空间插值方法的适用性分析——以江苏省为例[J].地球信息科学学报,2011,13(4):539-547.

[9] 江厚龙,刘国顺,杨夏孟,等. 精准农业中不同取样间距下Kriging插值精度对比研究[J].土壤通报,2011,42(4):879-886.

[10] 王彬武,周卫军,马苏. 耕地土壤速效钾含量的空间预测方法研究[J].地理与地理信息科学,2011,27(5):91-94.

[11] Pang Su, Li Ting-xuan, Wang Yong-dong,et al. Spatial interpolation and sample size optimization for soil copper (Cu) investigation in cropland soil at county scale using cokriging[J]. Agricultural Sciences in China, 2009,8(11):1369-1377.

[12] 宋丽琼,田原,邬伦,等.日降水量的空间插值方法与应用对比分析——以深圳市为例[J].地球信息科学学报,2008,10(5):567-571.

[13] 孙义祥,吴传洲,朱克保,等. 插值方法与样点数对县域土壤有效磷空间变异特征评价的影响[J].应用生态学报,2009,20(3):673-678.

[14] 廖凯华,徐绍辉,程桂福,等.土壤CEC的影响因子及Cokriging空间插值分析一以青岛市大沽河流域为例[J].土壤学报,2010,47(1):26-31.

[15] 郭军玲,吴士文,金辉,等.农田土壤微量元素含量的空间变异特征和影响因素[J].水土保持学报,2010,24(1):145-149.

[16] 秦静,孔祥斌,姜广辉,等.北京典型边缘区20年来土壤有机质的时空变异特征[J].农业工程学报,2008,24(3): 124-130.

PDF