Soil quality estimation using environmental covariates and predictive models: an example from tropical soils of Nigeria

被引:0
|
作者
Isong Abraham Isong [1 ]
Kingsley John [2 ]
Paul Bassey Okon [1 ]
Peter Ikor Ogban [1 ]
Sunday Marcus Afu [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Calabar
[2] Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection,Faculty of Agrobiology, Food, and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Information addressing soil quality in developing countries often depends on results from small experimental plots, which are later extrapolated to vast areas of agricultural land. This approach often results in misinformation to end-users of land for sustainable soil nutrient management. The objective of this study was to estimate the spatial variability of soil quality index(SQI) at regional scale with predictive models using soil–environmental covariates.Methods: A total of 110 composite soil samples(0–30 cm depth) were collected by stratified random sampling schemes at 2–5 km intervals across the Cross River State, Nigeria, and selected soil physical and chemical properties were determined. We employed environmental covariates derived from a digital elevation model(DEM) and Sentinel-2 imageries for our modelling regime. We measured soil quality using two approaches [total data set(TDS) and minimum data set(MDS)]. Two scoring functions were also applied, linear(L) and non-linear(NL), yielding four indices(MDS_L, MDS_NL, TDS_L, and TDS_NL). Eleven soil quality indicators were used as TDS and were further screened for MDS using principal component analysis(PCA). Random forest(RF), support vector regression(SVR), regression kriging(RK), Cubist regression, and geographically weighted regression(GWR) were applied to predict SQI in unsampled locations.Results: The computed SQI via MDS_L was classified into five classes: ≤ 0.38, 0.38–0.48, 0.48–0.58, 0.58–0.68, and ≥ 0.68, representing very low(class Ⅴ), low(class Ⅳ), moderate(class Ⅲ), high(class Ⅱ) and very high(class Ⅰ) soil quality, respectively. GWR model was robust in predicting soil quality(R2 = 0.21, CCC = 0.39, RMSE = 0.15), while RF was a model with inferior performance(R2 = 0.02, CCC = 0.32, RMSE = 0.15). Soil quality was high in the southern region and low in the northern region. High soil quality class(> 49%) and moderate soil quality class(> 14%) dominate the study area in all predicted models used.Conclusions: Structural stability index, sand content, soil oganic carbon content, and mean weight diameter of aggregates were the parameters used in establishing regional soil quality indices, while land surface water index, Sentinel-2 near-infrared band, plane curvature, and clay index were the most important variables affecting soil quality variability. The MDS_L and GWR are effective and useful models to identify the key soil properties for assessing soil quality, which can provide guidance for site-specific management of soils developed on diverse parent materials.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Soil quality estimation using environmental covariates and predictive models: an example from tropical soils of Nigeria
    Isong Abraham Isong
    Kingsley John
    Paul Bassey Okon
    Peter Ikor Ogban
    Sunday Marcus Afu
    [J]. Ecological Processes, 11
  • [2] Soil quality estimation using environmental covariates and predictive models: an example from tropical soils of Nigeria
    Isong, Isong Abraham
    John, Kingsley
    Okon, Paul Bassey
    Ogban, Peter Ikor
    Afu, Sunday Marcus
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [3] Predictive soil mapping based on the similarity of environmental covariates using a spatial convolutional autoencoder
    Su, Li
    Zhang, Meiyu
    Wang, Bing
    [J]. SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 2023, 87 (03) : 631 - 643
  • [4] Soil Moisture Estimation Using Citizen Observatory Data, Microwave Satellite Imagery, and Environmental Covariates
    Kibirige, Daniel
    Dobos, Endre
    [J]. WATER, 2020, 12 (08)
  • [5] Comparing Machine Learning Models and Hybrid Geostatistical Methods Using Environmental and Soil Covariates for Soil pH Prediction
    Tziachris, Panagiotis
    Aschonitis, Vassilis
    Chatzistathis, Theocharis
    Papadopoulou, Maria
    Doukas, Ioannis D.
    [J]. ISPRS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEO-INFORMATION, 2020, 9 (04)
  • [6] Developing predictive soil C models for soils using quantitative color measurements
    Liles, Garrett C.
    Beaudette, Dylan E.
    O'Geen, Anthony T.
    Horwath, William R.
    [J]. SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL, 2013, 77 (06) : 2173 - 2181
  • [7] The selection of mixed microbial inocula in environmental biotechnology: Example using petroleum contaminated tropical soils
    Supaphol, Savaporn
    Panichsakpatana, Supamard
    Trakulnaleamsai, Savitr
    Tungkananuruk, Nipon
    Roughjanajirapa, Pinnapar
    O'Donnell, Anthony Gerard
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS, 2006, 65 (03) : 432 - 441
  • [8] Determining the impacts of deforestation and corn cultivation on soil quality in tropical acidic red soils using a soil quality index
    Huang, Wuping
    Zong, Mingming
    Fan, Zexin
    Feng, Yuan
    Li, Shiyu
    Duan, Changqun
    Li, Haixia
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2021, 125 : 52 - 61
  • [9] Acid Sulfate Soils Classification and Prediction from Environmental Covariates Using Extreme Learning Machines
    Atsemegiorgis, Tamirat
    Espinosa-Leal, Leonardo
    Lendasse, Amaury
    Mattback, Stefan
    Bjork, Kaj-Mikael
    Akusok, Anton
    [J]. ADVANCES IN COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, IWANN 2023, PT I, 2023, 14134 : 614 - 625
  • [10] Estimation of clay content by magnetic susceptibility in tropical soils using linear and nonlinear models
    Filla, Vinicius Augusto
    Coelho, Anderson Prates
    Ferroni, Adrien Dorvalino
    Rabelo de Souza Bahia, Angelica Santos
    Marques, Jose, Jr.
    [J]. GEODERMA, 2021, 403