Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The interpolation accuracy for seven soil properties at various sampling scales on the Loess Plateau, China

  • SOILS, SEC 1 • SOIL ORGANIC MATTER DYNAMICS AND NUTRIENT CYCLING • RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Soils and Sediments Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Knowledge of the changes in interpolation accuracy with changing sampling scales is important when designing an appropriate sampling strategy. The objectives of this study were (1) to analyze the changes in interpolation accuracy with changing sampling scales for seven soil properties and (2) to find a suitable index that could predict the interpolation accuracy well.

Materials and methods

Nine hundred sixty-one samples were collected from a 30 × 30-m area. Seven soil properties were measured for each sample. Using a re-sampling analysis method, we grouped the samples under 16 subscales. Then, we divided the 16 subscales into two subsets, the first consisting of eight scales used as training sets and the second having the other eight scales as validation sets. Using the training sets, the interpolation accuracy and the contribution rate (CR) for the seven soil properties were compared and the relations of the interpolation accuracy to the coefficient of variation (CV), or to the ratio of sampling spacing to correlated range (S/R), or to the extent and spacing (E & S) were determined, the accuracy of prediction of which were then tested using the validation sets.

Results and discussion

The results showed that the mean interpolation accuracies varied greatly for different soil properties, with mean G values of training sets ranging from 2.4% for soil organic carbon, to 62.1% for sand content. With increasing sampling spacing or decreasing sampling extent, the interpolation accuracy decreased for all soil properties. The scales with the largest CR were not consistent with those with the highest interpolation accuracies. The interpolation accuracy was predicted better by E & S than by CV or by S/R.

Conclusions

The measurement and analysis gave insight into the changes of interpolation accuracy and CR at various sampling scales. Predicting interpolation accuracy based on the scale parameters of sampling spacing and sampling extent was feasible, which provided a useful means by which to determine appropriate sample size and sampling strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bishop TFA, McBratney AB (2001) A comparison of prediction methods for the creation of field-extent soil property maps. Geoderma 103:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blöschl G, Sivapalan M (1995) Scale issues in hydrological modelling—a review. Hydrolog Process 9:251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrough PA, McDonnell RA (1998) Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttle JM, House DA (1997) Spatial variability of saturated hydraulic conductivity in shallow macroporous soils in a forested basin. J Hydrol 203:127–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cressie N (1993) Statistics for spatial data. JohnWiley and Sons, Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Creutin JD, Obled C (1982) Objective analyses and mapping techniques for rainfall fields: an objective comparison. Water Resour Res 18:413–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng Q, Liu YS, Mikami M (2004) Geostatistical analysis of soil moisture variability in grassland. J Arid Environ 58:357–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin RB, Mills AL (2003) Multi-scale variation in spatial heterogeneity for microbial community structure in an eastern Virginia agricultural field. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 44:335–346

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gamma Design Software (2004) GS+ Version 7. GeoStatistics for the environmental sciences. User’s guide. Gamma Design Software, LLC

  • Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc, New York, pp 26–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengl T (2007) A practical guide to geostatistical mapping of environmental variables. JRC Scientific and Technichal Reports. Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirzel A, Guisan A (2002) Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modeling. Ecol Model 157:331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hupet F, Vanclooster M (2004) Sampling strategies to estimate field real evapotranspiration fluxes with a soil water balance approach. J Hydrol 292:262–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamgar A, Hopmans JW, Wallender WW, Wendroth O (1993) Plot size and sample number for neutron probe measurements in small field trials. Soil Sci 156:213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klute A, Dirksen C (1986) Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity. In: Klute A (ed), Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. Am Soc Agron Monograph 9, pp 687–734

  • Kravchenko AN (2003) Influence of spatial structure on accuracy of interpolation methods. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1564–1571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Heap AD (2011) A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences: performance and impact factors. Ecol Inform 6:228–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin HS, Wheeler D, Bell J, Wilding L (2005) Assessment of soil spatial variability at multiple scales. Ecol Model 182:271–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto S, Chacon A, Hossain M, Martinez I (2005) Soil salinity of urban turf areas irrigated with saline water: I. Spatial variability. Landscape Urban Plan 71:233–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollitor AV, Leaf AL, Morris LA (1980) Forest soil variability on northeastern flood plains. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:617–620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller TG, Pierce FJ, Schabenberger O, Warncke DD (2001) Map quality for site-specific fertility management. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1547–1558

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy AH (1995) The coefficients correlation and determination as measures f performance in forecast verification. Weather Forecast 10:681–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DM, Sommers LE (1975) A rapid and accurate method for estimating organic carbon in soil. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 84:456–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen D, Bouma J (1985) Soil spatial variability. Proceedings of a Workshop of the ISSS and the SSSA in Las Vegas, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen DR, Wendroth O (2003) Spatial and temporal statistics. Catena verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Obled C, Wendling J, Beven K (1994) The sensitivity of hydrological models to spatial rainfall patterns: an evaluation using observed data. J Hydrol 159:305–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sastre J, Vidal M, Rauret G, Sauras T (2001) A soil sampling strategy for mapping trace element concentrations in a test area. Sci Total Environ 264:141–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schloeder CA, Zimmerman NE, Jacobs MJ (2001) Comparison of methods for interpolating soil properties using limited data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:470–479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shi Z, Wang K, Bailey JS, Jordan C, Higgins AJ (2000) Sampling strategies for mapping soil phosphorus and soil potassium distribution in cool temperate grassland. Precis Agric 2:347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigua GC, Hudnall WH (2008) Kriging analysis of soil properties. J Soil Sediment 8:193–202

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Voltz M, Webster R (1990) A comparison of kriging, cubic splines and classification for predicting soil properties from sample information. J Soil Sci 41:473–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang CM, Zuo Q, Zhang RD (2008) Estimating the necessary sampling size of surface soil moisture at different scales using a random combination method. J Hydrol 352:309–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waring RH, Running SW (1998) Forest ecosystems: analysis at multiple scales, 2nd edn. Academic, San Diego, p 370

    Google Scholar 

  • Western AW, Blöschl G (1999) On the spatial scaling of soil moisture. J Hydrol 217:203–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JP, Gallant JC (2000) Terrain analysis. Principles and applications. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wollenhaupt NC, Wolkowski RP, Clayton MK (1994) Mapping soil test phosphorus and potassium for variable-rate fertilizer application. J Prod Agric 7:441–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Norvell WA, Welch RM (2006) Kriging on highly skewed data for DTPA-extractable soil Zn with auxiliary information for pH and organic carbon. Geoderma 134:187–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang R (2005) Applied geostatistics in environmental science. Science Press USA Inc., Monmouth Junction, USA, pp 91–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao KL, Liu XM, Zhang WW, Xu JM, Wang F (2011) Spatial dependence and bioavailability of metal fractions in paddy fields on metal concentrations in rice grain at a regional scale. J Soil Sediment 11:1165–1177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Q, Lin HS (2010) Comparing ordinary kriging and regression kriging for soil properties in contrasting landscapes. Pedosphere 20:594–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman D, Pavlik C, Ruggles A, Armstrong MP (1999) An experimental comparison of ordinary and universal kriging and inverse distance weighting. Math Geol 31:375–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann B, Elsenbeer H (2008) Spatial and temporal variability of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity in gradients of disturbance. J Hydrol 361:78–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research came from the innovation team project of Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Program for Innovative Research Team of Ministry of Education, China (No. IRT0749), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41071156). We thank the editors of the journal and reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions for this manuscript. The authors also thank Mr. David Warrington for his patient and careful revision of the language and his suggestions. Special thanks to the staff of Shenmu Erosion and Environment Station of the Institute of Soil and Water Conservation of CAS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling, 712100, Shaanxi, People’s Republic of China

    Lei Gao

  2. Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People’s Republic of China

    Mingan Shao

  3. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, People’s Republic of China

    Lei Gao

Authors
  1. Lei Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mingan Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingan Shao.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Gilbert Sigua

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, L., Shao, M. The interpolation accuracy for seven soil properties at various sampling scales on the Loess Plateau, China. J Soils Sediments 12, 128–142 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0438-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0438-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation