Elsevier

Geoderma

Volumes 209–210, November 2013, Pages 168-176
Geoderma

Combining Vis–NIR hyperspectral imagery and legacy measured soil profiles to map subsurface soil properties in a Mediterranean area (Cap-Bon, Tunisia)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.06.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Vis-NIR hyperspectral imagery (HI) can only predict surface soil properties.

  • SSF are functions for predicting subsurface soil properties from surface properties.

  • SSF were calibrated from a legacy database of soil profiles in Cap Bon (Tunisia).

  • Combined HI and SSF mapped from 1/3 to 2/3 of the subsurface soil property variances.

  • Vis-NIR hyperspectral imagery is useful for predicting sub-surface soil properties.

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that Visible Near InfraRed (Vis–NIR) hyperspectral imagery is a cost-efficient way to map soil properties at fine resolutions (~ 5 m) over large areas. However, such mapping is only feasible for the soil surface because the effective penetration depths of optical sensors do not exceed several millimeters. This study aims to determine how Vis–NIR hyperspectral imagery can serve to map the subsurface properties at four depth intervals (15–30 cm, 30–60 cm, 60–100 cm and 30–100 cm) when used with legacy soil profiles and images of parameters derived from digital elevation model (DEM). Two types of surface–subsurface functions, namely linear models and random forests, that estimate subsurface property values from surface values and landscape covariates were first calibrated over the set of legacy measured profiles. These functions were then applied to map the soil properties using the hyperspectral-derived digital surface soil property maps and the images of landscape covariates as input. Error propagation was addressed using a Monte Carlo approach to estimate the mapping uncertainties.

The study was conducted in a pedologically contrasted 300 km2-cultivated area located in the Cap Bon region (Northern Tunisia) and tested on three soil surface properties (clay and sand contents and cation exchange capacity). The main results were as follows: i) fairly satisfactory (cross-validation R2 between 0.55 and 0.81) surface–subsurface functions were obtained for predicting the soil properties at 15–30 cm and 30–60 cm, whereas predictions at 60–100 cm were less accurate (R2 between 0.38 and 0.43); ii) linear models outperformed random-forest models in developing surface–subsurface functions; iii) due to the error propagations, the final predicted maps of the subsurface soil properties captured from 1/3 to 2/3 of the total variance with a significantly decreasing performance with depth; and iv) these maps brought significant improvements over the existing soil maps of the region and showed soil patterns that largely agreed with the local pedological knowledge. This paper demonstrates the added value of combining modern remote sensing techniques with old legacy soil databases.

Introduction

Implementing sustainable agricultural, hydrological and environmental management requires an improved understanding of the soil at increasingly finer scales. The current soil databases that exist are neither exhaustive nor precise enough to be efficiently used for this purpose. An alternative is digital soil mapping (DSM), which can be defined as “the creation and population of spatial soil information systems by numerical models inferring the spatial and temporal variations of soil types and soil properties from soil observation and knowledge and from related environmental variables” (Lagacherie and McBratney, 2006).

Remote sensing images are major sources of input data for digital soil mapping. Until now, these images have mainly been used as spatial inputs for representing the landscape variables that are related to the soils, such as vegetation and parent material (the soil covariates) (McBratney et al., 2003). Boettinger et al. (2008) reviewed the main indicators that could be retrieved from a multispectral image for estimating these soil covariates. Airborne gamma-radiometry was also demonstrated as a suitable source of data for mapping soil parent materials and their alteration rates (Wilford, 2012). After a spatial overlay with the sparse sets of observed and measured sites collected in a given area, the indicators derived from remote sensing have been used as independent variables in regression-like models or as external drift in geostatistic models (McBratney et al., 2003).

Alternatively, remote sensing can be considered a cost-efficient way to acquire dense spatial sets of soil property measurements and a means to overcome the lack of soil data that still severely limits the digital soil mapping performances (Lagacherie, 2008). A recent review (Mulder et al., 2011) reported successful attempts to directly map some key soil properties, including soil texture, soil organic carbon, iron content, carbonate content, and soil salinity, from multispectral, hyperspectral and radar images. Some initial promising results have been obtained in describing the complex spatial patterns of soil properties using airborne hyperspectral imagery (Gomez et al., 2012a, Gomez et al., 2012b, Schwanghart and Jarmer, 2011). However, such mapping is only feasible for soil surface properties because the effective penetration depths of optical and radar sensors do not exceed several millimeters (Liang, 1997) and several centimeters (Owe and Van de Griend, 1998), respectively.

Despite this limitation, the aforementioned remote sensing measurements of soil surface property variations can be valuable sources of information for predicting the variations of sub-surface properties. Eighty years of soil surveying have shown significant relations between surface and subsurface properties because i) most of the soils are formed from a single parent material that impacts all of the soil horizons and ii) the soil forming processes that drive the changes in soil properties with depth are themselves impacted by parent materials. Therefore, it should be possible to obtain valuable predictions of sub-surface soil properties from surface measurements when accounting for other landscape drivers that may also influence the pedogenic processes that result in soil property variations with depth, e.g., relief, climate, land use, and water table regime. The soil legacy data available in a growing number of soil databases around the world (Rossiter, 2004) are repositories of knowledge that could be useful in calibrating such predictions, following the approach of Gray et al. (2011) for depicting global soil–landscape relations.

This paper presents an approach for extending the successful mapping of three soil surface properties (clay content, sand content and CEC) to greater depths using hyperspectral imagery in the Cap-Bon Region, Northern Tunisia (Gomez et al., 2012a). Statistical functions inferring the sub-surface soil properties from surface property measurements and landscape variables were first calibrated from a local database of legacy measured and geo-referenced soil profiles. These functions were then coupled with hyperspectral imagery outputs to derive the maps of the subsurface properties with estimations of their associated uncertainties.

Section snippets

Surface–subsurface predictive functions

The value of a soil property S at the ith interval of depth (Si) can be expressed as follows:Si=S1+ΔiwithΔi=SiS1=fS1L+εiwhere S1 is the estimate of the soil surface property S that is assumed to be obtained independently, e.g., from remote sensing, and {L} is a set of easily available landscape variables. The surface–subsurface predictive function f is a statistical function that estimates the differences in the soil property values between the surface and the ith interval of depth (∆i) with a

Study area

The study area is located in the Cap Bon region in northern Tunisia (36°24′N to 36°53′N; 10°20′E to 10°58′E), 60 km east of Tunis, Tunisia (Fig. 1). This 300-km2 area is mainly rural (> 90%) and devoted to cereals in addition to legumes, olive trees, vineyards, and natural vegetation for grazing. It is a hilly area, with elevations ranging from 0 to 226 m. The main soil types are Regosols, Eutric Regosols preferentially associated with sandstone outcrops, Calcic Cambisols, and Vertisols

Soil property variations with depths

Fig. 3 shows the distributions of the three properties for the depth intervals of 0–15 cm, 15–30 cm, 30–60 cm and 60–100 cm for the whole dataset of 152 soil profiles. For all of the considered depths, the soil properties were characterized by a high spatial variation. We observed opposite distribution trends of clay and sand content as a consequence of the highly significant negative correlation between these two variables (Gomez et al., 2012a). The general trend was an increase of clay and a

Added value of hyperspectral images

The hyperspectral-based DSM approach presented in this paper can be first compared with the classical DSM approaches that use currently available landscape covariates derived from digital elevation models and multispectral remote sensing images (see Grunwald (2009) for a review). However, the published papers specifically considering subsurface soil properties are in the minority in the DSM literature, and the papers considering both the soil properties targeted in this study and Mediterranean

Conclusions

In this paper, we presented an approach that enabled the estimation of subsurface soil properties from surface properties by merging data from legacy measured profiles, hyperspectral imagery and landscape covariates. We investigated surface–subsurface functions, including linear models, Random Forests variables, and landscape covariates for mapping soil properties. The error propagation was addressed using a Monte Carlo approach to estimate the mapping uncertainties. The main outcomes of this

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to UMR LISAH (IRD, France) and to CNCT (Centre National de Cartographie et de Télédétection, Tunisia) for providing the AISA-Dual images for this study. This hyperspectral data acquisition was granted by IRD, INRA and the French National Research Agency (ANR) (ANR-O8-BLAN-C284-01). We are also indebted to Yves Blanca (IRD-UMR LISAH Montpellier) for the field work.

References (38)

Cited by (37)

  • Field-scale spatial correlation between soil and Vis-NIR spectra in the Cerrado biome of Central Brazil

    2022, Geoderma Regional
    Citation Excerpt :

    In this way, Vis-NIR spectroscopy has the potential to determine soil spatial variability and properties, with a high spatial resolution (Rizzo et al., 2016). Vis-NIR spectroscopy has also been used to map soils (Bazaglia Filho et al., 2013) and their properties, such as organic matter (Conforti et al., 2013), clay content (Piikki et al., 2013; Ramirez-Lopez et al., 2019), particle size distribution, and cation exchange capacity (Lagacherie et al., 2013; Ramirez-Lopez et al., 2019), as well as to associate several properties with latent variables from the multivariate approach (Webster and Burrough, 1974; Odlare et al., 2005; Rizzo et al., 2016; Chauhan et al., 2021; Sleep et al., 2022). Webster and Burrough (1974), Jang et al. (2021), and Chauhan et al. (2021) illustrated the discriminant analysis as one of the best methods to assist in the survey and discretization of soil classes in the field, including the transition limits between them.

  • Multi-temporal bare surface image associated with transfer functions to support soil classification and mapping in southeastern Brazil

    2020, Geoderma
    Citation Excerpt :

    Another possible factor impacting surface-subsurface spectra correlations correspond to agricultural practices, where soil management could be increasing the system’s complexity (de Mendes et al., 2019). Furthermore, Lagacherie et al. (2013) describes differences in the performances of depth-transfer models, depending on soil formation and the processes involved. Predictions of soil attributes had satisfactory performance for surface and subsurface clay content (R2 = 0.62 and 0.63; RMSE = 82.87 and 88.24 g kg−1), iron concentration (R2 = 0.72; RMSE = 5.88 g kg−1) and soil color (R2 for hue, value and chroma were 0.57, 0.73 and 0.63, respectively; RMSE corresponded to 1.28, 0.26, 0.52) (Table 2).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text