稀疏格网样点的国家尺度土壤属性制图方法与应用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1047.2012.00049

地球信息科学学报 ›› 2012, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (1): 49-54.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1047.2012.00049

• 地球信息科学理论方法 • 上一篇下一篇

稀疏格网样点的国家尺度土壤属性制图方法与应用

余万里^1,2, 李宝林^1*

1. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室, 北京 100101;
2. 中国科学院研究生院, 北京 100049

收稿日期:2011-10-01 修回日期:2012-01-09 出版日期:2012-02-25 发布日期:2012-02-24
通讯作者: 李宝林(1970-),男,博士,研究员,研究方向:遥感环境变化检测、生态环境质量评估与土壤环境信息系统技术。E-mail:libl@lreis.ac.cn. E-mail:libl@lreis.ac.cn.
作者简介:余万里(1987-),男,湖北省宜昌人,硕士研究生,研究方向为资源详查与自动制图。E-mail: yuwl@lreis.ac.cn
基金资助:
资源与环境信息系统国家重点实验室创新项目。

A Study on Soil Property Mapping at National Scale Based on Sparse Grid Soil Samples

YU Wanli^1,2, LI Baolin^1*

1. State Key Laboratory of Resources and Environmental Information System, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China;
2. Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Received:2011-10-01 Revised:2012-01-09 Online:2012-02-25 Published:2012-02-24

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 国家尺度土壤属性数据是地球生物化学循环及水循环等领域研究的重要数据,目前,该尺度土壤属性数据的获取方法主要有两类:土壤属性-空间数据连接法和空间插值。为了确定哪一类方法更适合稀疏样点的国家尺度土壤属性制图,本文以中国吉林省的土壤有机质含量制图为例,采用8~32km格网样点和1∶100万土壤图,对这两类方法进行对比分析。独立样本验证结果表明,土壤属性-空间数据连接法的平均误差(ME)大于距离反比加权(IDW)插值,而平均绝对误差(MAE)和均方根误差(RMSE)都小于IDW插值。IDW插值获得的土壤属性图虽然能大致反映土壤属性空间分布的基本规律,但出现了类似"牛眼睛"的空间结构,且存在无样点区估计值不准确等问题;土壤属性-空间数据连接法尽管忽略了同种土壤类型内部的差异,保留了不同土壤类型边界处的属性值突变,但获得的土壤属性图更能反映土壤属性分布的基本规律,也具有比较详细的土壤属性空间结构。因此,在基于稀疏样点的国家尺度土壤属性制图中,土壤属性-空间数据连接法的制图效果要优于IDW空间插值法。

关键词: 土壤属性制图, 稀疏格网样点, 国家尺度, 土壤属性-空间数据连接法, 空间插值

Abstract: Soil property data at national scale are necessary inputs for researches on biogeochemical and hydrological cycles. There are two commonly used methods to obtain accurate soil property data at this scale including soil linkage method and spatial interpolation method. In this paper, soil organic matter (SOM) content in Jilin Province was taken as a case study to evaluate these two methods based on 8~32 km grid soil samples and 1∶1 million soil map, in order to provide suggestions about soil property mapping at national scale based on sparse grid soil samples. Independent validation indicated that the mean error (ME) of the soil linkage method was -0.58, higher than the inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation method (0.13), but the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) of the soil linkage method were 1.12 and 1.76, respectively, lower than those of IDW interpolation method (1.43 and 2.12). Although the soil property map through IDW interpolation revealed the general trend of soil property distribution, it had "Bull's eye" pattern and the estimations in areas with few or no soil samples were unreliable. The soil property map obtained by soil linkage method ignored the variations inside the same soil type on the soil map and a break of soil property existed around different soil boundaries, but the soil distribution regularity was well represented in this map and the details could be obtained. According to the validation results of maps through these two methods, the soil linkage method is better than the spatial interpolation method in soil property mapping based on sparse grid soil samples at national scale.

Key words: soil property mapping, sparse grid samples, national scale, soil linkage method, spatial interpolation

余万里, 李宝林. 稀疏格网样点的国家尺度土壤属性制图方法与应用[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2012, 14(1): 49-54.DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1047.2012.00049

YU Wanli, LI Baolin. A Study on Soil Property Mapping at National Scale Based on Sparse Grid Soil Samples[J]. , 2012, 14(1): 49-54.DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1047.2012.00049

参考文献

[1] 王绍强,周成虎.中国陆地土壤有机碳库的估算[J].地理研究,1999,18(4):349-356.

[2] 解宪丽,孙波,周慧珍,等.中国土壤有机碳密度和储量的估算与空间分布分析[J].土壤学报, 2004, 41(1):35-43.

[3] 于东升,史学正,孙维侠,等.基于1:100万土壤数据库的中国土壤有机碳密度及储量研究[J].应用生态学报,2005,16(12):2279-2283.

[4] Gijsman A J, Thornton P K, Hoogenboom G. Using the WISE database to parameterize soil inputs for crop simulation models[J]. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2007, 56(2): 85-100.

[5] Maeda E E, Pellikka P K E, Siljander M, et al. Potential impacts of agricultural expansion and climate change on soil erosion in the Eastern Arc Mountains of Kenya[J]. Geomorphology, 2010, 123(3~4): 279-289.

[6] Oliver M A, Loveland P J, Frogbrook Z L., et al. Statistical and geostatistical analysis of the national soil inventory of England and Wales[R]. The Technical Report, Defra. 2002.

[7] Jolivet C, Boulonne L, Ratié C. Manuel du Réseau de Mesures de la Quali- té des Sols, édition 2006 , Unité InfoSol, INRA Orléans, France, 2006.

[8] Salminen R, Batista M J, Bidovec M, et al. FOREGS Geochemical Atlas of Europe, Part 1: Background Information, Methodology and Maps[M]. Geological Survey of Finland, Otamedia Oy, Espoo, 2005.

[9] Batjes N H. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 1996, 47(2): 151-163.

[10] Batjes N H. A world dataset of derived soil properties by FAO-UNESCO soil unit for global modeling[J]. Soil Use and Management, 1997, 13(1): 9-16.

[11] Cerri C E P, Easter M, Paustian K, et al. Predicted soil organic carbon stocks and changes in the Brazilian Amazon between 2000 and 2030[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2007, 122(1): 58-72.

[12] British Geological Survey. G-BASE: Environmental geochemical atlas of central and eastern England[M]. Keyworth, Nottingham, UK. 2010.

[13] Bregt A K, Bouma J, Jellinek M. Comparison of thematic maps derived from a soil map and from Kriging of point data[J]. Geoderma, 1987, 39: 281-291.

[14] Brus D J, de Gruijter J J, Marsman B A, et al. The performance of spatial interpolation methods and choropleth maps to estimate properties at points: A soil survey case study[J]. Environmetrics, 1996, 7: 1-16.

[15] Voltz M, Webster R. A comparison of kriging, cubic splines and classification for predicting soil properties from sample information[J]. European Journal of Soil Science, 1990. 41(3): 473-490.

[16] 席承潘.中国土壤[M].北京:中国农业出版社,1998.

[17] Snedecor W, Cochran W. Statistical methods, 7th edition[M]. Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa, 1980.

[18] Wei S G, Dai Y J, Liu B Y, et al. A soil particle-size distribution dataset for regional land and climate modelling in China[J]. Geoderma, In Press, Corrected Proof, 2011.

[19] Schloeder C A, Zimmerman N E, Jacobs M J. Comparison of methods for interpolation soil properties using limited data[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2001, 65: 470-479.

[20] de Smith M J, Goodchild M F, Longley P A. Geospatial analysis: a comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools[M], Matador, 2007.

[21] 张勇,史学正,于东升,等. 属性数据与空间数据连接对土壤有机碳储量估算的影响[J]. 地球科学进展, 2008, 23(8):840-847.

稀疏格网样点的国家尺度土壤属性制图方法与应用

A Study on Soil Property Mapping at National Scale Based on Sparse Grid Soil Samples

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 13

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	刘明杰, 徐卓揆, 郜允兵, 杨晶, 潘瑜春, 高秉博, 周艳兵, 周万鹏, 王凌. 基于机器学习的稀疏样本下的土壤有机质估算方法[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2020, 22(9): 1799-1813.
[2]	张丽丽, 赵明伟, 赵娜, 岳天祥. 基于OCO-2卫星观测模拟高精度XCO₂的空间分布[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2018, 20(9): 1316-1326.
[3]	崔晓临, 程贇, 张露, 卫晓庆. 基于DEM修正的MODIS地表温度产品空间插值[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2018, 20(12): 1768-1776.
[4]	王梦艺, 盛业华, 黄一昀, 吕海洋, 黄毅. 电磁地理环境监测数据空间插值方法[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2017, 19(7): 872-879.
[5]	李佳霖, 樊子德, 邓敏. 顾及风向和风速的空气污染物浓度插值方法[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2017, 19(3): 382-389.
[6]	段家朕, 熊礼阳, 汤国安. 基岩露头采样密度对黄土古地形重建的影响[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2016, 18(4): 461-468.
[7]	张涛, 李宝林, 赵娜, 许丽丽. 结合TRMM数据的区域降水高精度曲面建模研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2015, 17(8): 895-901.
[8]	董志南, 郑拴宁, 赵会兵, 董仁才. 基于空间插值的风场模拟方法比较分析[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2015, 17(1): 37-44.
[9]	林冰仙, 周良辰, 闾国年. 虚拟钻孔控制的三维地质体模型构建方法[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2013, 15(5): 672-679.
[10]	王晨亮, 岳天祥*, 范泽孟, 赵娜, 孙晓芳. 高精度曲面建模的中国气候降尺度模型[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2012, 14(5): 599-610.
[11]	胡云锋, 王倩倩, 刘越, 李军, 任旺兵. 国家尺度社会经济数据格网化原理和方法[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2011, 13(5): 573-578.
[12]	宋丽琼, 田原, 邬伦, 张晖. 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): 566-572.
[13]	徐成东, 孔云峰, 仝文伟. 线性加权回归模型的高原山地区域降水空间插值研究[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2008, 10(1): 14-19.