4.5 Article

Effects of different sampling densities on geographically weighted regression kriging for predicting soil organic carbon

Journal

SPATIAL STATISTICS
Volume 20, Issue -, Pages 76-91

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.spasta.2017.02.001

Keywords

Sampling density; Geographically weighted regression; Geographically weighted regression kriging; Soil organic carbon; Spatial variation

Funding

  1. Science & Technology Basic Research Program of China [2014FY210100]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41501468, 41471186]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province, China [20154177, 2016CXTD015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Geographically weighted regression kriging (GWRK) is a popular interpolation method, considering not only spatial parametric nonstationarity and relationship between target and explanatory variables, but also spatial autocorrelation of residuals. However, little attention has been paid to the effects of different sampling densities on GWRK technique for estimating soil properties. Objectives of this study were: (i) comparing the GWRK predictions with those obtained from multiple linear regression kriging (MLRK) and ordinary kriging (OK), and (ii) examining how different sampling densities affect the performance of GWRK for predicting soil organic carbon (SOC). Soil samples were simulated with four sampling densities, including 0.010, 0.020, 0.041, and 0.082 sites/km(2). The results showed that GWRK made less prediction errors and outperformed MLRK and OK in the case of a high sampling density, with the root mean squared errors of GWRKMLRK>OK. However, in the case of a low sampling density, GWRK generated larger prediction errors, exhibiting a poorer performance than MLRK and OK. Accordingly, we conclude that GWRK can be considered as the best approach for predicting SOC in these three approaches with sufficient data points, but it has a poorer performance than the other methods with sparse data points. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available