4.7 Article

Uncertainty in the spatial prediction of soil texture Comparison of regression tree and Random Forest models

Journal

GEODERMA
Volume 170, Issue -, Pages 70-79

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.10.010

Keywords

Random Forest; Regression tree; GIS; Soil texture; Tropical soils

Categories

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Within the southern Ecuadorian Andes, landslides have an impact on landscape development. Landslide risk estimation as well as hydrological modelling requires physical soil data. Statistical models were adapted to predict the spatial distribution of soil texture from terrain parameters. For this purpose, 56 soil profiles were analysed horizon-wise by pipette and laser method. Results by pipette compared to laser method showed the expected shift to higher silt and lower clay contents. Linear regression equations were adapted. The performance of regression tree (RT) and Random Forest (RF) models was compared by hundredfold model runs on random jackknife partitions. Digital soil maps of sand, silt and clay percentage mean and standard deviation indicate model variability and prediction uncertainty. RF models performed better than RT models. All terrain factors considered in the analysis influenced soil texture of the surface horizon, but altitude a.s.l. was assigned the highest variable importance during model construction. Shallow subsurface flow is considered responsible for increasing sand/clay ratios with increasing altitude, on steep slopes and with overland flow distance to the channel network by removing clay particles downslope. Deeper soil layers are not influenced by this process and therefore, did not show the same texture properties. However, the influence of parent material and landslides on the spatial distribution of soil texture cannot be neglected. Model performance, most probably, could be improved by a bigger dataset. (C) 2011 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available