4.5 Article

Could airborne gamma-spectrometric data replace lithological maps as co-variates for digital soil mapping of topsoil particle-size distribution? A case study in Western France

期刊

GEODERMA REGIONAL
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geodrs.2020.e00295

关键词

Digital soil mapping; Lithology; Parent material; Gamma-ray spectrometry

资金

  1. Region Centre
  2. BRGM
  3. FEDER European funds
  4. French Scientific Group of Interest on Soils, the GIS Sol
  5. French Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development
  6. French Ministry of Agriculture
  7. French Agency for Energy and Environment (ADEME)
  8. National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA)
  9. Institute for Research and Development (IRD)
  10. National Forest Inventory (IFN)
  11. French Agency for Biodiversity
  12. LE STUDIUM Loire Valley Institute for Advanced Studies through its LE STUDIUM Research Consortium Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parent material is a crucial co-variate in predicting soil properties using digital soil mapping (DSM) methods. This spatial information can be obtained using available lithology maps, or using proxies such as gamma-ray spectroscopic maps. In this study, we used random forests to predict topsoil texture (clay, silt, and sand in grams per kilogram) in a French sub-region using a high density of soil measurements and available co-variates including climate, topography, land use, and satellite data. Then, we tested the value of adding a lithology map at the 1:50,000 scale and/or an airborne gamma-ray spectroscopy map in a French region characterised by a considerable contrast in geology and lithology. We showed that adding airborne gamma-ray spectroscopic data substantially increased the indicators of prediction performance and led to less noisy and more interpretable maps for this region. These results suggest that airborne gamma-ray spectroscopy can be a very useful co-variate to predict these topsoil properties. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据