Comparison of different interpolation methods for spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and some soil properties in the Black Sea backward region of Turkey

The purpose of this research is to compare the spatial variability of soil organic carbon (SOC) in four adjacent land uses including the cultivated area, the grassland area, the plantation area and the natural forest area in the semi - arid region of Black Sea backward region of Turkey. Some of the soil properties, including total nitrogen, SOC, soil organic matter, and bulk density were measured on a grid with a 50 m sampling distance on the top soil (0-15 cm depth). Accordingly, a total of 120 samples were taken from the four adjacent land uses. Data was analyzed using geostatistical methods. The methods used were: Block kriging (BK), co - kriging (CK) with organic matter, total nitrogen and bulk density as auxiliary variables and inverse distance weighting (IDW) methods with the power of 1, 2 and 4. The methods were compared using a performance criteria that included root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and the coefficient of correlation (r). The one - way ANOVA test showed that differences between the natural (0.6653 +/- 0.2901) - plantation forest (0.7109 +/- 0.2729) areas and the grassland (1.3964 +/- 0.6828) - cultivated areas (1.5851 +/- 0.5541) were statistically significant at 0.05 level (F = 28.462). The best model for describing spatially variation of SOC was CK with the lowest error criteria (RMSE = 0.3342, MAE = 0.2292) and the highest coefficient of correlation (r = 0.84). The spatial structure of SOC could be well described by the spherical model. The nugget effect indicated that SOC was moderately dependent on the study area. The error distributions of the model showed that the improved model was unbiased in predicting the spatial distribution of SOC. This study's results revealed that an explanatory variable linked SOC increased success of spatial interpolation methods. In subsequent studies, this case should be taken into account for reaching more accurate outputs. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.