Validation of SoilGrids 2.0 in an Arid Region of India using In Situ Measurements



Abstract Views
453

Downloads
367

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Oct 28, 2022
Published Nov 22, 2022
10.24018/ejgeo.2022.3.6.356

Abstract viewed = 453 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

As one of the Earth’s most important natural resources, soil plays a prominent role in regulating ecosystem services, human food production systems and in facilitating a region’s sustainable development. Of late, due recognition has been given to soil sciences and soil information systems as they act as a core to achieve the targets of land degradation neutrality and help in fostering soil governance. In this regard, the availability of global soil databases paves the way for implementing successful soil information systems. Currently, harmonized world soil database from the Food and Agriculture Organization and SoilGrids from International Soil References and Information Centre serve various global soil data products in a geospatial-ready format for the scientific fraternity. In this study, SoilGrids 2.0 is validated with in situ measurements in the arid region of the Thar Desert. Soil fractions and pH at the top surface (0–5 cm) and subsurface (5–15 cm) were measured through soil sample analysis collected from the study area and compared with the values retrieved from SoilGrids 2.0 for the same location. This comparison shows that the SoilGrids 2.0 has underestimated the sand fragments up to ~28% and overestimated ~14% for silt and clay fragments. Deviation of pH in SoilGrids 2.0 was also observed with the root mean square error of one unit. However, in the comparison of soil texture classes from the field and the one given by SoilGrids 2.0, a systematic shift was found, indicating the robustness of SoilGrids prediction algorithm that can be fine-tuned by incorporating additional soil profiles (from contributing agencies) as the current snapshot of the soil database lacks dense and well-distributed soil profiles in this arid region.
Keywords: Arid Region, Digital Soil Maps, SoilGrids 2.0, Soil Texture, Soil Profile, Thar Desert.

References

  1. Smith P. Managing the global land resource. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2018; 285(1874), 20172798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2798.
     Google Scholar
  2. Keesstra SD, Bouma J, Wallinga J, Tittonell P, Smith P, Cerdà A, Montanarella L. et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil, 2016; 2(2), 111–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-111-2016.
     Google Scholar
  3. Erdogan HE, Havlicek E, Dazzi C, Montanarella L, Van Liedekerke M, Vrščaj B, Krasilnikv P, et al. Soil conservation and sustainable development goals (SDGs) achievement in Europe and Central Asia: Which role for the European soil partnership? International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2021; 9(3), 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2021.02.003.
     Google Scholar
  4. FAO. People & soil – Global soil governance: Status and future perspectives. Geneva Eurosoil, 2021. [Internet] Retrieved from: www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/areas-of-work/soil-governance/en/.
     Google Scholar
  5. Hannam I. Soil governance and land degradation neutrality. Soil Security, 2022; 6, 100030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2021.100030.
     Google Scholar
  6. Montanarella L. Agricultural policy: Govern our soils. Nature, 2015; 528(7580), 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/528032a.
     Google Scholar
  7. Velayutham M, Mishra BB. Soil and future. In B. Mishra (Ed.) The soils of India. World Soils Book Series. Springer; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–31082–0_14.
     Google Scholar
  8. Fischer G, Nachtergaele F, Prieler S, Van Velthuizen HT, Verelst L, Wiberg D. Global agro-ecological zones assessment for agriculture (GAEZ 2008). IIASA and FAO. 2008.
     Google Scholar
  9. Nachtergaele F, Van Velthuizen H, Verelst L, Batjes N, Dijkshoorn K, Van Engelen V, Fischer G, et al. The harmonized world soil database. Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia; 1–6 August 2010: pp. 34–37.
     Google Scholar
  10. Dai Y, Shangguan W, Wei N, Xin Q, Yuan H, Zhang S, Liu S, et al. A review of the global soil property maps for Earth system models. Soil, 2019; 5(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-137-2019.
     Google Scholar
  11. Silatsa FB, Yemefack M, Tabi FO, Heuvelink GB, Leenaars JG. Assessing countrywide soil organic carbon stock using hybrid machine learning modelling and legacy soil data in Cameroon. Geoderma, 2020; 367, 114260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114260.
     Google Scholar
  12. Stoorvogel JJ, Bakkenes M, Temme AJ, Batjes NH, ten Brink BJ. S‐world: A global soil map for environmental modelling. Land Degradation & Development, 2017; 28(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2656.
     Google Scholar
  13. Scull P, Franklin J, Chadwick OA, McArthur D. Predictive soil mapping: A review. Progress in Physical Geography, 2003; 27(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133303pp366ra.
     Google Scholar
  14. Sweta K, Dharumarajan S, Suputhra A, Lalitha M, Vasundhara R, Kalaiselvi B, Hegde R, et al. (2022). Transforming soil paradigms with machine learning. In Data science in agriculture and natural resource management. Springer; 2022: 243-265.
     Google Scholar
  15. Wadoux AMJC, Minasny B, McBratney AB. Machine learning for digital soil mapping: Applications, challenges and suggested solutions. Earth-Science Reviews, 2020; 210, 103359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103359.
     Google Scholar
  16. Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GBM, Gonzalez MR, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, Shangguan W, et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One, 2017; 12(2), e0169748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748.
     Google Scholar
  17. Poggio L, De Sousa LM, Batjes NH, Heuvelink G, Kempen B, Ribeiro E, Rossiter D. SoilGrids 2.0: Producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. Soil, 2021; 7(1), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7–217–2021.
     Google Scholar
  18. Batjes NH, Ribeiro E, Van Oostrum A. Standardised soil profile data to support global mapping and modelling (WoSIS snapshot 2019). Earth System Science Data, 2020; 12(1), 299–320. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12–299–2020.
     Google Scholar
  19. Batjes NH, Ribeiro E, Van Oostrum A, Leenaars J, Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J. WoSIS: Providing standardised soil profile data for the world. Earth System Science Data, 2017; 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9–1-2017.
     Google Scholar
  20. Rossiter DG, Poggio L, Beaudette D, Libohova Z. How well does predictive soil mapping represent soil geography? An investigation from the USA [Preprint]. Soil Discussions, 2021: 1–35. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2021–80.
     Google Scholar
  21. Liang Z, Chen S, Yang Y, Zhou Y, Shi Z. High-resolution three-dimensional mapping of soil organic carbon in China: Effects of SoilGrids products on national modeling. Science of the Total Environment, 2019; 685, 480–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.332.
     Google Scholar
  22. Tóth B, Weynants M, Pásztor L, Hengl T. 3D soil hydraulic database of Europe at 250 m resolution. Hydrological Processes, 2017; 31(14), 2662–2666. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11203.
     Google Scholar
  23. Kumar M, Goossens E, Goossens R. Assessment of sand dune change detection in Rajasthan (Thar) Desert, India. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 1993; 14(9), 1689–1703. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169308953995.
     Google Scholar
  24. Santra P, Kumar M, Kumawat RN, Painuli DK, Hati KM, Heuvelink GBM, Batjes NH. Pedotransfer functions to estimate soil water content at field capacity and permanent wilting point in hot arid western India. Journal of Earth System Science, 2018; 127(3), 1–16.
     Google Scholar
  25. Šinkovičová M, Igaz D, Kondrlová E, Jarošová M. Soil particle size analysis by laser diffractometry: Result comparison with pipette method. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2017; 245(7), 072025. IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1757–899X/245/7/072025.
     Google Scholar
  26. IS2720-Part22. Indian standard methods of tests for soils – Determination of organic matter. Bureau of Indian Standards; 1972.
     Google Scholar
  27. Gupta RK. (1968). Anthropogenic influences on the vegetation of Western Rajasthan. Vegetatio Acta Geobot, 2008; 16(1), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00261358.
     Google Scholar
  28. Rathore VS, Singh JP, Bhardwaj S, Nathawat NS, Kumar M, Roy, M. M. Potential of native shrubs Haloxylon salicornicum and Calligonum polygonoides for restoration of degraded lands in arid western Rajasthan, India. Environmental Management, 2015; 55(1), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267–014–0372–1.
     Google Scholar
  29. Singh KC, Rao AS. A short note on water use and production potential of Lasiurus scindicus in the Thar desert of Rajasthan, India. Journal of Arid Environments, 1996; 33(2), 261–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1996.0062.
     Google Scholar
  30. SoilGrids. Global Gridded Soil Information. (n.d.). www.isric.org. https://www.isric.org/explore/soilgrids.
     Google Scholar
  31. Bargaoui YE, Walter C, Michot D, Saby NP, Vincent S, Lemercier B. Validation of digital maps derived from spatial disaggregation of legacy soil maps. Geoderma, 2019; 356: 113907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113907.
     Google Scholar
  32. Kmoch A, Kanal A, Astover A, Kull A, Virro H, Helm A, Pärtel M, et al. EstSoil-EH: A high-resolution eco-hydrological modelling parameters dataset for Estonia. Earth System Science Data, 2021; 13(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13–83–2021.
     Google Scholar