Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Modeling Soil Landscape Relationship

Modeling Soil Landscape Relationship

Ratings: (0)|Views: 446|Likes:
Published by Yiyi Sulaeman
Kemajuan ilmu dan teknologi khususnya SIG dan datamining serta database management telah memungkinkan untuk mengembangkan model-model yang akan bermanfaat baik untuk masyarakat maupun untuk sains. Dalam tulisan ini saya mereview bagaimana pengembangan soil-landscape modeling untuk aplikasi bidang ilmu tanah.
Kemajuan ilmu dan teknologi khususnya SIG dan datamining serta database management telah memungkinkan untuk mengembangkan model-model yang akan bermanfaat baik untuk masyarakat maupun untuk sains. Dalam tulisan ini saya mereview bagaimana pengembangan soil-landscape modeling untuk aplikasi bidang ilmu tanah.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Yiyi Sulaeman on May 19, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5
(2) (2005) p: 1-14
Yiyi Sulaeman*, Hikmatullah, and H. SubagyoIndonesian Soil Research Institute (ISRI)
Soil-landscape model represents both relationships between soil and landformand the relationships between the pattern of soil-landform relationship and processesof pedogeomorphic evolution. This paper aims to get insight about soil-landscaperelationships as a basis for soil-landscape modeling with giving emphasis on themethodology and the review of the modeling result of research from developedcountries since the advent of GIS. The modeling follows four consecutive stages:physiographic domain characterization, geomorphometric characterization of thelandscape, horizon stratigraphy characterization and soil property characterization
Landscape position determines soil profile properties and horizon properties. At largescale, slope, flow accumulation, and CTI are best predictors for A-horizon depth (R
=0.85), whereas CTI alone accounts for 71 % of variance. Flow accumulation and upslopemean profile curvature are best predictors for soil depth (R
= 0.88), whereas CTI aloneaccounts for 84 % of variance. Slope and flow accumulation are best predictor forcarbon content (R
= 0.80), and CTI accounts for 78 % of variance. A tree with fiveterminal nodes was optimal for predicting soil profile depth with slope, CTI, relativeelevation, and temperature as predictors. A tree with five terminal nodes was optimalfor predicting total soil phosphorus with radiometric potassium, relief, downslopegradient, and plan curvature as predictors. At intermediate to small scale, gilgai andlandform are best predictor for clay content (R
= 0.51). Gilgai is best predictor forprediction of EC (R
=0.364), and landform is best predictor for ESP (R
=0.561). A treewith six terminal nods was optimal for predicting depth of A horizon of tuff soil inLampung Province, Indonesia with average slope and elevation as predictors. Modelinghas increasingly developed mainly due to the advance of computer technology bothsoftware and hardware. Generalized linear model and tree-based model can be used todevelop quantitative soil-landscape relationshipKeyword: Soil-landscape relationship, modeling, regression tree, environmentalcorrelation, LampungAbbreviation: CTI = compound topographic index; EC=electric conductivity;ESP=exchangeable sodium percentage
* Corresponding author
Basically, a model is an abstractreduction or simplification of thecomplex natural system (Dijkerman,1974; Hoosbeek and Bryant, 1992;Hoosbeek
et al.,
2000). It is aconceptual model, as opposed toconcrete model (real physical object).It is actually also a system, but of asimpler and often more abstract innature (Dijkerman, 1974). Using thisdefinition, soil-landscape model thusrefers to an abstract reduction of bothcomplex relationships between soil andlandform in the soil landscape systemand the relationship between patternand process of pedogeomorphicevolution (McSweenay
et al.,
1994).The general objective formodeling is to better organizeinformation related to theunderstanding of soils and ultimatelyimprove prediction of the consequenceof human interaction with soil(Hoosbeek
et al.,
2000). Pedologistsbuild models as convenient device forcollecting, describing, explaining, andpredicting data (Dijkerman, 1974). In
2 Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5
(2) (2005)
soil landscape modeling, pedologistsare challenged to: 1) identify anddefine where landform-soil horizonrelationship is strong; 2) determine thefeasibility of using these relationshipsfor extrapolation across the landscape;and 3) interpret these relationships interms of process and events that resultin soil-landscape evolution (McSweenay
et al.,
1994). In short, pedologist arechallenged to build a good model thatcan be used for soil propertiesprediction and for further studies suchas global climate change study, landevaluation, environmental impactassessment, and simulation modeling.In addition, Dijkerman (1974) revealsthe characteristics of pedologicalmodel, Hoosbeek and Bryant (1992)provides a framework for classificationof pedological model, while Hoosbeeket al (2000) recently reviewed theestablished pedological model.McSweenay et al (1994) providesa framework for soil landscapemodeling particularly for soilproperties prediction. Modeling processfollow four consecutive stages: 1)physiographic domain characterizationthat involves integration of availabledata sets to define and characterizethe physiographic area under study, toconsolidate a priori knowledge aboutthe area, and to identify other datathat might be valuable for defining soilpattern; 2) geomorphometriccharacterization of the landscape byprimary and secondary landscapeattributes derived from a digitalelevation model (DEM); 3) horizonstratigraphy characterization thatincludes development of a soil horizonlegend that is used to determine thedistribution and spatial relationshipamong soil horizons and other layers inthe landscape; and 4) soil propertycharacterization that involveslaboratory and statistical analysis of soil horizon attributes collected duringthe third stage. However, the study of soil-landform relationship itself hasbegun since 1935, since catena conceptwas established (Milne, 1935).The significance of the soil-landscape model is that it can be usedas another tool for prediction of soilproperties by taking advantage of thecorrelation of quantitativeenvironmental variables and soilproperties (e.g. McKenzie and McLoad,1989; McKenzie
et al.,
1991; Odeh
1991; Moore, 1993; Odeh
et al.,
 1994). The advent in computertechnology promotes this approach. Inaddition to this approach, spatialprediction of soil properties can beconducted using geostatistics (e.g.Webster and Burger, 1985; Laslett andMcBratney, 1990; Oberthur
et al.,
 1999; Lagacherie and Voltz, 2000).Geostatistical methods have provenuseful at large scale but their utility atintermediate and smaller scales (i.e.equivalent to cartographic scales from1:50.000 to 1: 250.000) is less clear.Besides, it requires dense data, detail,and plain area so that grid-samplingtechnique becomes effective. On theother hand, soil-landscape model (orenvironmental correlation according toMcKenzie and Ryan, 1999) can beapplied in any topographic conditionand scale of study. This has theadvantage of incorporating thequalitative process knowledge of thepedologist into spatial prediction aswell as providing a more realisticportrayal of soil variation that can beboth continuous and discontinuous(McKenzie and Ryan, 1999). However,some attempts have been triad tointegrate both approach i.e. mappedpolygons used prior stratification priorto, or during, geostatistical analysis(e.g. Volt and Webster, 1990).Soil-landscape model is alsoimportant for land evaluation andeventually for land use planning. Itprovides data and information aboutterrain as well as soil properties
et al.
Modeling soil-landscape relationship 3
required for land evaluation. Landevaluation basically compares land userequirement with land characteristicsand land qualities. For unvisited areas,land evaluation still can be conductedas land qualities can be predicted usingthis model.The objective of this paper is toget insight about soil-landscaperelationships as a basis for soil-landscape modeling activity. Thispaper gives emphasis on themethodology of modeling process andthe review of the result of researchfrom developed countries since theadvent of Geographic InformationSystem (GIS). Such modeling has beenconducted in different locations usingsimilar methodologies, but withdifferent scales, so that thispresentation is arranged on case-by-case basis. The discussion is addressedon methodology issue and theefficiency of prediction.
METHODOLOGYCase study 1:The effect of landscape position onsoil properties variation
Young and Hammer (2000)conducted this study in northwesternBoone County, Missouri. Theyclassified site into three landforms;ridge slope (slope gradient 1 to 3 %),shoulder (slope gradient 2 to 4 %), andbackslope (slope gradients generally 4to 8 %, with a maximum of 15%). Usingtransect method with 15 m interval,soil profiles were described usingstandard method (Soil Survey DivisionStaff, 1993). Soil samples, then, weretook according to depth incrementsbelow the A-horizon: depth of A-1 isvariable, 20 cm max; A-2 is alsovariable, rest of A horizon; B-1 is upper15 cm of argilic horizon; B-2 is next 15-cm depth increment; B3 is next 20-cmincrement; and B-4 was next 20-cmdepth increment, in order to ensuredatabase uniformity.Particle size, organic carbon,bases, cation exchange capacity (CEC),and pH were determined. Soilproperty difference among landscapeclasses were examined for (i) landform(ridge, shoulder, and backslope; (ii)plan and profile curvature (convex,plane, and concave, for pedonssampled on the backslope only, and(iii) position along the slope gradient(upper, mid, lower, and footslope forpedon sampled on the backslope only).Data are analyzed using non-parametric approach since previousstudy show that data non-linearlydistribute (Young
et al.,
Case study 2:Modeling soil-landscape relationshipat large scale using general linear
Gessler et al (2000) carried outthis study in the Santa Ynez RiverBasin, Santa Barbara County,California. Five digital elevationmodels (DEMs) were developed fromwhich primary and secondary terrainattributes (Moore
et al.,
1991) thatquantify landform (e.g. slope gradient,profile and plane curvature, flowdirection, flow accumulation,compound topographic index (CTI), andupslope mean statistics) are computed.Soil profiles were described usingstandard procedures (Soil SurveyDivision staff, 1993) and soil sampleanalysis were carried out fordetermining organic C and N, bulkdensity, texture, pH, CEC, and basesaturation. The mass of C in eachhorizon was calculated by multiplyingthe measured organic C (OC)percentage, corrected for gravelcontent, by the measured bulkdensities.They developed soil-landscapemodels of A-horizon depth, soil depth,and C-
using general linear modelapproach with quantitative terrainattributes as predictors. Due to the

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Desy Wahyu liked this
Fian Cool liked this
greensangrilla liked this
angelvalera liked this
skyduke liked this
Nyamdavaa liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->