Pedosphere 22(2): 230–242, 2012

ISSN 1002-0160/CN 32-1315/P

c 2012 Soil Science Society of China
Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press

Spatial Distribution of Soil Organic Matter Using Geostatistics: A Key

Indicator to Assess Soil Degradation Status in Central Italy∗1

A. MARCHETTI1 , C. PICCINI1,∗2 , R. FRANCAVIGLIA1 and L. MABIT2

1
Research Centre for the Soil-Plant System, CRA-RPS, Via della Navicella 2–4, 00184 Rome (Italy)
2
Soil and Water Management & Crop Nutrition Laboratory, FAO/IAEA Agriculture & Biotechnology Laboratory, IAEA
Laboratories Seibersdorf, PO Box 100, Wagramerstrasse 5, A-1400 Vienna (Austria)
(Received March 16, 2011; revised November 5, 2011)

ABSTRACT
Soil organic matter (SOM) content is one of the main factors to be considered in the evaluation of soil health and fertility.
As timing, human and monetary resources often limit the amount of available data, geostatistical techniques provide a valid
scientific approach to cope with spatial variability, to interpolate existing data and to predict values at unsampled locations
for accurate SOM status survey. Using geostatistical and geographic information system (GIS) approaches, the spatial
variability of some physical and chemical soil parameters was investigated under Mediterranean climatic condition in the
Abruzzo region of central Italy, where soil erosion processes accelerated by human induced factors are the main causes of
soil degradation associated with low SOM content. Experimental semivariograms were established to determine the spatial
dependence of the soil variables under investigation. The results of 250 soil sampling point data were interpolated by means
of ordinary kriging coupled with a GIS to produce contour maps distribution of soil texture, SOM content related to texture,
and C/N ratio. The resulting spatial interpolation of the dataset highlighted a low content of SOM in relation with soil
texture in most of the surveyed area (87%) and an optimal C/N ratio for only half of the investigated surface area. Spatial
location of degraded area and the assessment of its magnitude can provide decision makers with an accurate support to
design appropriate soil conservation strategies and then facilitate a regional planning of agri-environmental measures in the
framework of the European Common Agricultural Policy.
Key Words: C/N ratio, ordinary kriging, soil organic carbon, soil quality, spatial variability

Citation: Marchetti, A., Piccini, C., Francaviglia, R. and Mabit, L. 2012. Spatial distribution of soil organic matter using
geostatistics: A key indicator to assess soil degradation status in central Italy. Pedosphere. 22(2): 230–242.

INTRODUCTION
Land degradation is associated with the irretrieva-
ble loss of the basic soil resource, and thus is a major
threat to water and biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity
and plant primary productivity. Accelerated soil degra-
dation decreases soil fertility and productivity (on-site
impacts) and increases related environmental pollution
and sedimentation problems (off-site impacts). Current
concerns about the effects related to accelerated soil
resource degradation generate an urgent need for ob-
taining reliable quantitative data on its extent world-
wide (Pimentel, 2006). As stated by most of the United
Nations organizations and non-governmental organi-
zations, land degradation has moreover negative eco-
logical and socio-economic impacts. Worldwide eco-
nomic cost of soil degradation from agricultural land
was estimated at US$ 400 billion per year (Pimentel,
2006). Extensive soil and land degradation processes
mostly human induced are occurring also in Europe
due to extreme intensification of agriculture and mis-
management of soil resource (EEA, 2002; Boardman
and Poesen, 2006; CEC, 2006b). In 2003 for European
Union (EU), the total assessed cost of soil degradation,
i.e., erosion, organic matter decline, salinization, land-
slides and contamination based on available data was
up to e38 billion annually (Montanarella, 2010).

∗1
Supported by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (No. DM 19366).
∗2
Corresponding author. E-mail: chiara.piccini@entecra.it.
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOM IN CENTRAL ITALY
Soil erosion is a selective process of soil redistri-
bution in the landscape and thus contributes to the
spatial variability of soil quality (Verity and Anderson,
1990). Many researches highlight and demonstrate that
water erosion, wind erosion and tillage erosion are the
main factors explaining the spatial variability of soil or-
ganic matter (SOM) content in cultivated fields (e.g.,
Mabit and Bernard, 1998; Fenton et al., 2005; Ritchie
et al., 2005; Polyakov and Lal, 2008). In addition, as
SOM represents one of the largest reservoir of organic
C in the global carbon cycle (Lützow et al., 2006),
evaluating soil carbon sequestration, storage and re-
distribution at various scales is of pressing concern for
soil protection and in mitigation strategies for global
warming.
SOM affects the chemical and physical properties
of the soil and its overall health, and is actually a key
parameter of soil quality and a soil fertility indicator.
Besides providing nutrients and habitat to soil organi-
sms, organic matter influences soil physical properties
in binding soil particles into aggregates, and in im-
proving soil water holding capacity (Lal, 2003; Bot and
Benites, 2005; Lal, 2007).
In cultivated land without restoring the organic
matter and nutrient contents, nutrient cycles are bro-
ken, soil fertility declines and the balance in agro-
ecosystems is impaired. Depending on cultivation prac-
tices, plant cover, soil drainage and agro-climatic
conditions, agricultural practices generally accelerate
SOM decomposition, and therefore increase arable
land vulnerability and susceptibility to erosion pro-
cesses (Bot and Benites, 2005). Combating this kind
of degradation is highly desirable to ensure European
arable soils sustainability, knowing that reversal of soil
degradation trends through conversion to restorative
land use would enhance the SOM pool (Lal, 2009).
Warming temperatures are expected to speed-up
natural processes of SOM decomposition, which should
increase the atmospheric CO2 level that contribute also
to climate change (Davidson and Janssens, 2006). Cli-
mate change is projected either to increase or de-
crease crop yields and soil quality in Mediterranean
agroecosystems depending on site characteristics, crop
management and soil tillage practices. Results from
different simulation models (e.g., Century and Epic)
clearly indicated that management choices linked to
crop intensification level and/or conservation tillage
could affect the soil organic carbon balance more
strongly than climate change, suggesting the adoption
of improved rotations, grassland conversion and no-
tillage (Lugato and Berti, 2008; Álvaro-Fuentes and
231
Paustian, 2011; Farina et al., 2011).
The problem of SOM depletion under Mediter-
ranean climatic conditions is of particular concern in
central and southern Italy due to high temperature and
reduced soil moisture that accelerate SOM decomposi-
tion processes. In this part of Italy, the adoption of in-
tensive mechanized agriculture accelerates SOM degra-
dation rate. Effectively, deep ploughing adopted to im-
prove soil structure, permeability and aeration, and
to help crop growth, combined with non-conservative
agronomic practices, e.g., monoculture under conven-
tional tillage without residues left on the soil surface to
reduce rainfall erosivity, causes a SOM dilution in the
arable soil layer due to the mixing with the underlying
horizons poor in SOM.
The European Commission has set out common
principles for protecting soils across the EU, proposing
a framework directive to combat European soil degra-
dation (CEC, 2006a). The recently adopted Soil The-
matic Strategy for Soil Protection by the European
Commission provides the legal framework for EU mem-
ber states to implement adequate responses in order
to reverse the negative trend of land and soil degrada-
tion in Europe. This directive establishes a framework
for the protection of soil, its sustainable use and the
preservation and restoration of the soil capacity to per-
form as many as possible of the environmental, ecologi-
cal, socio-economical and cultural functions. In this
framework, the knowledge of the current state of the
resources should be the basis of any planning to pre-
vent, or at least to limit, any negative effect that could
arise from anthropogenic land management. Further-
more, additional pressure for soil conservation comes
from the Water Framework Directive 2008 amendment
which gives attention to the off-site impact of land
degradation on downstream water quality in the con-
text of sediment pollution.
Therefore, current concerns to ensure a sustainable
use and management of European soil and water re-
source generate an urgent need for obtaining reliable
quantitative data on the extent and magnitude of soil
degradation. At the European level, as stated by EU
Joint Research Centre, there is a serious gap of geo-
referenced data available on SOM from systematic soil
sampling programmes. Currently the most compre-
hensive data set on SOM content of European soils is
provided by the European Soil Database at a scale of
1:1 000 000 (Jones et al., 2004, 2005).
To produce soil parameter redistribution map, one
needs a sufficient number of samples and a validated
sampling strategy to ensure an accurate assessment of
232
unsampled areas (Mabit et al., 2002). Also, soil
parameters are not distributed randomly in the land-
scape; there is a spatial autocorrelation that can
explain the spatial distribution of their magnitudes
(Mabit and Bernard, 2007). Geostatistics can be used
to characterize the spatial behaviour and spatial dis-
tribution of a parameter and to use this information
to predict the value of this variable between sampled
points and to minimize estimation error (Webster and
Oliver, 2001). For this reason, the estimation by geo-
statistical techniques through moving average interpo-
lation such as kriging has been applied extensively in
soil science since the 80s (e.g. Burgess and Webster,
1980; Oliver and Webster, 1991; Goovaerts, 1997; Web-
ster, 2001; Kanevski and Maignan, 2004; Duffera et al.,
2007). But still credible measurements of the SOM and
its landscape dynamic at a range of spatial and tem-
poral scales remain a challenge (Lal, 2009).
SOM distribution using geostatistical approaches
has been mapped accurately at the field scale (e.g.,
Mabit et al., 2008a; Mabit and Bernard, 2010) or
mapped using modelling and/or geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) and remote sensing support at the
country or continental scale (Jones et al., 2004, 2005;
Werner et al., 2009). However, reliable distribution of
SOM through geostatistical techniques at intermedi-
ate scale providing policy makers with information at
a scale at which protection measures are likely to be
implemented and followed with efficient results, i.e.,
the watershed scale, are still scarce.
The aims of this study conducted in central Italy
were i) to determine the structure of spatial depen-
dence of different soil physical and chemical properties
(i.e., soil textural parameters, SOM and C/N ratio),
ii) to evaluate these soil parameters distribution from
point-type data in non sampled locations by ordinary
kriging (OK), and iii) to map their spatial distribu-
tion using geostatistics and GIS facilities to define soil
quality status in identifying risk areas with depleted
SOM content, in order to address the regional plan-
ning of agri-environmental measures under the Euro-
pean Common Agricultural Policy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The study area covering about 100 km2 is located
in the northern part of the Abruzzo region, Italy, be-
tween the latitudes 42◦ 47 41 and 42◦ 53 38 N
and the longitudes 13◦ 46 06 and 13◦ 55 57 E;
it comprises four municipalities in Teramo Province:
Controguerra, Corropoli, Colonnella and Martinsicuro
A. MARCHETTI et al.
(Fig. 1). This region is mainly hilly, crossed by rivers,
and agricultural lands are predominant. The most eco-
nomically important zone falls into the Controguerra
viticultural district, the DOCG (Denominazione di
Origine Controllata e Garantita, attesting the origin
and the quality of a wine) area of Colline Teramane.
The mean temperatures during winter and during sum-
mer are 7.5 and 25 ◦ C, respectively, the mean annual
rainfall is about 790 mm, and spring and autumn are
the rainy seasons. Temperate winter and dry summer
are typical of the Mediterranean climate.
Considering the Soil Regions of Italy as defined by
the European Soil Bureau (ESB, 2000), this area is lo-
cated in the Soil Region 61.3, namely “Hills of central
and southern Italy on Pliocene and Pleistocene ma-
rine deposits and Holocene alluvial sediments along the
Adriatic Sea”. According to Costantini et al. (2004),
the main soil units are: soils eroded and with reorga-
nization of carbonates (Eutric and Calcaric Regosols,
Calcaric Cambisols and Haplic Calcisols), soils with
clay accumulation (Haplic and Calcic Luvisols), soils
with vertic properties (Vertic Cambisols and Calcic
Vertisols), and alluvial soils (Calcaric, Eutric and
Gleyic Fluvisols). Severe and continuous soil erosion
is one of the major causes for the low organic matter
content of many soils in these regions where the quality
of agricultural soils is reducing.
A useful way to organize the knowledge about the
soils in a geographic area is the soil system, i.e., a re-
curring group of soils that occupies specific landscape
positions as a result of the internal soil environment
produced by the interaction of stratigraphy, hydrology,
geomorphology and climate (Daniels et al., 1984). In
the area under investigation four main soil systems
are represented (Chiuchiarelli et al., 2006): A1, sandy
sediments close to the present sea shore, including the
coastal zone; A2, ancient valley bottoms and terraces
of the meso-Adriatic alluvial deposits, bordering the
main rivers of the region; A3, high terraces of the meso-
Adriatic Plio-Pleistocenic reliefs with sandy-gravelly
substrate; and A4, meso-Adriatic Plio-Pleistocenic re-
liefs with clay loam substrate. Within a soil system,
soil subsystems account for differences in physiogra-
phy, lithology, morphometry, land use, vegetation and
soil associations. In Fig. 1 a 1:250 000 soil subsystem
map of the area is reported (Chiuchiarelli et al., 2006),
including eight different soil subsystems as described
in Table I.
Soil analysis and data base building
A set of 250 georeferenced samples were collected
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOM IN CENTRAL ITALY
Fig. 1 Soil sampling locations according to soil subsystems of the study area (adapted from Chiuchiarelli et al., 2006).
by the Regional Agency for Agricultural Extension Ser-
vices of Abruzzo Region (ARSSA) from the surface
horizon (plough layer, about 50 cm depth) of agricul-
tural soils (Fig. 1).
The physical and chemical analyses of the soil sam-
ples included the determination of particle size distri-
bution (Gee and Bauder, 1986), organic carbon content
(OC) applying the modified Walkley-Black method
(Nelson and Sommer, 1982), and total nitrogen content
(N) using the Kjeldahl method (Bremner and Sparks,
1996). According to Jackson (1958), the SOM content
was evaluated from the organic carbon using the fol-
lowing formula:
SOM = OC × 1.724 (1)
The SOM status of the sampled area was classified
into four different levels (i.e., very low, low, medium
and high) based on the USDA textural classes (see Ta-
ble II).
Data mapping optimization and validation using geo-
statistical analysis
After descriptive statistical analysis, the mode-
lling of spatial variability and the estimation at non-
233
sampled locations were performed using geostatisti-
cal approach. Using two-dimensional space, the spatial
structure of a variable can be visualized by maps. How-
ever, in order to produce spatial representation of
dataset, we need to interpolate the values at unsam-
pled locations. Various interpolation techniques exist
(e.g., inverse distance weighting, IDW, also termed in-
verse distance to a power, triangulation with linear in-
terpolation) which are “user-friendly”, but these exact
interpolators do not take in consideration the spatial
autocorrelation of data and thus oversimplify the re-
ality (Isaaks and Srivastava, 1989; Robinson and Met-
ternicht, 2006; Mabit et al., 2008a).
Therefore OK, known as the best linear unbiased
estimator (BLUE), was chosen as interpolation method
for each soil parameter to minimize the prediction er-
ror variance. OK is by far the most common type of
kriging, consisting in a form of weighted averaging, and
is based on the concept of a variable z(x) that is both
random and spatially autocorrelated (Heuvelink and
Webster, 2001). The predictions are based on the fol-
lowing model:
Z(x) = μ + ε(x) (2)
where μ is the constant stationary function (global
234 A. MARCHETTI et al.

TABLE I

Characteristics of the soil subsystems in Teramo Province, Italy (Chiuchiarelli et al., 2006)

Map unit Physiography and lithology
A1a Coastal area with incoherent
substrates, sandy and sandy-
gravelly
A2a Valley bottoms of the main ri-
vers, and alluvial terraces; sub-
strates of gravelly, sandy and
clay loam alluvial sediments
A2c Recent river terraces higher than
the present valley bottom; sub-
strates of gravelly-sandy and
clay loam sediments, interca-
lated or underlying clay loam
colluvial sediments
A2d Ancient river terraces higher
than the present valley bottom;
substrates of gravelly-sandy se-
diments
A3b Top residual surfaces, narrow
and stretched, reduced to sub-
level crests; substrates of grave-
lly-sandy sediments
A4b Linear slopes and secondarily
unstable slopes with gully ero-
sion; substrates of marine clay
loam sediments
A4d Linear slopes and secondarily
unstable slopes with gully ero-
sion; substrates of marine
coarse gravel sediments
A4e Linear slopes and eroded sur-
faces of terraces with slightly
undulating morphology
Morphometry
Altitude: 0–20 m a.s.l. (99%);
Slope: 85% from 0% to 5%
Altitude: 0–200 m a.s.l. (98%);
Slope: 88% from 0% to 5%
Altitude: 0–200 m a.s.l. (91%);
Slope: 80% from 0% to 5%
Altitude: 20–300 m a.s.l. (82%);
Slope: 83% from 0% to 13%
Altitude: 100–400 m a.s.l. (95%); Artificial surfaces: 16%; Agricultural are-
Slope: 67% from 0% to 13%
Altitude: 50–300 m a.s.l. (84%); Agricultural areas: 79% (arable crops
Slope: 79% from 5% to 35%
Altitude: 100–300 m a.s.l.
(85%);
Slope: 76% from 5% to 35%
Altitude: 50–300 m a.s.l. (97%);
Slope: 98% from 0% to 35%
Land use and vegetation
Artificial surfaces: 59%; Agricultural are-
as: 28% (arable crops 16%, permanent
crops 4%, heterogeneous areas 7%); Sea
shores, dunes and sand plains: 3%
Artificial surfaces: 17%; Agricultural are-
as: 64% (arable crops 38%, permanent
crops 12%, heterogeneous areas 7%); Ri-
parian formations: 13%
Artificial surfaces: 28%; Agricultural are-
as: 64% (arable crops 40%, permanent
crops 13%, heterogeneous areas 14%)
Artificial surfaces: 10%; Agricultural are-
as: 83% (arable crops 36% and olive
groves 22%)
as: 85% (vineyards 25%, olive groves 20%,
complex cultivation patterns 17%, arable
crops 16%)
29%, olive groves 22%, vineyards 11%)
Artificial surfaces: 6%; Agricultural
areas: 78% (arable crops 40%, olive
groves 12%, annual crops associated with
permanent crops 12%)
Artificial surfaces: 5%; Agricultural areas:
91% (arable crops 47%, annual crops asso-
ciated with permanent crops 19%)

TABLE II

Soil organic matter (SOM) evaluation according to USDA textural classes (SILPA, 1999)

USDA texture class SOM content

Very low Low Medium High

%
Sand loamy, sand, sandy loam < 0.8 0.8–1.4 1.5–2.0 > 2.0
Loam, sandy clay, sandy clay loam, silty loam, silt < 1.0 1.0–1.8 1.9–2.5 > 2.5
Clay, clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam < 1.2 1.2–2.2 2.3– 3.0 > 3.0

n

mean) and ε(x) is the spatially correlated stochastic
Ẑ(x0 ) = λi Z(xi ) (3)
part of variation. Estimation of Z at an unsampled i=1
point x0 , Ẑ(x0 ), is made by a weighted average of the
data: where λi is the kriging weight assigned to sampling site
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOM IN CENTRAL ITALY
Z(xi ). The weights are allocated to the sample data
within the neighbourhood of the point to be estimated
in such a way to minimize the estimation variance. Ac-
cording to Webster and Oliver (2001), to ensure that
the estimate is unbiased, the weights are made to sum
to 1:
n indicate the presence of processes operating at different

λi = 1 (4)
i=1
and the expected prediction error is
E[Ẑ(x0 ) − Z(x0 )] = 0 (5)
To estimate the weights in an objective way, so that
they reflect the true spatial autocorrelation structure,
the so-called semivariances (differences between neigh-
bouring values) are used:
1 is the number of lags relative to variogram k, D(k) is
γ(h) = E[Z(xi ) − Z(xi + h)]2 (6)
2 the maximum distance relative to variogram k, P (i) is
where Z(xi ) is the value of the target variable at sam-
pled location i and Z(xi + h) is the value of the neigh-
bour at distance h. A set of n point observations yields
n(n − 1)/2 pairs for which a semivariance can be cal-
culated.
Once plotting all the semivariances versus their dis-
tances a variogram cloud is produced, and averaging
the values for a standard distance (lag) an experimen-
tal variogram is obtained. In the variogram the spa-
tial dependence of the data is typically expressed by
a monotonic increase from the origin with increasing
lag distance; the variogram is hence a function of the
spatial autocorrelation of the sample. The semivari-
ances are typically smaller at shorter distance, and may
reach, or asymptotically approach, an upper bound
(sill) at a finite distance (range), beyond which there is
no longer spatial autocorrelation (Heuvelink and Web-
ster, 2001). In fact, the values of a target variable are
more similar at a shorter distance, up to a certain dis-
tance where the differences between the pairs are more
or less equal to the global variance (Hengl, 2007). The
nugget variance, a positive intercept on the ordinate,
is an uncorrelated component and indicator of short
distance variation which includes measurement error,
sampling error, inter-sample error and unexplained and
inherent variability.
A mathematical model is then fitted to the experi-
mental variogram (Goovaerts, 1997) to minimize the
variance of the errors, and the parameters of the va-
235
riogram model are used to assign optimal weights for
interpolation by OK.
An important property of admissible variogram
models is that any linear combination of admissible
variogram models with positive coefficients is also an
admissible model (nested structure). Nested structures
scales (Armstrong, 1998). Best fitted variogram models
can be obtained by minimizing the indicative goodness
of fit (IGF) criterion, which is a standardized measure
of the difference between observed and predicted values
based on a least squares estimator (Pannatier, 1996):
D(k)  γ(i) − γ̂(i) 2
N n(k)
1   P (i)
IGF = · · (7)
n(k) σ2
k=1 i=0 
N d(i)
P (j)
j=0
where N is the number of directional variograms, n(k)
the number of pairs for lag i of variogram k, d(i) is
the mean pair distance for lag i of variogram k, γ(i)
is the experimental measure of spatial continuity for
lag i, γ̂(i) is the modelled measure of spatial continui-
ty for d(i), and σ 2 is the variance of the data for the
variogram.
Based on optimized variograms, contour map of
soil texture (USDA classification) and contour map
of SOM related to soil texture were generated using
GIS facilities. After a preliminary estimation of sand,
clay and SOM contents, these vectorial estimated maps
were converted into raster maps, with 20 m × 20 m
cells; from these cells the values referred to the cen-
tre of each cell (also termed centroids) were extracted.
USDA texture classes were determined for each cen-
troid by means of a dedicated PC program created for
this purpose (in FORTRAN 90), and the SOM levels
related to soil texture were evaluated. The final maps
were derived from these outputs, and the map of C/N
ratio—proxy indicator of SOM humification rate—was
also generated.
Cross-validation procedure was conducted to eva-
luate the accuracy of the model through three statisti-
cal measurements of the prediction error: mean error
(ME), root mean square error (RMSE), and root mean
square standardized error (RMSSE) by
N
1  
ME = Ẑ(xi ) − Z(xi ) (8)
N i=1
236 A. MARCHETTI et al.


 N suitable to normalize data distribution with coefficient
  2
 Ẑ(xi ) − Z(xi )
 of skewness higher than 1. Despite this transforma-
i=1
RMSE = (9) tion, the data distribution still did not reach a satis-
N factory degree of normality. Then, the analysis of the
 frequencies histograms of the different parameters al-
 N

 2 lowed identifying outliers, representing less than 5%
 [Ẑ(xi ) − Z(xi )] σ(xi )
 of the total dataset. Their exclusion, considering also
i=1
RMSSE = (10) their spatial distribution, improved significantly the
N
normality degree of the soil parameters frequencies dis-
where σ(xi ) is the prediction standard error in location tribution, and then geostatistical approaches were ap-
xi . plied for their interpolation (Table IV).
Statistical analyses, geostatistical analyses and GIS The most common admissible variogram models
mapping were carried out with the following softwares: include spherical, exponential, Gaussian and linear
R 2.13.1 (R Development Core Team, 2011), VarioWin models:
2.21 (Pannatier, 1995), and ArcGIS 9.2 with the Geo-
statistical Analyst extension. For a given variable all Spherical model = nugget + sill[1.5(lag/range) −
kriged maps were kept on the same scale in order to 0.5(lag/range)3 ] (11)
allow easier comparisons.
Exponential model = nugget +
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION sill[1 − exp(−lag/range)] (12)

Descriptive statistical analysis of the soil parame- Gaussian model = nugget +

ters is presented in Table III that provides information
about the central tendency of the investigated varia-
bles. Geostatistical techniques require a normal dis-
tribution of the parameter values under investigation
(Webster, 2001). The data distribution of the different
parameters tested is not normal, with a coefficient of
skewness far from zero and a kurtosis coefficient higher
than 3 (Table III).
A logarithmic transformation of the data is usually
sill[1 − exp(lag2 /range2 )] (13)
Linear model = nugget + sill × lag (14)
Experimental variograms of the following soil pa-
rameters: % sand, % clay, SOM and C/N were cal-
culated using a lag distance of 575 m (Fig. 2). All
optimized variograms were omnidirectional (isotropic)
with no directional dependence, meaning that the va-
lues of the soil parameters vary similarly in all dire-

TABLE III

Descriptive statistics of the soil parameters

Variable No. of samples Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Sand (%) 250 0.0 66.8 20.5 11.3 128.19 1.045 5.055
Clay (%) 250 3.7 45.3 31.6 6.8 47.06 −0.912 4.087
Silt (%) 250 14.2 63.3 48.0 7.2 51.14 −0.716 4.886
SOM (%) 250 0.07 5.96 1.78 0.98 0.96 1.770 7.483
C/N 250 0.39 41.57 9.50 4.47 19.97 2.147 14.724

TABLE IV

Descriptive statistics without outliers

Variable No. of samples Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
Sand (%) 241 0.0 46.2 19.2 9.2 85.32 0.287 3.207
Clay (%) 241 15.0 45.3 32.1 6.1 37.25 0.546 3.003
Silt (%) 241 28.5 63.3 48.2 6.7 44.26 −0.247 3.041
SOM (%) 238 0.07 3.57 1.62 0.67 0.45 0.379 3.051
C/N 238 0.37 20.49 9.10 3.51 12.35 0.251 3.360
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOM IN CENTRAL ITALY 237

ctions, and that the semivariance depends only on the
distance between the sampling points (Burgos et al.,
2006). Then, the models of spatial variability were
fitted to the experimental variograms by minimizing
the sum of squares between the experimental values
and those of the model (Lark, 2000). The best vario-
gram models and their parameters were determined to
validate the modelling of the spatial autocorrelation
through the variogram parameters optimization.
For C/N only one spatial structure was identified,
while for sand, clay and SOM two different nested
models were fitted: the first one with a short range
and the second one with a long range. The best fitted
models are almost all spherical, except for clay content.
In Table V the parameters of the chosen variogram
models are reported with associated IGF values, know-
ing that an IGF close to zero indicates a good fit of
the model in agreement with the hypothesis of a well
characterized and constant spatial structure.
The preliminary estimated maps for sand, clay and
SOM, and that of the C/N ratio were generated by
OK. The cross validation and associated prediction er-
rors for each map are reported in Table VI. For an
unbiased prediction (centred on the true values) the
ME should be near zero. The RMSE quantified the
amount of difference in the model simulation deviat-
ing from the observation, presented in the unit of the
observation. If the model accurately describes the data,

Fig. 2 Experimental variograms of sand, clay, and soil organic matter (SOM) contents and C/N ratio.

TABLE V

Parameters of the optimized variogram models

Variable Nugget Model 1 Sill Range Model 2 Sill Range IGFa)
m m
Sand (%) 7.584 8 Spherical 55.73 646 Spherical 18.17 5 684 0.000 6
Clay (%) 9.876 2 Spherical 18.62 646 Gaussian 8.36 5 684 0.002 9
SOM (%) 0.13 Spherical 0.275 601 Spherical 0.055 5 510 0.000 8
C/N 5.329 6 Spherical 8.968 3 075 - - - 0.001 6
a)
Indicative goodness of fit.
238 A. MARCHETTI et al.

TABLE VI

Cross validation and associated prediction errorsa)

Variable ME RMSE RMSSE

Sand (%) −0.0554 8.676 1.074
Clay (%) 0.0532 5.719 1.060
SOM (%) 0.0011 0.666 1.026
C/N 0.0093 2.838 0.994
a)
ME = mean error; RMSE = root mean square error;
RMSSE = root mean square standardized error.

the RMSE should be approximately equal to the stan-

dard deviation. This condition is verified for all the
considered variables. The RMSSE should be close to
1 for a good prediction, and also this condition is fully
verified.
Fig. 3 shows the soil texture map of the investi-
gated area, which is derived from the preliminary sand
and clay maps. The prevailing texture class is the silty
clay loam occupying 58% of the total area, essentially
located inland; and 35% of the soils have a clay loam
texture and are mainly located along the coastline and
in the southern part of the surveyed area. The re-
maining soils are principally loam (about 7% of the
total area).
Fig. 4 Map of soil organic matter related to soil texture
interpolated by the ordinary kriging (OK) method.
the total surface. The few zones with high values (range
2.50%–2.97%, average 2.62%) are located mainly in
the northern part of the studied area representing only
0.1% of the total surface. The low SOM contents are
related to soil morphology, especially on hills where
erosive processes are exacerbated by the intensive agri-
cultural practices adopted in these areas (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5 Map of soil organic matter related to soil texture

Fig. 3 Soil texture map of the investigated area.
Fig. 4 illustrates the spatial pattern of SOM content
in relation to soil texture through four class levels.
About 87% of the total surface has a low SOM con-
tent with values ranging from 1.00% to 2.19% for an
average of 1.62%. Small surfaces, representing 6.4% of
the total area, have a very low content (range 0.44%–
1.19%, average 1.02%), while medium values (range
1.81%–2.87%, average 2.08%) occupy around 6.5% of
draped over a hillshade of the area.
The map presented in Fig. 6 shows the distribu-
tion of the C/N soil ratio, that can be considered a
proxy indicator of SOM humification rate and soil N
mineralization/immobilization potentials, differentia-
ted through three value classes based on USDA-NRCS
(1995) and Thomsen et al. (2008): C/N < 9, 9 ≤ C/N
≤ 12, and C/N > 12. When the ratio is close to 10,
SOM mineralization and immobilization processes are
in equilibrium; soils with a value between 9 and 12
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOM IN CENTRAL ITALY
have optimum conditions, with a stable and well hu-
mified organic matter (USDA-NRCS, 1995). The ratio
decreases as SOM mineralization increases, and vice
versa. Estimated map shows that about 50% of the sur-
veyed area has an optimum C/N, while 42% of the area
has a C/N ratio lower than 9, indicating that oxidation
processes prevail involving an accelerated decomposi-
tion of SOM. In the remaining 8% of the surveyed area,
where C/N ratio is higher than 12, soil nitrogen is in-
sufficient to ensure a good and acceptable humification
process.
Fig. 6 Spatial representation of C/N ratio value in soils.
The 2003 mid-term review of the Common Agri-
cultural Policy (CAP) and the resulting new Coun-
cil Regulation No. 1782/2003 explicitly specify obliga-
tions for EU Member States to ensure good agricul-
tural and environmental condition of land. The pro-
posed European Framework Directive on soil protec-
tion, with one of the priorities being to make a list
of the soils at risk in Europe (CEC, 2006b), identi-
fies eight main soil threats considering SOM decline in
southern Europe one of the most serious soil degrada-
tion processes. Both the CAP and the European Soil
Thematic Strategy to combat land degradation request
an urgent need for obtaining reliable soil degradation
data and related agro-environmental impact in a range
of European landscapes, to efficiently mitigate/control
land degradation and thereby underpin sustainable
soil conservation strategies and policies supported by
a scientifically-sound management of land and water.
Therefore, current European research activities on na-
tural resources are firmly set in the context of renew-
able and non-renewable resources sustainable develop-
ment with emphasis on the setting up of approaches
and methods to assess the quality of ecosystems, to
239
evaluate the impact of natural resource management
on the environment, and to perform integrated analy-
ses of environmental policy issues.
This study defines the existing SOM status in an
area of central Italy and addresses a clear warning on
the SOM management in this region. The results of
this investigation highlight the vulnerability of these
arable lands to soil degradation processes accelerated
by a rapid mineralization of organic matter (dry con-
ditions and high temperature) that need appropriate
management to ensure agricultural land sustainability.
In Italian agricultural land the average top soil or-
ganic carbon content is around 12 g kg−1 equivalent
to about 2% of SOM (Jones et al., 2004). The situ-
ation in the study area is then critical with a mean
SOM content of about 1.6%, 20% less than the coun-
try average, regardless of the prevalent land use or the
soil type. The establishment of baseline reference level
and accurate picture of SOM distribution will allow to
monitor future trends of SOM (i.e., re-sampling con-
cept) and also to assess the potential effectiveness of
soil conservation measures to enhance carbon in soil
that should be adopted to develop a more sustainable
soil management focusing on stabilizing and increasing
SOM content.
Future applied researches should focus on carbon
cycle (stability and turnover) and especially on carbon
sequestration as fighting tools to combat soil degra-
dation. The relationships between land use and the
various SOM pool dynamics can also be investigated,
since the most important processes responsible for low-
ering carbon levels in agricultural soils are erosion and
the effect of tillage operations, coupled with low input
of agricultural residues (Nieto et al., 2010). Then, the
next logical step of our research activities could be the
soil erosion magnitude assessment with conventional
and/or radioactive tracers such as fallout radionuclides
(Mabit et al., 2008b) which could reinforce the infor-
mation gained on soil quality degradation in the area
as represented by the SOM distribution described in
the current contribution.
As soil conservation and management schemes
must be based on robust scientific evidence, applica-
tion of geostatistics to map targeted soil parameters
such as SOM represents a valid tool allowing the as-
sessment of soil degradation in a cost-effective and little
time-consuming way. Such maps provide a relatively
cheap information, that can be easily updated. This
can influence and support local land-use planners, can
help farmers and hence provide a validated approach
240
for science-based policy options to EU policy makers to
address key challenges facing European soil resources.
CONCLUSIONS
SOM decrease associated with changes in land use,
soil cultivation and climate change are threatening the
health of European soils. Within the framework of the
European Directive for soil protection, the spatializa-
tion of SOM content can provide decision makers with
a useful and proper reference tool to identify degraded
areas with depleted fertility potential and then facili-
tate and optimize the planning of agro-environmental
measures.
As traditional statistical methods are unable to
treat this aspect, geostatistics (i.e., ordinary kriging)
was used to establish the spatial structure of SOM, soil
texture and C/N soil ratio and to create maps of SOM
distribution to identify degraded agricultural lands in
central Italy.
The different variables analyzed showed a strong
spatial structure. The kriging-interpolated maps gene-
rated combining soil texture and SOM, and C/N ratio
provide a meaningful spatial representation of SOM
and a real decisional tool that establish a real assess-
ment of the soil quality status in the Teramo Province,
as a simple SOM map does not provide enough accu-
rate information. In this study, the spatial estimation
of SOM has shown a low content in relation to soil tex-
ture in 87% of the area coupled with an optimal C/N
ratio in only half of the surveyed surface.
Furthermore, the results of this research highlight
the potential of variography and geostatistics in combi-
nation with GIS to provide improved distribution pat-
terns and maps of various soil quality indicators.
In central Italy low SOM level is the result of ero-
sive processes under Mediterranean climate on hills
coupled with intensive and/or inappropriate agricul-
tural practices. Based on the results of this study,
proper agronomical and environmental planning such
as soil conservation strategy is highly required in cen-
tral Italy to restore and increase the SOM content in
agricultural soils, to combat soil erosion and to main-
tain soil ecological and socio-economical functions and
productivity. Replenishing of SOM could be reached in
degraded areas (i.e., low SOM content and C/N ratio)
by adopting conservative practices such as conserva-
tion tillage or no-tillage (e.g., direct seeding), impro-
ving land use rotations with forage crops, returning
crop residues to soil, growing green manure crops, and
supplying the soil with proper exogenous organic mat-
A. MARCHETTI et al.
ter (compost, manure, sewage sludge, etc.).
Assessing the spatial variability and mapping of soil
quality indicators such as SOM content connected with
soil textural classes and C/N ratio in agrosystems, and
then, localizing degraded areas are a first step towards
an efficient resource management policy to target a
successful implementation of agricultural soil conser-
vation practices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. San-
tucci, S., Dr. Chiuchiarelli, I. and the Laboratorio
Agrochimico ARSSA of Avezzano, Italy, for their help
and support in the soil samples collection and physi-
cal and chemical analyses during the implementation
of the project.
REFERENCES
Álvaro-Fuentes, J. and Paustian, K. 2011. Potential soil car-
bon sequestration in a semiarid Mediterranean agroe-
cosystem under climate change: Quantifying manage-
ment and climate effects. Plant Soil. 338: 261–272.
Armstrong, M. 1998. Basic Linear Geostatistics. Springer,
New York.
Boardman, J. and Poesen, J. (eds.). 2006. Soil Erosion in
Europe. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
Bot, A. and Benites, J. 2005. The Importance of Soil Or-
ganic Matter: Key to Drought-Resistant Soil and Sus-
tained Food Production. Food and Agriculture Orga-
nization of the United Nations, Rome.
Bremner, J. M. and Sparks, D. L. 1996. Nitrogen-Total. In
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part III. Chemical Methods.
Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison, USA.
pp. 1085–1121.
Burgess, T. M. and Webster, R. 1980. Optimal interpola-
tion and isarithmic mapping of soil properties: I. The
semi-variogram and punctual kriging. J. Soil Sci. 31:
315–331.
Burgos, P., Madejón, E., Pérez-de-Mora, A. and Cabrera,
F. 2006. Spatial variability of the chemical characteri-
stics of a trace-element-contaminated soil before and
after remediation. Geoderma. 130: 157–175.
Chiuchiarelli, I., Paolanti, M., Rivieccio, R. and Santucci,
S. 2006. Soils and Landscapes of Abruzzo—Soil Map
of Abruzzo Region (in Italian). Agenzia Regionale per
I Servizi di Sviluppo Agricolo, Regione Abruzzo. Avez-
zano, Italy.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2006a.
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council Establishing a Frame-
work for the Protection of Soil and Amending Dire-
ctive 2004/35/EC. Available online at http://eur-lex.
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SOM IN CENTRAL ITALY
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:
52006PC0232:EN:NOT (verified on October 28, 2011).
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2006b.
Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. Communica-
tion from the Commission to the Council, the Euro-
pean Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee, and the Committees of the Region—COM
(2006)231 Final. Available online at http://ec.europa.
eu/environment/soil/pdf/com 2006 0231 en.pdf (veri-
fied on September 26, 2011).
Costantini, E. A. C., Urbano, F. and L’Abate, G. 2004.
Soil Regions of Italy. Available online at http://www.
soilmaps.it/en/downloads.html (verified on September
26, 2011).
Daniels, R. B., Kleiss, H. J., Buol, S. W., Byrd, H. J. and
Phillips, J. A. 1984. Soil Systems in North Carolina.
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Davidson, E. A. and Janssens, I. A. 2006. Temperature
sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks
to climate change. Nature. 440: 165–173.
Duffera, M., White, J. G. and Weisz, R. 2007. Spatial varia-
bility of Southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain soil physical
properties: Implications for site-specific management.
Geoderma. 137: 327–339.
European Environmental Agency (EEA). 2000. Down to
Earth: Soil Degradation and Sustainable Development
in Europe: A Challenge for the 21st Century. Environ-
mental Issue Report No. 16. Available online at http:
//www.eea.europa.eu/publications/Environmental iss-
ue series 16 (verified on September 26, 2011).
European Soil Bureau (ESB). 2000. Georeferenced Soil
Database for Europe. Manual of Procedures. Version
1.1. European Soil Bureau Research Report No.5. Of-
fice for Official Publications of the European Commu-
nities, Luxemburg.
Farina, R., Seddaiu, G., Orsini, R., Steglich, E., Roggero,
P. P. and Francaviglia, R. 2011. Soil carbon dynamics
and crop productivity as influenced by climate change
in a rainfed cereal system under contrasting tillage u-
sing EPIC. Soil Till. Res. 112: 36–46.
Fenton, T. E., Kazemi, M. and Lauterbach-Barrett, M. A.
2005. Erosional impact on organic matter content and
productivity of selected Iowa soils. Soil Till. Res. 81:
163–171.
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle-size analysis.
In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part I. Physical and Mine-
ralogical Methods. 2nd Edition. Soil Science Society
of America, Madison, USA. pp. 383–411.
Goovaerts, P. 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resource
Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hengl, T. 2007. A Practical Guide to Geostatistical Map-
ping of Environmental Variables. Available online at
http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:
LBNA22904:EN:HTML (verified on September 30,
2010).
241
Heuvelink, G. B. M. and Webster, R. 2001. Modelling soil
variation: past, present and future. Geoderma. 100:
269–301.
Isaaks, E. H. and Srivastava, R. M. 1989. An Introduction
to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Jackson, M. L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-
Hall., Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., USA.
Jones, R. J. A., Hiederer, R., Rusco, E. and Montanarella,
L. 2005. Estimating organic carbon in the soils of Eu-
rope for policy support. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 56: 655–671.
Jones, R. J. A., Hiederer, R., Rusco, E., Loveland, P. J. and
Montanarella, L. 2004. The Map of Organic Carbon in
Topsoils in Europe. Version 1.2. European Soil Bureau
Research Report No. 17. Office for Official Publica-
tions of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
Kanevski, M. and Maignan, M. (eds.). 2004. Analysis
and Modelling of Spatial Environmental Data. EPFL
Press, Lausanne.
Lal, R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget.
Environ. Int. 29: 437–450.
Lal, R. 2007. Farming carbon. Soil Till. Res. 96: 1–5.
Lal, R. 2009. Challenges and opportunities in soil organic
matter research. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60: 158–169.
Lark, R. M. 2000. A comparison of some robust estimators
of the variogram for use in soil survey. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
51: 137–157.
Lugato, E. and Berti, A. 2008. Potential carbon sequestra-
tion in a cultivated soil under different climate change
scenarios: a modeling approach for evaluating promi-
sing management practices in north-east Italy. Agr.
Ecosyst. Environ. 128: 97–103.
Lützow, M. V., Kögel-Knabner, I., Ekschmitt, K., Matzner,
E., Guggenberger, G., Marschner, B. and Flessa, H.
2006. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils:
mechanisms and their relevance under different soil
conditions—a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57: 426–445.
Mabit, L., Benmansour, M. and Walling, D. E. 2008b.
Comparative advantages and limitations of Fallout ra-
dionuclides 137 Cs, 210 Pb and 7 Be for assessing soil ero-
sion and sedimentation. J. Environ. Radioact. 99:
1799–1807.
Mabit, L. and Bernard, C. 1998. Relationship between soil
137
Cs inventories and chemical properties in a small in-
tensively cropped watershed. C. R. Acad. Sci.-Series
IIA-Earth Planet. Sci. 327: 527–532.
Mabit, L. and Bernard, C. 2007. Assessment of spatial dis-
tribution of Fallout radionuclides through geostatistics
concept. J. Environ. Radioact. 97: 206–219.
Mabit, L. and Bernard, C. 2010. Spatial distribution and
content of soil organic matter in an agricultural field in
Eastern Canada, as estimated from geostatistical tools.
Earth Surf. Proc. Land. 35: 278–283.
Mabit, L., Bernard, C. and Laverdière, M. R. 2002. Influ-
ence of the sampling strategy on soil loss assessments
from 137 Cs measurements. In Rubio, J. L., Morgan, R.
242
P. C., Asins, S. and Andreu, V. (eds.) Man and Soil
at the Third Millenium. Geoforma Ediciones, Logroño,
Spain. pp. 2083–2090.
Mabit, L., Bernard, C., Makhlouf, M. and Laverdière, M.
R. 2008a. Spatial variability of erosion and soil or-
ganic matter content estimated from 137 Cs measure-
ments and geostatistics. Geoderma. 145: 245–251.
Montanarella, L. 2010. Moving ahead from assessments to
action: could we win the struggle with soil degradation
in Europe? Chapter 2. In Zdruli, P., Pagliai, M., Ka-
pur, S. and Faz Cano, F. (eds.) Land Degradation and
Desertification: Assessment, Mitigation and Remedia-
tion. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. pp. 15–23.
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1982. Total carbon,
organic carbon, and organic matter. In Page, A. L.,
Miller, R. H. and Keeney, D. R. (eds.) Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological
Properties. Soil Science Society of American, Madison,
WI. pp 539–579.
Nieto, O. M., Castro, J., Fernández, E. and Smith, P. 2010.
Simulation of soil organic carbon stocks in a Mediter-
ranean olive grove under different soil-management sys-
tems using the RothC model. Soil Use Manage. 26:
118–125.
Oliver, M. A. and Webster, R. 1991. How geostatistics can
help you. Soil Use Manage. 7: 206–217.
Pannatier, Y. 1995. Software VarioWin 2.2. Institute of Mi-
neralogy, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Avai-
lable online at http://www-sst.unil.ch/research/va-
riowin/index.html (verified on September 21, 2010).
Pannatier Y. 1996. Variowin, Software for Spatial Data
Analysis in 2D. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Pimentel, D. 2006. Soil erosion: A food and environmental
threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8: 119–137.
Polyakov, V. O. and Lal, R. 2008. Soil organic matter
and CO2 emission as affected by water erosion on field
runoff plots. Geoderma. 143: 216–222.
R Development Core Team. 2011. R: A Language and En-
A. MARCHETTI et al.
vironment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Availa-
ble online at http://www.r-project.org (verified on 26
September 2011).
Ritchie, J. C., McCarty, G. W., Venteris, E. R. and Kas-
par, T. C. 2005. Using soil redistribution to under-
stand soil organic carbon redistribution and budgets.
In Horowitz, A. J. and Walling, D. E. (eds.) Sediment
Budgets 2. International Association of Hydrological
Sciences Publication 292. IAHS Press, Wallingford,
UK. pp. 3–8.
Robinson, T. P. and Metternicht, G. 2006. Testing the
perfomance of spatial interpolation techniques for map-
ping soil properties. Compu. Electron. Agr. 50: 97–108.
Società Italiana dei Laboratori Pubblici di Agrochimica
(SILPA). 1999. From Soil Analysis to the Fertilization
Advice (in Italian). ASSAM, Agenzia Servizi Settore
Agroalimentare delle Marche, Regione Marche, Jesi,
Italy.
Thomsen, I. K., Petersen, B. M., Bruun, S., Jensen, L. S.
and Christensen, B. T. 2008. Estimating soil C loss
potentials from the C to N ratio. Soil Biol. Biochem.
40: 849–852.
United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 1995.
Soil Survey Laboratory Information Manual. Soil Sur-
vey Investigations Report No. 45. National Soil Survey
Center, Soil Survey Laboratory, Lincoln.
Verity, G. E. and Anderson, D. W. 1990. Soil erosion ef-
fects on soil quality and yield. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:
471–484.
Webster, R. 2001. Statistics to support soil research and
their presentation. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52: 331–340.
Webster, R. and Oliver, M. A. 2001. Geostatistics for En-
vironmental Scientists. Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester.
Werner, L., Bahn, M. and Heinemeyer, A. 2009. Soil
Carbon Dynamics: An Integrated Methodology. Cam-
bridge University Press, UK.