GEOMOR-107305; No of Pages 17

Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Digital mapping of soil parent material in a heterogeneous tropical area

Benito R. Bonfatti, José A.M. Demattê ⁎, Karina P.P. Marques, Raul R. Poppiel, Rodnei Rizzo,
Wanderson de S. Mendes, Nelida E.Q. Silvero, José L. Safanelli
Department of Soil Science, Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Ave. Pádua Dias, 11, Postal Box 09, Piracicaba, São Paulo 13416-900, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Parent material is one of the five factors in soil formation. Studies on parent material allow interpreting soil gen-
Received 7 November 2019 esis processes and improve our knowledge of specific soil attributes. However, soil parent material maps at de-
Received in revised form 9 May 2020 tailed cartographic scale (finer than 1:100,000) are rare in tropical areas and it is usually inferred from poorly
Accepted 13 June 2020
detailed geological data, which generally group different lithologies into single units. Thus, we propose a meth-
Available online 17 June 2020
odology to map soil parent material based on remote sensing and machine learning in a geologically very com-
Keywords:
plex area. The study site covers 1378 km2 in São Paulo State, Brazil. Prediction models used data from 280
Parent material geological observation points, a digital elevation model (spatial resolution of 5 m, upscale to 30 m) and
Soil formation factors multitemporal Landsat images in a range of 30 years. We evaluated six classification algorithms, namely random
Bare soil image forest, decision tree, support vector machine, multinomial logistic regression, K-means (unsupervised classifica-
Machine learning tion), and object-based image analysis with maximum likelihood classification. Environmental covariates were
grouped to create different scenarios combining terrain derivatives, hydrologic covariates, topsoil spectral reflec-
tance, and spatial coordinates. A bare soil image, elaborated using 30 years of Landsat data, was evaluated as a
covariate to predict soil parent material. Predictions were validated using three different strategies: cross-
validation, separate validation dataset (20%), and comparison with legacy geological maps (information from
two areas with geological maps at fine scale). We also assessed the correspondence between the map of pre-
dicted soil parent material and data of soil particle size from 571 soil sampling points. Random forest algorithm
presented the best validation performance, whereas the group of terrain derivatives and hydrologic covariates
explained most of model variation. The produced parent material map was coherent with the spatial distribution
of soil particle size across the study area.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction clay contents than those developed from sandstone (Birkeland,

From a pedological perspective, parent material is an important
factor of soil formation. Physical and chemical weathering
processes, influenced by other soil formation factors (climate, re-
lief, organism, and time) and soil dynamics, originate small parti-
cles that form soils (Jenny, 1941). Although its prevailing
importance is reduced over time (Wilson, 2019), parent material
is still one of the main factors acting in thin soil profiles, in soils
with recent origin, or in deep soil horizons (Schaetzl and
Anderson, 2005).
Several soil properties can be directly related to parent material
(Gray et al., 2016). For instance, distribution of soil particle size is
greatly influenced by mineral formation of the parent material.
Tropical soils developed from basalt are likely to present higher
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Soil Science, Luiz de Queiroz College of
Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Ave. Pádua Dias, 11, P.O. Box 09, Piracicaba, São
Paulo 13416-900, Brazil.
E-mail address: jamdemat@usp.br (J.A.M. Demattê).
1999; Schaetzl and Anderson, 2005). In addition, the mineral com-
position influences the weathering rate and can help indicate the
relative soil age (Jenny, 1941; Schaetzl and Anderson, 2005). Re-
vealing the spatial distribution of parent material provides support
to soil classes delineation and characterization, as well as to evalu-
ate the rate of soil formation (McBratney et al., 2003; Willgoose,
2018).
A common issue when analyzing spatial distribution of parent
materials is the rareness of supporting maps in an appropriate repre-
sentation (Lacoste et al., 2011). Therefore, geological maps can be al-
ternatively used (Zeraatpisheh et al., 2017; Bogunovic et al., 2018;
Poppiel et al., 2019; Silvero et al., 2019). Nevertheless, we can note
subtle differences between geological maps and soil parent material
maps, which can be observed due to the different purposes. In
geological maps, lithologies are grouped according to a number of
complex criteria (chronology, structures, environments of sedimen-
tation, evolution processes of the Earth's crust); whereas, soil parent
material maps aim to understand the sources of soil formation and
its influence, where lithologies or deposited material are analyzed

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2020.107305
0169-555X/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
according to pedological knowledge. Moreover, geological maps rep-
resent information about lithologies from surficial or deep layers of
the Earth's crust, which are usually grouped into units of rocks
formed from similar geological periods. In contrast, parent material
maps represent reworked surface lithology, from which soils are
formed. For the latter, map delineation in single units is preferable,
to allow a preliminary analysis of the influence of each type of parent
material in soil formation. Gray and Murphy (1999) classified parent
material into in-situ bedrock, secondary transported material, in-situ
pedogenic material (an old soil surface), organic material (as peal or
alpine humus), and anthropogenic material (landfill or mining
waste).
Digital methods have been used to map soil parent material. Heung
et al. (2014) did it for an area in Canada, using polygon disaggregation, a
random forest classifier, and 27 topographic attributes. Lacoste et al.
(2011) mapped soil parent material in northwestern France using 17
covariates, such as digital elevation model (DEM) derivatives, geological
maps, gamma-ray spectrometry, and land use map. Miller et al. (2008)
created a Quaternary geological map for an area in the USA, linking geo-
logical units to the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) maps and
compared their results with Quaternary geological maps produced by
geologists. Prokopovich (1984) conducted similar studies using agricul-
tural soil survey maps to produce engineering geologic maps for an area
in California (USA), and Florea et al. (2015) also took a similar approach
to map soil parent materials in Romania. Richter et al. (2019) mapped
soil parent material in Arkansas River Valley (USA), using terrain deriv-
atives and separating parent material in erosional and depositional
areas. They used a rule-based approach, combining threshold values
for the topographic position index (TPI), multi-resolution valley bottom
flatness (MRVBF) and vertical distance to channel network (VDCN).
Dobos et al. (2013) mapped soil parent material using MODIS images
from visible to thermal spectral bands, coupled with terrain attributes
to separate regions with consolidated and unconsolidated materials
across Central Europe, based on a maximum likelihood supervised clas-
sification algorithm.
The use of digital mapping elements such as machine learning algo-
rithms and satellite-based covariates has emerged as an important al-
ternative to spatially predict parent materials. However, a relevant
issue arises when using satellite images. Vegetation covers most of the
soil surface, particularly in the tropical areas, with intensive agriculture
or dense natural vegetation. This imposes significant limitations when
predicting surface targets, due to hiding soil reflectance from the satel-
lite sensors. An alternative is using bare soil images, which can be elab-
orated based on a multitemporal processing. This technique provides
information about topsoil reflectance in areas without continuous cov-
erage, which can occur during any moment within the defined time se-
ries of the satellite images. It produces a synthetic soil image (SYSI) by
mining satellite data to retrieve bare soil pixels using index-based clas-
sification rules (Demattê et al., 2018). To date, SYSIs have seldom been
used as a predictor for mapping geology or soil parent material.
Therefore, we expect that covariates obtained from optical satellite
imagery, coupled with terrain derivatives, have potential to indicate
the spatial distribution of different parent materials across a highly
complex geological area. In this study, we aimed to evaluate a digital
mapping framework to predict soil parent materials based on remote
sensing data coupled with machine learning and geoprocessing
methods. In addition, we aimed to: a) evaluate the importance of differ-
ent group of covariates to predict parent materials; b) investigate the ef-
fectiveness of using bare topsoil reflectance from SYSIs to improve
model predictions; and c) compare predictions obtained from different
machine learning methods.
2. Study area and geological background
The study was conducted in the municipality of Piracicaba, which
covers an area of 1378 km2 in São Paulo State, Brazil (Fig. 1). Climate
is temperate and warm with dry winters (Cwa of the Köppen climate
classification system). Annual precipitation varies between 1100 and
1450 mm. Average temperature ranges from 22 °C to 24 °C. Predomi-
nant vegetation is the Brazilian Savana, currently converted to agricul-
tural uses (Alvares et al., 2013; Instituto Geográfico e Geológico,
1965). The Piracicaba River is the main river, flowing in E–W direction.
The municipality of Piracicaba has diversified geology, where several
types of rocks and unconsolidated sediments are found (Fig. 2).
Fundamental stratigraphic units in Brazil are named Formations,
which can be clustered into Groups or divided into Members (Petri
et al., 1986). Top layers in stratigraphic profile were formed during the
Cenozoic Era (Fig. 3), where the oldest sediments were deposited dur-
ing the Pleistocene and the most recent ones during the Holocene,
across alluvial plains (Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1965). Lowering
of sea level during the Holocene resulted in sand, gravel and clay de-
posits mainly in banks of the Piracicaba River (Instituto Geográfico e
Geológico, 1965; Bjornberg and Landim, 1966). The main Cenozoic
layer in the municipality of Piracicaba comprises the Rio Claro Forma-
tion, represented by a fluvial system in a humid climate (Loreti Junior
et al., 2014). Poorly-sorted yellow and reddish sandstones with cross-
stratification and conglomerates (de Melo, 1995) comprise the forma-
tion. Lakes and gullies are common across the area (Del Roveri, 2010).
The Serra Geral Formation originated during the Mesozoic Era, com-
posed of igneous rocks (Loreti Junior et al., 2014), such as diabases and
basalts, with occurrences of intertrap sandstones. The Botucatu Forma-
tion, also deposited during the Mesozoic Era, consists mainly of sand-
stones. Geology is represented by reddish sandstones, medium to fine
texture with cross-stratification. Sandstones of the Botucatu Formation
resulted from accumulation of sediments caused by intense winds, also
with contribution of river processes (Carvalho, 1954), with fluvial-
aeolian interaction (Côrtes and Perinotto, 2015). The Piramboia Forma-
tion was deposited during the Mesozoic Era, and is composed mainly of
sandstones. It was deposited in dunes due to the action of winds, and in-
terspersed with fluvial deposits (Caetano-chang and Tai, 2003).
Regional substrate formed during the Paleozoic Era consists mostly
of the Corumbataí Formation, Irati Formation, Tatuí Formation, and
Itararé Group. The Corumbataí Formation comprises clayey siltstones,
siltstones and variegated shales, and flint. Loreti Junior et al. (2014)
studied the material influence on ceramic products, classifying the li-
thology in clayey siltstones and sandy siltstones. The Irati Formation
has different lithologies, as bituminous shales, black shales (not bitumi-
nous), limestones, silicified limestones, dolomites, gley siltstones, flint,
and occasionally sandstones. The Tatuí Formation has a glacial and
fluvio-glacial origin, whose sediments were deposited in aqueous
non-marine environments (Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1964).
The main rocks found are sandstones, siltstones, tillites, and varvites. Di-
abase dikes are common in the region. The Itararé Group consists of five
to six levels of tilites, interspersed with conglomerates and sandstones
(Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1964), deposited during glacial
thaw periods (Loreti Junior et al., 2014). The Itararé Formation is a gla-
cial complex, whereas the Tatuí Formation is a post-glacial complex.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Parent material dataset
A total of 280 georeferenced sampling points, representing geologi-
cal features, were acquired from three databases. Among them, 128
points were from a database of the Geological Survey of Brazil (Portu-
guese acronym CPRM), based on rocky outcrops; 125 points were
from the “Pólo Cerâmico de Santa Gertrudes” project (Loreti Junior
et al., 2014), with observations in areas with contacts between outcrop-
ping geological units; and 27 points were from Vidal-Torrado and
Lepsch (1999) and Marques et al. (2018) in the District of Tupi, based
on soil samples with information about parent material collected in
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in the municipality of Piracicaba, São Paulo State, Brazil. The Digital Elevation Model represents the distribution of different elevations. Yellow circles rep-
resent the observation points of the parent material used in this work.
areas of five different geomorphological classes (summits, shoulders,
backslopes, footslopes, toeslopes) and different lithologies.
The corresponding surface stratigraphic unit was assigned to each of
280 sampling points to differentiate parent materials belonging to the
different stratigraphic formations, members or groups, which could
suggest differently derived soil properties. For instance, sandstones of
the Botucatu Formation, originated from eolian dune deposition, have
different composition from sandstones of the Itararé Formation with
glacial origin. This contrast results in soils with different properties
inherited from their parent material. Accordingly, we categorized the
sampling points into 11 classes: Alluvial deposits, Sandstones of the
Piramboia Formation, Sandstones of the Botucatu Formation, Sand-
stones of the Itararé Group, Sandstones of the Rio Claro Formation, Un-
consolidated clay, Basalts of the Serra Geral Formation, Shales of the Irati
Formation, Siltstones of the Tatuí Formation, Sandy siltstones of the
Corumbataí Formation, and Clayey siltstones of the Corumbataí Forma-
tion. Information about stratigraphic units were obtained from available
geological maps (Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1966; Loreti Junior
et al., 2014; Marques et al., 2018).
3
3.2. Synthetic soil image (SYSI)
We acquired the dataset of Landsat 4, 5, 7 and 8 imagery (USGS,
2018a, 2018b) from 1982 to 2019, and harmonized its bands to obtain
reflectance of bare topsoil surface across the study area, applying the
Geospatial Soil Sensing System (Demattê et al., 2018). This data mining
technique produces a SYSI, using classification rules to retrieve bare soil
pixels and mask non-bare soil pixels (water bodies, burned areas, natu-
ral vegetation, and straw) from denser satellite time series, resulting in
six multispectral bands (three Vis - one NIR - two SWIR). SYSI gaps or
non-bare soil pixels were filled by interpolation using ordinary kriging,
after fitting a spherical function into each empirical semivariogram, in
order to obtain a spatially continuous image.
For comparison, we also acquired a single-date Landsat 8 image
(June 20, 2018, with the minimum cloud cover). A true color composite
was implemented with both band sets to visually compare differences
between the images. The datapoints were intersected with the SYSI
and the Landsat bands, obtaining reflectance values on each band for
each point. To minimize band intercorrelation and simplify the model,
4 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
Fig. 2. Geological map across the municipality of Piracicaba (Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1966).
a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was implemented in both band
sets. The principal components (PCs) tend to concentrate information
in the first component, which have the greatest variance. The second
principal component has the second most variance not described by
the first and so forth (Richards and Jia, 2006; ESRI, 2014). We compared
the statistical strength of association between parent material and the
SYSI bands, and between parent material and the single data Landsat
image, using the statistics described in the following section.
3.3. Environmental covariates and the statistical association with parent
material
The 32 terrain derivatives and hydrologic variables used as parent
material predictors (Table 1) were obtained from a DEM, originally at
5 m spatial resolution and scaled up to 30 m. Landscape attributes (co-
variates 4 to 30), were calculated using SAGA GIS software. Geomorpho-
logical classes (covariates 31 and 32) were obtained by two landform
classification algorithms. The first was performed using R software, de-
lineating five geomorphological classes, as described by Marques et al.
(2018). The second was obtained using the LandMapR software,
resulting in 15 geomorphological classes (MacMillan, 2003). Spatial co-
ordinates X and Y were obtained at each datapoint using the coordinate
reference system EPSG code 31983 (SIRGAS 2000/ UTM zone 23 K
south). We used topsoil reflectance from SYSIs to calculate a set of co-
variates: principal component using six spectral bands (from 33 to
38), mineral indices (from 39 to 43) and vegetation indices (from 44
to 46) (Table 2).
Statistical strength of association between each covariate and soil
parent material was analyzed using R software (R Core Team, 2019).
Given that soil parent material is a categorical variable and the environ-
mental covariates encompass categorical and continuous variables, spe-
cific methods need to be applied for each condition. By using R software,
we calculated a degree of association between a continuous and a cate-
gorical variable taking the r2 value of a simple linear regression. Associ-
ation between two categorical covariates, such as geomorphological
classes and parent material, was quantified based on the Cramer's V
test (Gingrich, 1992; Kearney, 2017) using the cramersV function of R
(Navarro, 2015).
3.4. Prediction models
We split the sampling points into two groups: 224 points (80%) for
the calibration dataset and 56 points (20%) for the validation dataset
by balancing the set of points to cover all geological units (Instituto
Geográfico e Geológico, 1966; Loreti Junior et al., 2014; Marques et al.,
2018). Then, the calibration dataset was used in six classification algo-
rithms: 1) random forest (RF), 2) decision trees (DT), 3) support vector
machine (SVM), 4) multinomial logistic regression (MLR), 5) K-means
clustering (KM), and 6) object based image analysis with maximum
likelihood classification (OBIA-ML).
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305 5

Fig. 3. Stratigraphic profile of the Peripheral Depression in São Paulo State, where the study area is located. The stratigraphic column is divided in layers corresponding to different
geological eras and periods. The central column indicates the estimated average thickness (m) of each layer.
Adapted from Zaine and Perinotto (1996).

RF is a method that correlates independent and dependent variables
by sets of classification trees. Tree classification comprises leaf nodes
(output variable) and branches with a set of rules. It uses many classi-
fiers and aggregates the results. Thus, it tends to be more accurate
than base classifiers (Han et al., 2012). DT is a classifier based on binary
trees, where an initial data (or a root node) is split into two descendant
subsets, which also are split into other subsets. The process is repeated
to each subset until it reaches the terminal subsets or leaf nodes as the
end product, designated by a class label (Breiman, 1984). SVM is an al-
gorithm that uses an optimal hyperplane to discriminate the data
(Vapnik, 1998). In a linear SVM, data can be separated into two classes
by a line. Support vectors are the points closest to decision boundary
represented by the line, and determine the margin into which two clas-
ses are separated. SVM finds separating hyperplane for which the mar-
gin between the samples is maximized (Rao and Scherer, 2010). MLR is
an extension for logistic regression and can deal with three or more
unique values for the dependent variable (Hosmer and Lemeshow,
2000). Prediction is based on probability of occurrence of each class,
using a non-linear logistic curve varying from 0 to 1. KM is a method al-
most completely automatic (unsupervised classification) and assumes
that the number of clusters is previously known, keeping the number
fixed during the entire classification process (Meneses and Almeida,
2012). In OBIA-ML, the image is firstly segmented into homogeneous
areas. Then, some segments are selected for training and used by an al-
gorithm, such as ML classification, to find statistics for each class. Subse-
quently, ML calculates probability of each segment to belong to each
class. Finally, the highest probability class is assigned to each segment
(Meneses and Almeida, 2012).
To determine the influence of environmental covariates, four scenar-
ios were evaluated combining different predictors and classification al-
gorithms. Scenario 1 used terrain derivatives and hydrologic variables
as predictors of soil parent material coupled with four classifiers: RF,
DT, SVM and MLR. For Scenario 2, we used terrain attributes, hydrologic
variables, and spectral covariates (SYSIs and their derivatives) as predic-
tors, with the same four classifiers as Scenario 1. Scenario 3 comprised
terrain derivatives, hydrologic variables, spectral covariates, and spatial
coordinates as predictors, using the same classification methods of pre-
vious scenarios. Scenario 4 used only the principal components derived
from SYSIs (Table 2) as predictors, coupled with KM and OBIA-ML clas-
sifiers. Scenarios 1 to 3 helped to analyze model improvement when
6 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305

Table 1
Terrain derivatives and hydrologic variables derived from a DEM used for prediction of soil parent material across the municipality of Piracicaba, São Paulo State, Brazil.

Variables Data descriptions Type Mean (Min-Max) Unit

1 Elevation Elevation above mean sea level Numeric 530.58 m

(450.42–774.11)
2 Coordinate X UTM Latitude Numeric 212,901 m
(181596–244,206)
3 Coordinate Y UTM Longitude Numeric 7,485,769 m
(7464439–7,507,099)
4 Slope Local hill slope gradient Numeric 7.8 (0–84.6) %
5 Aspect Slope aspect Numeric 186.74 (0–360) °
6 Analytical Hillshading Angle between the surface and the incoming light beams Numeric 0.79 (0.22–1.63) rad
7 Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) Indicator of spatial distribution and extent of zones of water saturation Numeric 8.08 (3.29–25.89) –
8 SAGA Wetness Index TWI to identify flow pattern in flat areas, with small difference in altitude Numeric 6.2 (−0.96–12.1) –
9 LS Factor Slope length factor Numeric 1.02 (0–23.4) –
10 Vertical Distance to Channel Network Altitude above channel network Numeric 25.18 (0–247.98) m
11 Valley Depth Relative position of the valley Numeric 32.4 (0–163.27) m
12 Slope Height Vertical distance from the base of the slope to the crest Numeric 18.26 (2.24–199.22) m
13 Normalized Height Height position within a reference area Numeric 0.5 (0.026–0.99) –
14 Standardized Height Normalized height multiplied with absolute height Numeric 271.01 (13.95–762.47) m
15 Mid Slope Position Assigns mid-slope positions with 0. Maximum vertical distances to the Numeric 0.48 (0–0.98) –
mid-slope in valley or crest = 1.
16 Flow Direction Direction of the flow Numeric 4 (0–7) –
17 Catchment Slope Slope to calculate Saga Wetness Index Numeric 0.07 (0–0.66) rad
18 Modified Catchment Area Catchment area based on slope angle and neighboring specific catchment Numeric 175,186.43 m2
areas (935.8–7,343,567.5)
19 Multiresolution index of valley bottom Indicator of valley bottoms based on flat low-lying areas Numeric 1.11 (0–5.99) –
flatness (MRVBF)
20 Multiresolution index of the ridge top Indicator of ridge tops based on elevation with respect to the surrounding Numeric 0.83 (0–5.98) –
flatness (MRRTF) areas
21 Overland Flow Distance to Channel Distance from non-channel cells to channel cells Numeric 616.15 (0–4243.02) m
Network
22 Cross-Sectional Curvature Tangential curvature Numeric 0 (0–0.01) (1/100)
*m
23 Longitudinal Curvature Profile curvature Numeric 0 (0–0.01) (1/100)
*m
24 Convergence Index Convergence/divergence regarding to overland flow Numeric 0 (−89.72–95.07) °
25 Convexity Terrain surface convexity Numeric 54.3 (17.92–91.69) %
26 Topographic Position Index (TPI) Compare elevation of each cell to the neighborhood Numeric 0 (−20.44–24.2) m
27 Mass Balance Index (MBI) Balance between soil mass deposited and eroded Numeric 0.01 (−0.8–1.09) –
28 Flow Accumulation Upslope contributing (catchment) area Numeric 2217 (1–2,046,304) n° cells
29 Vector Ruggedness Measure (VRM) Measures terrain ruggedness Numeric 0 (0–0.12) –
30 Channel Network Base Level A grid with interpolated channel network base level elevations Numeric 505.5 (452.11–637.73) m
31 Geomorphology 1 Landform classification Categorical 5 classes –
32 Geomorphology 2 Landform classification Categorical 15 classes –

aggregating each group of covariates (terrain attributes, hydrologic or
spectral), while Scenario 4 allowed us to evaluate the capacity of the
bare soil images to predict parent material.
3.5. Model evaluation
Three strategies were chosen to validate the methods and scenarios:
10-fold cross-validation, 56 independent validation points (20%), and
comparison with two legacy maps of parent material covering the
study area. Overall accuracy and unweighted Kappa statistic were
used for evaluation, obtained using the caret package in R (Kuhn, 2008).
Firstly, we performed a cross-validation using the entire dataset
(280 observations). This dataset was split by 10-fold and repeated
10 times resulting in 100 interactions. It was used for Scenarios 1,
2, and 3, to evaluate the predictions produced by RF, DT, SVM, and
MLR. Secondly, we validated the predictions using independent val-
idation dataset (20%). Thirdly, we compared our predictions to a
thematic geological map covering 25 km2 of the study area across
the District of Tupi (Vidal-Torrado and Lepsch, 1999; Marques
et al., 2018), with geological units categorized as unconsolidated
clay, shales, sandstones, and siltstones. After rasterization of the
vector map, each pixel was compared to each classified pixel for

Table 2
Spectral covariates and indices derived from SYSI bands used for prediction of soil parent material in the municipality of Piracicaba, São Paulo State, Brazil.

Variables Data descriptions Type Mean (Min-Max) Unit

33–38 PC1 to PC6 Principal Components of the SYSI Numeric 0.29 (0.076–1.12) –
39 Clay Minerals Ratio SWIR1/SWIR2 Numeric 1.14 (1–1.26) –
40 Ferrous Minerals Ratio SWIR/NIR Numeric 1.42 (0.93–2.34) –
41 Iron Oxide Ratio Red/Blue Numeric 2.02 (0.86–6.23) –
42 Soil Composition Index (SWIR1-NIR)/(SWIR1 + NIR) Numeric 0.16 (−0.17–0.51) –
43 Ferric Iron (Fe3+) Red/Green Numeric 1.34 (0.73–2.86) –
44 Perpendicular Vegetation Index (PVI) Orthogonal distance to the soil line (1:1) Numeric 0.14 (0.03–0.58) –
effective under sparse vegetation
45 Transformed Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (TSAVI) A transformation to improve the SAVI Numeric −0.08 (−0.13–0.02) –
46 Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) (NIR − Red) / (NIR + Red) Numeric 0.20 (−0.18–0.52) –
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305 7

every predicted map, using a confusion matrix. Finally, we built a
confusion matrix between our predictions and a thematic geologi-
cal map covering 3.5 km 2 of the study area across the Santa Rita
Farm (Demattê et al., 2004), with geological units categorized as ba-
salts or siltstones.
Since most soils from the study area present pedogenetic horizons,
their attributes must match or be consistent with their parent material.
The soil particle size is highly influenced by the parent material; there-
fore, we measured the relationship between the parent material pre-
dicted and a soil texture dataset. The predicted map was intersected
with 571 soil sampling points from an available soil database from the
Brazilian Soil Spectral Library (Demattê et al., 2019), containing 2074 re-
sults of soil analyses at different depths. Averages of clay, silt, and sand
contents (g kg−1) were calculated and compared for soil samples of
each parent material predicted. In addition, we performed a visual in-
spection on the thematic geological map with a scale of 1:100000 and
the soil parent material map predicted for the study area, to verify
their spatial correspondence.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Comparison between SYSI and a single-date Landsat image
The Landsat true color composite (Fig. 4a), for a single date, shows
all land covers in the Piracicaba municipality, while the SYSI image com-
posite (Fig. 4b) represents only bare soils identified by a multitemporal
analysis. Dark shadows in Fig. 4b represent locations of permanent veg-
etation, straw, or water bodies, no identified as uncovered surfaces and
masked by the multitemporal process. Differences between the SYSI
and the Landsat image true color composites is clearly observed, as
the SYSI could retrieve larger extension of bare soil spectra reflectance,
corresponding to 62% of the area, whereas the single-date image shows
vegetation covering almost the whole surface. Similarly, Demattê et al.
(2018) applied the same analysis for a larger extension in São Paulo
State, reaching 68% of bare soil. The smaller the area of permanent veg-
etation or water bodies, the greater the technique's ability to identify
bare soils.

Fig. 4. Overview of a single-date Landsat 8 image (June 20, 2018) and the SYSI bands (bare soil) and association with parent material datapoints in the study area. a) Single-date Landsat 8
image – true color composite; b) SYSI image representing bare soil – true color composite (non-interpolated); c) correlation matrix of SYSI bands, Landsat bands, and the respective PCs.
The dark blue color corresponds to a higher positive correlation, whereas the dark red color corresponds to a higher negative correlation; d) strength of association of soil parent material
with the SYSI bands, with the Landsat bands, and with the PCs.
8 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
SYSI bands were strongly intercorrelated, as well as the Landsat 8
bands (blue squares in Fig. 4c). PCA was carried out to reduce the effects
of the intercorrelation. The intercorrelation between the principal com-
ponents (PC) was low for both satellite image sets, with PC1 explaining
94.83% and 95.14% of the variance respectively for the SYSI and Landsat
images, and PC2 explaining 3.73% and 4.01%. The remaining PC ex-
plained b1% of the variance.
Pearson's correlation coefficients allowed identifying the linear in-
teraction of soil parent material with the SYSI bands, with the Landsat
bands and with the PCs (Fig. 4d). The bare soil image was expected to
be more closely related to parent material than the single-date Landsat
image, considering the relationship between topsoil components and
bedrock or sediment. This was observed in the correlation plot
(Fig. 4d), where SYSI bands show higher correlation coefficients than
Landsat bands. The B1 SYSI band had the highest correlation value
(Blue, r = 0.49), whereas the B3 band (Red, r = 0.4) had the lowest
value. The bands from Landsat 8 with the highest correlations were B4
(Red, r = 0.42) and B7 (SWIR2, r = 0.41), and the band with the lowest
Fig. 5. Correlation between covariates and parent material. The graphic divides covariates into three groups: terrain derivatives and hydrologic covariates (Table 1), spectral covariates
(Table 2), and spatial coordinates.
correlation was B5 (NIR, r = 0.3). All SYSI bands had correlation values
higher than 0.4, whereas, for Landsat 8, only B4 and B7 had correlation
values higher than 0.4. The PC from the SYSI had PC1 (r = 0.47) and PC4
(r = 0.48) with correlation values close to 0.5. Meanwhile, for Landsat 8,
only PC5 (r = 0.49) had a correlation value close to 0.5. Considering the
highest correlation with parent material and the uncorrelated compo-
nents, the six PCs from SYSI bands were chosen as covariates on the pre-
diction models.
Topsoil color is represented by the SYSI, which can be used to inves-
tigate soil mineralogy and its relationship with parent material (Goulart
et al., 1998). Goethite and hematite are the most common iron oxides in
tropical soils, described as yellow-brown and red pigment agents, re-
spectively (Macedo and Bryant, 1989; Anda et al., 2008; Demattê
et al., 2018). Contrary to expectations, a high correlation between top-
soil color and parent material is not observed, with correlation values
from 0.4 to 0.5 (Fig. 4d). Even for the same parent material and the
same hematite and goethite contents, color may vary according to sev-
eral factors, such as moisture content, air temperature, soil organic
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305 9

Fig. 6. Parent material maps of the municipality of Piracicaba, predicted by six different classification methods. Models 1 to 4 used terrain derivatives and hydrologic variables (Table 1),
spectral reflectance and derived indices (Table 2), and spatial coordinates (X and Y). Models 5 and 6 used only spectral covariates and derived indices.
10 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305

Table 3
The percentage area (%) of each soil parent material predicted by six classification algorithms to the total area of the municipality of Piracicaba, São Paulo State.

OP* (%) RF (%) DT (%) SVM (%) MLR (%) K-Means (%) OBIA ML (%)

Alluvial Deposit 24 14.98 9.89 17.06 26.79 7.04 11.43

Sandstones of Piramboia Formation 9.8 20.24 8.51 18.41 16.13 13.44 17.46
Sandstones of the Botucatu formation 2.2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.58 9.94 5.00
Sandstones of the Itararé Group 12 5.67 2.57 8.69 4.67 6.96 10.98
Unconsolidated Clay 3.3 0.33 0.10 0.68 0.83 10.33 3.28
Sandstones of the Rio Claro Formation 4.1 5.12 13.07 3.67 10.31 3.14 17.24
Basalts of the Serra Geral Formation 13.1 15.71 2.15 20.22 6.74 5.16 4.84
Shales of the Irati Formation 2.9 0.05 0.00 0.00 1.78 15.32 8.44
Siltstones of the Tatuí Formation 10 7.04 16.11 6.75 9.28 9.89 2.32
Sandy Siltstones of the Corumbataí Formation 9.3 23.83 35.95 22.86 19.96 11.34 14.19
Clayey Siltstones of the Corumbataí Formation 9.3 6.93 11.65 1.66 2.93 7.44 4.82

*OP – Total Observation Points, RF - Random Forest; DT - Decision Tree, SVM - Support Vector Machine, MLR - Multinomial Logistic Regression; KM - K-Means clustering; OBIA ML - Object
Based Image Analysis with Maximum Likelihood classification.

carbon, soil pH, and contents of Fe, Mn, and Cu in the soil (Kampf and
Schwertmann, 1983). Pedogenetic processes may also significantly
change the surface material. Besides, different parent materials can re-
sult in soils with similar features, such as soils developed from shales
or basalts. Soils developed from shales have color shades very similar
to those of soils developed from basic igneous rocks, hindering visual
distinction of parent material (Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1964).
The same occurs in soils not originated from the geology underneath,
but from allochtone material that was carried from nearby areas, as
seen in some regions of the Paulista Peripheral Depression (Vidal-
Torrado and Lepsch, 1999). In this case, the relation between the topsoil
and the material underneath is likely to be weak.
4.2. Evaluation of the covariates
The correlation coefficients between all covariates and parent mate-
rial are shown in Fig. 5. The graphic has three sets of covariates: 1) ter-
rain derivatives and hydrologic variables, 2) spatial coordinates, and
3) spectral covariates. The covariate Multiresolution Index of Valley Bot-
tom Flatness (MRVBF) had the highest correlation, whereas the lowest
correlation was observed for the covariate Analytical Hillshading, al-
though both are terrain derivatives. The spatial coordinate X had the
highest correlation with parent material (r N 0.6). Among the spectral
covariates, Ferric Iron Index had the highest correlation, while Clay Min-
eral Ratio had the lowest correlation. None of the spectral covariates
showed correlation values higher than 0.6. The terrain derivatives in-
clude seven covariates with correlations higher than 0.6. The prevailing
spectral covariates were Ferric Iron (Red/Green), Iron Oxide Ratio (Red/
Blue), PC4, PC1, and NDVI (Fig. 5). Terrain derivatives and hydrological
covariates showed the highest correlations with parent material,
evidencing how topography and hydrology are closely related to geol-
ogy (Wade, 1935; Larkin and Sharp Jr., 1992; Jencso and Mcglynn,
2011).
High correlation with Elevation (Fig. 5) indicates its great impor-
tance to separate parent materials. The association between geology
and elevation has been widely studied (Strugale et al., 2007; Holz
et al., 2010; Salgado et al., 2015; Marques et al., 2018). MRVBF is an
index used to separate valley bottom from hillslope areas, identifying
valley bottoms at a range of sizes and slopes (Gallant and Dowling,
2003). It can identify depositional parts of the landscape and could be
applied to delineate hydrologic and geomorphic units, as well as com-
pare catchments quantitatively (Gallant and Dowling, 2003). MRVBF is
useful for delineating alluvial deposits and separating them from other
lithologies. Channel network and vertical distance to channel network
were also effective to identify depositional areas, such as Alluvial De-
posits and Unconsolidated Clay.

Table 4
Validation of different methods used to predict soil parent material in the study area. The overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient were evaluated.

Models Cross-validation Points – CPRM (external Tupi District Santa Rita Farm
dataset)

Accuracy Kappa Accuracy Kappa Accuracy Kappa Accuracy Kappa

Scenario 1: Terrain derivatives

RF* 0.49 0.34 0.59 0.32 0.63 0.27 0.53 0.20
DT 0.33 0.17 0.46 0.10 0.74 0.36 0.26 0.03
SVM 0.38 0.26 0.30 0.06 0.48 0.15 0.51 0.22
MLR 0.45 0.30 0.48 0.14 0.47 0.09 0.38 0.08

Scenario 2: Terrain derivatives + Spectral Covariates (from SYSI)

RF 0.49 0.33 0.63 0.39 0.68 0.35 0.64 0.27
DT 0.42 0.26 0.45 0.13 0.43 0.09 0.59 0.25
SVM 0.38 0.26 0.59 0.34 0.55 0.22 0.68 0.32
MLR 0.41 0.23 0.46 0.15 0.53 0.18 0.44 0.11

Scenario 3: Terrain derivatives + Spectral Covariates (from SYSI) + Spatial Coordinates

RF 0.57 0.45 0.79 0.65 0.81 0.54 0.58 0.19
DT 0.42 0.27 0.64 0.42 0.88 0.67 0.09 0.17
SVM 0.38 0.26 0.57 0.33 0.65 0.34 0.65 0.27
MLR 0.42 0.28 0.43 0.14 0.68 0.33 0.34 0.02

Scenario 4: Spectral Covariates (from SYSI)

KM – – 0.34 0.04 0.15 0.03 0.14 0.10
OBIA ML – – 0.55 0.28 0.60 0.25 0.07 0.01

*RF - Random Forest; DT - Decision Tree; SVM - Support Vector Machine; MLR - Multinomial Logistic Regression; KM - K-Means clustering; OBIA ML - Object Based Image Analysis with
Maximum Likelihood classification.
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
Fig. 7. Variable importance for parent material prediction by random forest method, using the mean decrease in Gini index. The variable numbers are referenced in Table 1.
4.3. Spatial predictions of soil parent material
Predicted maps of soil parent material by the six classification algo-
rithms are shown in Fig. 6. The maps from Models 1 to 4 were produced
using the terrain derivatives and hydrologic variables (Table 1), spectral
covariates (Table 2), and spatial coordinates X and Y. The maps from
Models 5 and 6 were elaborated using only the PC from SYSI bands. Gen-
erally, in the western part of the study area, sandstone is the predomi-
nant parent material, whereas in central-east, siltstones are dominant.
Basalts are common in the eastern part of the study area. The compari-
son of prediction maps (Fig. 6) showed significant differences. Visually,
basalts occur in representative sites on the maps from Models 1 and 3;
however, their occurrence is reduced on the maps from Models 2, 4, 5,
and 6. Parent material of sedimentary origin is predominant on the
maps from Models 2, 4, 5, and 6, whereas igneous rocks were less rep-
resentative. Alluvial deposits are clear on the maps from Models 1 to
4; however, very dispersed on the maps from Models 5 and 6. Unconsol-
idated clays occur in larger areas on the map from Model 5; however,
less representative on the maps from Models 1 to 4.
The proportion of each parent material to the total study area,
predicted by each classification algorithm, is described in Table 3.
Occurrence of sandstones was more representative in the models
RF and OBIA ML, where sandstones of the Piramboia Formation
11
were dominant. When K-Means was used, unconsolidated clay oc-
curred in a larger area. Areas where alluvial deposits occurred were
larger in MLR and appeared disperse in the K-Means and OBIA ML
(Fig. 6). Sites with igneous rocks (basalts and diabases represented
by the Serra Geral Formation) were larger in RF and SVM. Shales
were the parent material least represented by the models, as well
as unconsolidated clay. Among siltstones, prevailed the occurrence
of sandy siltstones of the Corumbataí Formation. A visual analysis
of the maps showed that sandy siltstones occur mainly near the allu-
vial deposits, following the river course.
Table 3 and Fig. 6 show how different methods can produce con-
trasting results, underlining the importance of testing and validating
methods before choosing the most appropriate one. Each method pre-
dicted different dominant parent material in the study area. Some par-
ent material had little representation, such as the shales of the Irati
Formation, with zero representation in the DT and SVM models; never-
theless, with 15.32% of representation in the K-Means model. Sand-
stones of the Botucatu Formation showed a similar condition. We
noted that the DT method produced an artifact and a non-continuous
color map, due to the influence of the spatial coordinate X, an important
covariate that presented a high correlation with parent material. A tree-
structured classification incorrectly divided the resulting map by a ver-
tical line, corresponding to a significant X value to the classification
12 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305 13

Fig. 9. Map of soil parent material of the municipality of Piracicaba, predicted by random forest classifier using Scenario 3 (Table 4).

rules. Based on a possibility of unpredictable artifacts, the use of spatial
coordinates in decision tree models is not advisable.
Meyer et al. (2019) promote an interesting discussion about apply-
ing spatial coordinates in prediction models. They indicated that
geolocation variables (i.e. latitude and longitude) can intensify the prob-
lem of autocorrelation, especially for spatially clustered data, causing
negative effects on the models mainly in areas beyond the location of
the training samples. They suggested different validation strategies,
with could evaluate spatial dependence or spatial autocorrelation, in-
stead of a commonly used cross-validation. In this work, we adopted
several ways of validation, including the common 10-fold cross-
validation, independent points of observation, and highly detailed leg-
acy geological maps for the study area. We assumed that its inclusion
deserves a comprehensive study in each prediction area.
4.4. Prediction scenarios and variable importance
Among the prediction scenarios, Scenario 4 had the lowest values for
parameters validation (Table 4). Scenario 1 showed a high importance
of terrain derivatives and hydrologic covariates, accounting for most of
the variability in the validation datasets. Scenario 2 with spectral covar-
iates showed a moderate improvement compared to Scenario 1, as
observed in parameter validation for the District of Tupi and the Santa
Rita Farm. Predictions showed high improvement when using spatial
coordinates (Scenario 3), with a considerable increase in accuracy and
the Kappa coefficient, using cross-validation, independent validation
points, and comparison with legacy geological maps for the District of
Tupi. Compared to Scenario 1, the average accuracy improved by
11.90% and average Kappa by 25.57% in Scenario 2, and by 18.98% and
72.49% in Scenario 3, respectively. Combination of all covariates (Sce-
nario 3) showed that RF led to higher accuracies in every validation
strategy, except for the District of Tupi, in which the DT method had
higher values. Thus, Scenario 3 showed the best scenario of covariates
combination, with RF as the best method.
Scenarios using the terrain derivatives, spatial coordinates and SYSIs
were proved to be more effective than those using only the PC of the
SYSIs (Table 4). Although SYSI bands showed different color shades,
where the difference between soils developed from igneous and sedi-
mentary rocks are visually evident, some parent material was not well
represented, such as alluvial deposits. Despite the difficulties, sandstone
sites were sufficiently well represented. We noted also a significant con-
tribution of the spatial covariates, specially the X coordinate, in the dif-
ferent validation strategies. Based on the validation results, and
considering the representativeness of the training samples for the entire

Fig. 8. Distribution of parent material by the main covariates used to construct the random forest model. Information was obtained by the intersection between the sampling points used to
train the model and the raster covariates.
14 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305

Fig. 10. Evaluation of the soil parent material predictions. a) Map of soil parent material predicted by the random forest model. Different parent materials are represented by different
colors and blue dots show the 56 sampling points of validation dataset. b) Predicted parent material of Santa Rita Farm and the correspondent area of the geology map (Demattê et al.,
2004). c) Predicted parent material of Tupi District and the correspondent area of the geology map (Vidal-Torrado and Lepsch, 1999; Marques et al., 2018).

study area, we chose to keep the spatial coordinates in the models, de-
spite the limitations described in Section 4.3.
4.5. Covariates importance
The most important variable used was Elevation, followed by the X
coordinate, Channel Network Base Level, Modified Catchment Area,
and MRVBF (Fig. 7). Among spectral covariates, Soil Composition Index
was the most important, which may detect soil chemical composition,
such as iron oxides (Al-Khaier, 2003), whereas PC1 and PC2 appeared
among the 15 most important covariates. Rowan and Mars (2003) ana-
lyzed Ferric Iron index using ASTER imagery, and we applied the
method to Landsat 8 OLI imagery, considering Fe3+ and Al-OH absorp-
tion. Iron Oxide Ratio was used to detect reddish colors of rocks and
soils provided by ferric iron minerals. This index is sensitive to ferric
iron even at low concentrations (Rockwell, 2013).
Distribution of parent material according to main covariates used in
the classification is shown in Fig. 8. Alluvial deposits occurred at eleva-
tion below 550 m above sea level (asl) (Fig. 8a). On the other hand,
sandstones of the Botucatu Formation appeared frequently in areas
higher than 600 m asl. Sandstones of the Piramboia Formation are in a
lower position in the stratigraphic column when compared to sand-
stones of the Botucatu Formation (Fig. 3). However, they do not have
a clear lithological distinction (Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1964)
and are frequently represented jointly in maps (Instituto Geográfico e
Geológico, 1966). Unconsolidated clays and sandstones of the Rio
Claro Formation occur more frequently around 600 m asl. Sandstones
of the Rio Claro Formation occur close to the rivers (Instituto
Geográfico e Geológico, 1965; de Melo, 1995). Unconsolidated clay is
a different material compared to the bedrock underneath and probably
is deposited from the nearby areas with higher elevations where deeply
weathered soil profiles often occur, such as Ferralsols (Vidal-Torrado
and Lepsch, 1999; Vidal-Torrado et al., 1999). Above 800 m asl, sand-
stones of the Piramboia and the Botucatu Formations had small occur-
rence areas, as well as basalts and diabases of the Serra Geral
Formation. Fig. 8b shows parent material distribution by the spatial co-
ordinate X. Sandstones of the Botucatu and the Piramboia Formations
and alluvial deposits were more frequent in the western part of the
study area, whereas the other parent materials occurred predominantly
in the eastern side. Areas of unconsolidated clay occur mainly in the
eastern part of the Piracicaba region, which was also observed by
Vidal-Torrado and Lepsch (1999) and Marques et al. (2018). The pa-
rameter Channel Network Base Level could separate alluvial deposits
with values lower than 500 m asl. Higher values were found in some
sections of sandstones of the Botucatu and the Piramboia Formations,
and in sandy siltstones of the Corumbataí Formation (Fig. 8c). Alluvial
deposits also stood out in Modified Catchment Area (Fig. 8d), with a
similar distribution of values. Alluvial deposits were also identified by
MRVBF, with most values higher than 2. The other parent material
showed similar distributions with most of values lower than 2
(Fig. 8e). Fig. 8f shows the distribution of parent material by VDCN. As
expected, alluvial deposits had the lowest values. Unconsolidated clay
had values close to 90 m and sandstones of the Rio Claro Formation
had values close to 50 m. Sandstones of the Botucatu Formation occur
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
in sites with a wide range of VDCN values. The other parent material dis-
tribution was similar, generally lower than 100 m.
4.6. Mapping soil parent material
Important differences could be observed between the pre-existent
geological map of Piracicaba (scale of 1:100,000) (Fig. 2) and the soil
parent material map produced (Fig. 9). Besides different delineation,
the geological map also has heterogeneous units, normally grouping in
a broad unit to which various rocks belong together. In contrast, the pre-
dicted parent material map presents a more complex distribution. Rocks
in the geological map are divided into six units, whereas the prediction
map of parent material comprises 11 units (Figs. 2 and 9).
Prediction showed better representation in the District of Tupi, with
units similar to those in the geological map at the scale 1:25,000 pro-
vided by previous studies (Vidal-Torrado and Lepsch, 1999; Marques
et al., 2018) (Fig. 10). In the geological map at scale 1:100,000 (Fig. 2),
a single geological class represents the whole District of Tupi, whereas
in the predicted map we could find five parent material classes. The
shales of the Irati Formation were the most difficult parent material to
predict, possibly because 1) weathered material is highly similar to
Fig. 11. Relationship between parent material predicted by random forest and distribution of soil particle size (sand, silt and clay) up to 20 cm (average for 2054 soil sampling points in the
study area).
15
other lithologies, such as weathered igneous rock (Instituto Geográfico
e Geológico, 1965), 2) few sampling points to implement the models,
or 3) rock texture itself is very similar to that of other sedimentary rocks.
The distribution of soil particle size followed features of the parent
materials (Fig. 11). Generally, clayey parent material develops into
clayey soils, whereas sandstones develop into sandy soils (Yaalon,
1971). The coarser the grain size of parent material composed mainly
of resistant quartz, the coarser the soil particle size (Gray and Murphy,
2002). As observed in Fig. 11, soils developed from sandstones tend to
have more sand in their composition. Soils derived from sandstones of
the Piramboia Formation, the Rio Claro Formation, alluvial deposits, or
sandy siltstones of the Corumbataí Formation may have 60% of sand
content or more. However, soils developed from basalts or diabases of
the Serra Geral Formation, shales of the Irati Formation, or unconsoli-
dated clay may have close to 60% of clay. The particle size distribution
of soils developed from siltstones depend on bedrock composition. For
instance, soils developed from clayey siltstones tend to form clayey
soils, whereas soils developed from sandy siltstones tend to form soils
with sand-rich texture. Non-predominance of silt may indicate the ma-
turity of soil genesis or influence of the parent material composition
(Birkeland, 1999; Schaetzl and Anderson, 2005).
16 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
5. Conclusions
Methods for digital mapping based on remote sensing, machine
learning, and geoprocessing techniques, coupled with geological data
observations, proved to be a suitable framework for mapping soil parent
material under a complex geological condition. The proposed method
produced a parent material map with important details not evident in
the current geological map available, improving the ability to delineate
soil parent material units.
Different statistical procedures produced very distinct maps,
highlighting the importance of considering the characteristics of each
classification algorithms and the combination of covariates, when eval-
uating the predictions. Random forest classification was the best
method to predict parent material, with prediction reaching an overall
accuracy of 0.81 and a Kappa coefficient of 0.65, considering different
validation strategies. The method allowed spatially distinguishing the
parent material, producing a substantially improved map. Topsoil re-
flectance acquired from a synthetic satellite image enhances the average
overall accuracy and the Kappa coefficient by 12.45% and 37.5%, respec-
tively. These results clearly demonstrated that the incorporation of a
bare soil image leads to enhancement of the model prediction. When
spatial coordinates were added, the average overall accuracy and the
Kappa coefficient increased by 19% and 74%, respectively. It is not cer-
tain that the use of spatial coordinates as covariates will produce maps
without artifacts, as observed in the decision tree model, but the results
suggest analyzing its inclusion, mainly in areas where the parent mate-
rial shows evident distribution in some specific direction.
The predicted map reproduced the tendency in the field of a strong
relationship between soil particle size distribution and soil parent mate-
rial. The correct identification of the parent material could greatly help
the soil survey, indicating previously the most likely soil texture classes
to be found. Thus, it is a potential tool to identify areas of similar soil
texture.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
for the financial support for the authors (FAPESP grant n° 2018/12678-
5, FAPESP grant n° 2014/22262-0, FAPESP grant n° 2015/16172-0,
FAPESP grant n° 2018/23760-4, FAPESP grant n° 2016/26124-6, FAPESP
grant n° 2016/01597-9, FAPESP grant n° 2020/04306-0). We also thank
the Geotechnologies on Soil Science Group - GEOCIS (esalqgeocis.
wixsite.com/english).
References
Al-Khaier, F., 2003. Soil Salinity Detection Using Satellite Remote Sensing. 1–59.
Alvares, C.A., Stape, J.L., Sentelhas, P.C., De Moraes Gonçalves, J.L., Sparovek, G., 2013.
Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 22 (6), 711–728. https://
doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507.
Anda, M., Shamshuddin, J., Fauziah, C.I., Omar, S.R.S., 2008. Mineralogy and Factors Con-
trolling Charge Development of Three Oxisols Developed From Different Parent Ma-
terials. 143, pp. 153–167.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.10.024.
Birkeland, P.W., 1999. Soils and Geomorphology. 1–430. Oxford University Press.
Bjornberg, S., Landim, B., 1966. Contribuição ao Estudo da Formação Rio Claro
(Neocenozóico). Boletim Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia 15 (4).
Bogunovic, I., Trevisani, S., Pereira, P., Vukadinovic, V., 2018. Mapping soil organic matter
in the Baranja region (Croatia): geological and anthropic forcing parameters. Sci.
Total Environ. 643, 335–345.
Breiman, L., 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group,
Michigan, p. 358.
Caetano-chang, M.R., Tai, W.F.T., 2003. Diagênese de Arenitos da Formação Pirambóia no
Centro-Leste Paulista. Geociências - UNESP. 22 pp. 33–39.
Carvalho, A.M.V., 1954. Contribuição ao Estudo Petrográfico do Arenito Botucatu no
Estado de São Paulo. Boletim Sociedade Brasileira de Geologia 3 (1).
Côrtes, A.R.P., Perinotto, J.A.J., 2015. Fácies e associação de fácies da Formação Piramboia
na região de Descalvado (SP). Geologia. USP. 15 (3–4), 23–40. https://doi.org/
10.11606/issn.2316-9095.v15i3-4p23-40.
Del Roveri, C., 2010. Petrologia Aplicada da Formação Corumbataí (Região de Rio Claro -
SP) e Produtos Cerâmicos. Universidade Estadual Paulista (203 pp.).
Demattê, J.A.M., Campos, R.C., Alves, M.C., Fiorio, P.R., Nanni, M.R., 2004. Visible–NIR re-
flectance: a new approach on soil evaluation. Geoderma 121 (1–2), 95–112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2003.09.012.
Demattê, J.A.M., Fongaro, C.T., Rizzo, R., Safanelli, J.L., 2018. Geospatial Soil Sensing System
(GEOS3): a powerful data mining procedure to retrieve soil spectral reflectance from
satellite images. Remote Sens. Environ. 212, 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
RSE.2018.04.047.
Demattê, J. A. M., Dotto, A. C., Paiva, A. F. S., Sato, M. V., Dalmolin, R. S. D., de Araújo, M. do
S. B., da Silva, E. B., Nanni, M. R., ten Caten, A., Noronha, N. C., Lacerda, M. P. C., de
Araújo Filho, J. C., Rizzo, R., Bellinaso, H., Francelino, M. R., Schaefer, C. E. G. R., Vicente,
L. E., dos Santos, U. J., de Sá Barretto Sampaio, E. V., … do Couto, H. T. Z. (2019). The
Brazilian Soil Spectral Library (BSSL): a general view, application and challenges.
Geoderma, 354, 113793. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.043.
Dobos, E., Seres, A., Vadnai, P., Michéli, E., Fuchs, M., Láng, V., Bertóti, R.D., 2013. Soil par-
ent material delineation using. MODIS and SRTM Data. 62 (2), 133–156.
ESRI, E. S. R. I, 2014. ArcGIS Desktop Help 10.3.
Florea, N., Mocanu, V., Cotet, V., Dumitru, S., 2015. Map of soil parent material in Romania.
Research Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 57–63.
Gallant, J.C., Dowling, T.I., 2003. A multiresolution index of valley bottom flatness for map-
ping depositional areas. Water Resour. Res. 39 (12). https://doi.org/10.1029/
2002WR001426.
Gingrich, P., 1992. Introductory Statistics for the Social Sciences. Department of Sociology
and Social Sciences, University of Regina (421 pp.).
Goulart, A.T., Fabris, J.D., Jesus Filho, M.F., Coey, J.M.D., Da Costa, G.M., De Grave, E., 1998.
Iron oxides in a soil developed from basalt. Clay Clay Miner. 46 (4), 369–378. https://
doi.org/10.1346/CCMN.1998.0460402.
Gray, J.M., Murphy, B.W., 2002. Parent material and world soil distribution. 17th WCSS.
2215, pp. 1–14 Bangkok, Thailand.
Gray, Jonathan M., Murphy, B.W., 1999. Parent material and soils: a guide to the influence
of parent material on soil distribution in eastern Australia. DLWC Technical Report
No. 45 (122 pp.).
Gray, Jonathan M., Bishop, T.F.A., Wilford, J.R., 2016. Lithology and soil relationships for
soil modelling and mapping. Catena 147, 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
catena.2016.07.045.
Han, J., Kamber, M., Pei, J., 2012. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. 744 pp. https://
doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-61819-5.
Heung, B., Bulmer, C.E., Schmidt, M.G., 2014. Predictive soil parent material mapping at a
regional scale: A Random Forest approach. Geoderma 214–215, 141–154. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2013.09.016.
Holz, M., França, A.B., Souza, P.A., Iannuzzi, R., Rohn, R., 2010. Journal of South American
Earth Sciences A stratigraphic chart of the Late Carboniferous/Permian succession of
the eastern border of the Paraná Basin, Brazil, South America. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 29
(2), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2009.04.004.
Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. 383 pp. https://doi.org/
10.1002/0471722146.
Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1964. Geologia do Estado de São Paulo. Boletim No 41
(273 pp.).
Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1965. Descrição Geológica e Geográfica das Folhas de
Piracicaba e São Carlos, SP. Boletim No 43 (54 pp.).
Instituto Geográfico e Geológico, 1966. Folha Geológica de Piracicaba. Escala 1:100.000.
IGG.
Jencso, K.G., Mcglynn, B.L., 2011. Hierarchical controls on runoff generation: topographi-
cally driven hydrologic connectivity, geology, and vegetation. 47 (November),
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010666.
Jenny, H., 1941. Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology. McGraw-
Hill, New York (191 pp.).
Kampf, N., Schwertmann, U., 1983. Goethite and hematite in a climosequence in Southern
Brazil and their application in classification of kaolinitc soils. Geoderma 29, 27–39.
Kearney, M.W., 2017. Cramér’s V. In: Allen, M.R. (Ed.), Sage Encyclopedia of Communica-
tion Research Methods. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1–4.
Kuhn, M., 2008. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. Journal of Statis-
tical Software 28 (5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05.
Lacoste, M., Lemercier, B., Walter, C., 2011. Geomorphology Regional mapping of soil par-
ent material by machine learning based on point data. Geomorphology 133 (1–2),
90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.026.
Larkin, R.G., Sharp Jr., J.M., 1992. On the relationship between river-basin geomorphology,
aquifer hydraulics, and ground-water flow direction in alluvial aquifers. Geol. Soc.
Am. Bull. 104, 1608–1620.
Loreti Junior, R., Sardou Filho, R., Caltabeloti, F.P., 2014. Polo Cerâmico de Santa Gertrudes.
Programa Geológico do Brasil. CPRM, São Paulo (69 pp.).
Macedo, J., Bryant, R.B., 1989. Preferential microbial reduction of hematite over goethite in
a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53 (4), 1114–1118. https://doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj1989.03615995005300040022x.
MacMillan, R.A., 2003. LandMapR Software Toolkit - C++ Version: User’s Manual (p. 110).
LandMapper Environmental Solutions Inc., Edmonton, p. 110.
Marques, K.P.P., Demattê, J.A.M., Miller, B.A., Lepsch, I.F., 2018. Geomorphometric Seg-
mentation of Complex Slope Elements for Detailed Digital Soil Mapping in Southeast
Brazil. 14, pp. 1–9.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.e00175.
 B.R. Bonfatti et al. / Geomorphology 367 (2020) 107305
McBratney, A., Mendonça Santos, M., Minasny, B., 2003. On digital soil mapping.
Geoderma 117 (1–2), 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00223-4.
de Melo, M.S., 1995. A Formação Rio Claro e Depósitos Associados: Sedimentação
Neocenozóica na Depressão Periférica Paulista. USP (164 pp.).
Meneses, P.R., Almeida, T.De., 2012. In: Meneses, P.R., De Almeida, T. (Eds.), Introdução ao
Processamento de Imagens de Sensoriamento Remoto. UNB, CNPQ, Brasília (266 pp.).
Meyer, H., Reudenbach, C., Wöllauer, S., Nauss, T., 2019. Importance of spatial predictor
variable selection in machine learning applications – moving from data reproduction
to spatial prediction. Ecol. Model. 411, 108815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolmodel.2019.108815.
Miller, B.A., Burras, C.L., Crumpton, W.G., 2008. Using soil surveys to map Quaternary par-
ent materials and landforms across the Des Moines Lobe of Iowa and Minnesota. Soil
Survey Horizon 49, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.2136/sh2008.4.0091.
Navarro, D., 2015. Learning Statistics With R: A Tutorial for Psychology Students and
Other Beginners. (Version 0.5). University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Petri, S., Coimbra, A.M., Amaral, G., Ojeda, H.A., Fúlfaro, V.J., Ponçano, W.L., 1986. Código
Brasileiro De Nomenclatura Estratigráfica Guia De Nomenclatura Estratigráfica.
Revista Brasileira de Geociências 16 (4), 370–415. https://doi.org/10.25249/0375-
7536.1986370415.
Poppiel, R.R., Lacerda, M.P.C., Safanelli, J.L., Rizzo, R., Oliveira, M.P., Novais, J.J., Demattê, J.A.
M., 2019. Mapping at 30 m resolution of soil attributes at multiple depths in Midwest
Brazil. Remote Sens. 11 (24), 2905. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11242905.
Prokopovich, N.P., 1984. Use of agricultural soil survey maps for engineering geologic
mapping. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists xxi (4), 437–447.
R Core Team, 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Founda-
tion for Statistical Computing Retrieved from. https://www.r-project.org/.
Rao, R.P.N., Scherer, R., 2010. Statistical Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning in
Brain-computer Interfaces. pp. 335–368.
Richards, J.A., Jia, X., 2006. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis. 4th edition. XIX.
Springer, p. 494.
Richter, J., Owens, P.R., Libohova, Z., Adhikari, K., Fuentes, B., 2019. Catena Mapping parent
material as part of a nested approach to soil mapping in the Arkansas River Valley.
Catena 178 (February), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.02.031.
Rockwell, B.W., 2013. Automated Mapping of Mineral Groups and Green Vegetation From
Landsat Thematic Mapper Imagery With an Example From the San Juan Mountains,
Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia https://doi.org/10.3133/sim3252.
Rowan, L.C., Mars, J.C., 2003. Lithologic Mapping in the Mountain Pass, California Area
Using Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)
Data. 84 pp. 350–366.
Salgado, A.A.R., Bueno, G.T., Diniz, A.D., Marent, B.R., 2015. In: Vieira, B.C., Salgado, A.A.R.,
Santos, L.J.C. (Eds.), Landscapes and Landforms of Brazil. Springer.
17
Schaetzl, R., Anderson, S., 2005. Soils: Genesis and Geomorphology. Cambridge University
Press, New York (817 pp.).
Silvero, N.E.Q., Siqueira, D.S., Coelho, R.M., Da Costa Ferreira, D., Marques, J., 2019. Protocol
for the use of legacy data and magnetic signature on soil mapping of São Paulo Cen-
tral West, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 693, 133463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.07.269.
Strugale, M., Rostirolla, S.P., Mancini, F., Portela Filho, C.V., Ferreira, F.J.F., de Freitas, R.C.,
2007. Structural framework and Mesozoic–Cenozoic evolution of Ponta Grossa
Arch, Paraná Basin, southern Brazil. J. S. Am. Earth Sci. 24 (2–4), 203–227. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2007.05.003.
USGS, 2018a. Landsat 4–7 Surface Reflectance (LEDAPS) Product Guide. U.S. Geological
Survey, Sioux Falls (32 pp.).
USGS, 2018b. Landsat 8 Surface Reflectance Code (LASRC) Product Guide. U.S. Geological
Survey, Sioux Falls (33 pp.).
Vapnik, V.N., 1998. Statistical Learning Theory. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (732 pp.).
Vidal-Torrado, P., Lepsch, I.F., 1999. Relações Material de Origem/Solo e Pedogênese em
uma Sequência de Solos Predominantemente Argilosos e Latossólicos sobre Psamitos
na Depressão Periférica Paulista. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Do Solo 23, 357–369.
Vidal-Torrado, P., Lepsch, I.F., Castro, S.S., Cooper, M., 1999. Pedogênese em uma
seqüência Latossolo-Podzólico na borda de um platô na Depressão Periférica Paulista.
Revista Brasileira de Ciência Do Solo 23, 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-
06831999000400018.
Wade, A., 1935. The relationship between topography and geology. Australian Surveyor 5
(6), 367–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050326.1935.10436440.
Willgoose, G., 2018. A Coupled Soilscape-landform Evolution Model: Model Formulation
and Initial Results. pp. 1–38.
Wilson, M.J., 2019, November 1. The importance of parent material in soil classification: a
review in a historical context. Catena 182, 104131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
catena.2019.104131.
Yaalon, D.H., 1971. Soil-forming intervals in time and space. In: Yaalon, D.H. (Ed.),
Paleopedology. University Press, Jerusalem, pp. 29–39.
Zaine, M.F., Perinotto, J.A.J., 1996. Patrimônios Naturais e História Geológica da Região de
Rio Claro - SP. Câmara Municipal de Rio Claro e Arquivo Público Histórico do
Município de Rio Claro, Rio Claro, pp. 1–99.
Zeraatpisheh, M., Ayoubi, S., Jafari, A., Finke, P., 2017. Comparing the efficiency of digital
and conventional soil mapping to predict soil types in a semi-arid region in Iran. Geo-
morphology 285, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2017.02.015.