Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess (2006) 20: 307–318
DOI 10.1007/s00477-005-0026-1
TEACHING A ID
Ricardo A. Olea
A six-step practical approach to semivariogram modeling
Published online: 9 May 2006
Ó Springer-Verlag 2006
Abstract Geostatistical prediction and simulation are
being increasingly used in the earth sciences and engi-
neering to address the imperfect knowledge of attributes
that fluctuate over large areas or volumes—pollutant
concentration, electromagnetic fields, porosity, thickness
of a geological formation. Central to the application of
such techniques is the need to know the spatial conti-
nuity, knowledge that is commonly condensed in the
form of covariance or semivariogram models. Their
preparation is subdivided here into the following steps:
(1) Data editing, (2) Exploratory data analysis, (3)
Semivariogram estimation, (4) Directional investigation,
(5) Simple modeling, (6) Nested modeling. I illustrate
these stages practically with a real data set from a geo-
physical survey from Elk County, Kansas, USA. The
applicability of the approach is not limited by the
physical nature of the attribute of interest.
Keywords Geostatistics Æ Continuity Æ Uncertainty Æ
Semivariogram Æ Model fitting
1 Introduction
Shortage of information is common in the modeling and
evaluation of natural resources. Geostatistics has been
developed in recent decades to assist in the process and
to quantify the uncertainty associated with such imper-
fect knowledge (e.g. Goovaerts 1997; Chilès and Delfiner
1999; Olea 1999).
A fundamental difference between geostatistics and
classical statistics is the assumption by geostatistics of the
existence of spatial autocorrelation, which matches the
commonly held notion that in the vicinity of small values
there are other small values, while large values tend to be
close to other large values. The assessment of such
R. A. Olea
Institut für Ostseeforschung Warnemüende,
18119 Rostock, Germany
E-mail: ricardo@oleageostats.com
autocorrelation is a prerequisite in most applications of
geostatistics, which is generally done by modeling the
semivariogram based on the information provided by a
sampling of the attribute of interest. Equivalent results
can be obtained employing covariances instead, which
can be readily derived from semivariograms.
Despite numerous publications on the subject, mod-
eling a semivariogram remains to the uninitiated the
most difficult and intriguing aspect in the application of
geostatistics. What follows is a hands-on approach in-
tended to teach by example, by breaking the task of
modeling into six sequential steps. Proper execution of
the task requires computer software for calculations and
graphical display, for which I provide references. The
use of a two-dimensional gravimetrical survey here is
merely pedagogical. The basic steps are the same,
regardless of the physical nature of the attribute and the
dimensionality of the sampling. The focus is on handling
typical peculiarities of spatial continuity as revealed by a
proper sampling, rather than in complications derived
from insufficient data, blunders in their preparation, or a
combination of the two.
2 Step 1: Data editing
To remain as focused as possible, I will start by
assuming that there is a sampling already available. This
will avoid going into sampling design, a major step
worthy of a separate paper.
Typically, a geostatistical sampling comprises one
record per measurement. Each record gives the observed
value and its spatiotemporal location, which may be in
one, two, or three spatial dimensions. The most frequent
case—and the one to which I will devote my atten-
tion—is the atemporal, two-dimensional case, in which
location comprises a couple of geographic coordinates.
In cases such as locations given as legal description of
location or latitude and longitude, it is necessary to
convert them to Cartesian coordinates using programs
such as the one prepared by Collins (1999).
308
Where every observation is some type of average over
a line, area, or volume—porosity, chemical concentra-
tion, ore grade, crop yield—all measurements must have
the same type of underlying line, area, or volume in
terms of shape, size and orientation. Observations hav-
ing significant variations in the underlying line, area, or
volume should form different sub-samplings that must
be treated separately.
The first task is to review every record to eliminate
any possible reading, recording, or processing errors,
either in the locations or in the measurement of the
attribute. Human errors are more common than most
people imagine. Final results will be particularly sensi-
tive to anomalous fluctuations; one needs to scrutinize
them as much as possible. The sampling should retain
only those observations denoting real, natural fluctua-
tions, within instrumental precision, of course. Failure
to eliminate sampling blunders can sometimes be de-
tected later in the modeling. Then it is necessary to re-
peat the work after taking corrective action. Undetected
blunders usually degrade the representativity of the re-
sults.
A posting of values or preliminary mapping, such as
the one in Fig. 1, is helpful to gain familiarity with the
data and detect dubious sampling sites. The sampling in
Fig. 1 is a medium-size survey with 668 measurements
and will be used extensively to illustrate the methodol-
ogy. The sampling is part of a larger geophysical study
comprising more than 27,000 stations that cover all of
the state of Kansas (Lam 1987; Xia et al. 1992). The
survey was done to detect Bouguer gravity anomalies in
the gravitational force relative to the standard geoid,
which in this case mainly indicate depth to bedrock.
Values of Bouguer anomaly are gravity averages over
the same vertically elongated volumes, with cross-sec-
tions that are regarded as points relative to the size of
the sampling area. The coordinates in this case are those
of the instrument on the surface of the earth.
The reader is encouraged to download and work with
the sampling available at URL http://www.kgs.ku.edu/
Mathgeo/Books/Elk/index.html. As rendered in Fig. 1,
the survey is free of errors, ready for reliable use, within
a combined measurement and processing precision of
0.1 mgal.
3 Step 2: Exploratory data analysis
Before calculating the semivariogram, the user needs to
examine both the spatial distribution of sampling sites
and the cumulative distribution of the measurements to
assess any need to modify the original data.
First, for the proper modeling of a semivariogram,
the sampling should not have preferential areas, as is
the case when some measurements concentrate in
clusters with a much greater sampling density that the
rest of the sampling area. If that is the situation, the
sampling needs preprocessing to eliminate the influ-
ence of clusters. One way to do this is by assigning
weights (Isaaks and Srivastava 1989, pp. 241–247),
which can be done by the program declus (Deutsch
and Journel 1998, pp. 213–214). The Elk county
gravimetric survey was designed to take one mea-
surement at every intersection of the almost perfectly
regular network of roads every mile in the east–west
and north–south directions. Hence the demonstration
sampling is as free of clustering as any sampling
can be.
The second decision relates to the requirement or
convenience of transforming the data to increase its
univariate normality, namely the ability of the mea-
surements to approximate a normal distribution. The
most common practice is to convert the data to normal
scores. The transformed data will have a normal distri-
bution with a mean of zero and a variance of one,
transformation that is also known as a Gaussian ana-
morphose. Often the transformation is optional and
makes sense solely in the case of clear deviation from
normality. Some applications, however, such as
sequential Gaussian simulation, require normal scores,
and so the transformation is mandatory. For more de-
tails, see Verly (1986). If the reader needs to make a
normal score transformation, then see for example
Deutsch and Journel (1998, pp. 223–226).
Figure 2 shows the cumulative univariate distribution
for the Elk data on a normal probability scale. In this
instance, the maximum deviation from normality occurs
for
56 mgal and is 5.7% points. As a practical rule,
there are no clear advantages to working with normal
scores unless the deviation from normality is above 10%
points. For cases such as the Bouguer values from Elk
county, one should avoid a normal score transforma-
tion. Most statistical libraries have programs to
calculate maximum deviation between cumulative dis-
tributions, such as the one in Press et al. (1992, pp. 617–
619). Given the nonlinearity of the probability scale, it is
safer to run this simple calculation than trying to read
the maximum discrepancy from a graphical comparison
of the distributions like the one in Fig. 2.
4 Step 3—Semivariogram estimation
At this stage it seems opportune to define what the
semivariogram is. Given two sites h units apart and the
difference for a variable of interest at those sites, the
semivariogram, c(h), is half the variance of this differ-
ence. The semivariogram has the property of measuring
the degree of dissimilarity between pairs of measure-
ments in terms of how far apart they are and the ori-
entation of the line between those two sampling sites.
Statistics and geostatistics are sciences of the un-
known. Therefore, it follows that the true semivario-
gram is never known, and as in statistics generally, all
that it is customarily known is an estimate of the semi-
variogram. Although there are several semivariogram
estimators, the predominant practice is to use the fol-
lowing unbiased estimator:
 309

Fig. 1 Location of Elk County

in the state of Kansas, United
States (star), posting of
observation stations (+), and
contour map of Bouguer
anomaly in Elk County. Lines
close to the margins are the Elk
County boundary lines.
Distances along the axes are in
kilometers and contour interval
is 1 mgal

Fig. 2 Cumulative distribution

for the Bouguer gravity
anomaly, Elk County, Kansas,
denoted by the dots, and a
normal distribution with the
same mean and variance, given
by the straight line. The sample
mean is
61.3 mgal, the
standard deviation 4.8 mgal,
and the maximum discrepancy
with a normal distribution with
these same parameters is 5.7
percentage points
310
nðhÞ
1 X
^cðhÞ ¼ ½zðxi þ hÞ
zðxi Þ2 ; ð1Þ
2 nðhÞ i¼1
where z (xi) is a measurement taken at location xi and
n(h) is the number of pairs h units apart in the direction
of the vector. In the geostatistical jargon, ^cðhÞ is known
as experimental semivariogram and h is the lag. An
important assumption for the validity of this estimator is
the absence of any systematic variations, that is to say,
there should be no trend. Note that the estimator is
conveniently independent from the individual sites xi.
The lag is written in bold to denote that the argument
simultaneously has a magnitude defined by a distance
and an orientation, which in two dimensions is any of
the points in the compass. Location is also in bold to
denote that it is a vector of coordinates, as many as the
dimensions in the sampling space. In two dimensions,
they are commonly denoted as easting and northing.
Given an orientation, the estimator in (1) is strictly
applicable to a sampling at regular intervals, d. ^cð0Þ is
always zero, as the difference of any measurement with
itself is zero. ^cðd Þ is half the square mean of all differ-
ences of a measurement with its immediate neighbor,
^cð2d Þ is half the square mean of all differences of a
measurement with the neighbor that results from skip-
ping one measurement, and so on. For a numerical
example, see, e.g., Olea (1999, p. 74).
In irregular sampling schemes, for the purpose of
establishing pairs, z(xi+h ) is regarded as a centroid of a
distance class. Figure 3 illustrates the situation of a two-
dimensional irregular sampling, in which any measure-
ment inside the shaded area is considered in the calcu-
lation of ^cðhÞ; although it is not exactly a distance h from
xi. The lag spacing is typically taken close to the value of
Fig. 3 Definition of the distance class in the estimation of a
semivariogram. The shaded area is defined by an angular tolerance
d, lag tolerance th, and a lateral tolerance tb, relative to the point
here appearing in the upper left corner. Any measurement inside
the shaded area can be used in the calculation of ^cðhÞ despite not
being exactly h units apart from xi
the average sampling distance; the lag tolerance, th, is set
to half this spacing; the lateral tolerance, tb, 0.5 to 2
times the lag spacing; and the angular tolerance, d, 0.25–
0.5 times the increment in the azimuth. The increment in
the azimuth is customarily between 22.5° and 45°.
Clearly there is a trade-off between the resolution of
small distance classes with few observations per class,
and the reliability and smoothing of large distance
classes. Options become more numerous as the sampling
size increases. In practice, the pairing of measurements
and calculation of half-square averages is better done
with the assistance of computer programs, such as
VARIOWIN (Pannatier 1996) or gamv (Deutsch and
Journel 1998, pp. 53–55).
Figure 4 is an example of a typical experimental
semivariogram, which in this case shows the results of
processing the Elk data with gamv using an incremental
lag of 1.6 km (1 mi), an angular tolerance of 10° and a
lateral tolerance of 1 km. The degree of dissimilarity
provided by the semivariogram often shows a bounded
increase. The distance at which the semivariogram
reaches the limiting value is called the range and the
bound is denoted as the sill. In the case of experimental
semivariograms, the range and the sill are hard to define
accurately because of irregularity in the fluctuations.
Let me conclude this section with some remarks
about the significance of the point estimates comprising
the experimental semivariogram. The autocorrelation
assumption at the core of geostatistics is both a blessing
and a problem. It is an advantage in that allows for
better characterizations than would be possible without
spatial continuity. Autocorrelation, however, introduces
enough theoretical complications that it has been
impossible to develop any kind of test of significance in
the style of classical statistics. So, for example, the an-
swer to the question as to the minimum number of pairs
in ^cðhÞ required to provide a reliable estimation, can be
Fig. 4 Experimental semivariogram for demonstration sampling
along N63E showing a range of about 21.3 km and a sill of about
1.07 mgal2

addressed solely by the following couple of recommen-
dations:
1. The minimum number of pairs in semivariogram
estimation must be 30, according to Journel and
Huijbregts (1978, p. 194), and 50 if one is going to
follow the advice of Chilès and Delfiner (1999, p. 38).
Please see Webster and Oliver (1992) for a discussion.
2. If it is necessary to estimate the semivariogram for a
large lag close to the diameter of the sampling area,
then the pairs of observations that are that far apart
are only those located at opposite extremes of the
sampling area, thus excluding the central points from
the analysis. Hence, the justification for a second
practical rule that advises to limit the lag of the
experimental semivariogram should be limited to half
the extreme distance in the sampling domain for the
direction of interest (Journel and Huijbregts 1978,
p. 194).
Indirectly, these two rules collectively make it difficult
to properly estimate a semivariogram with less than 50
measurements at different locations.
5 Step 4: Directional investigation
In more than one dimension, the semivariogram gener-
ally has directional properties. Hence the user should
not stop at estimating a semivariogram for a single
direction, such as the one in Fig. 4. In general, the data
permitting, the more directions are investigated, the
better. In two dimensions, the bare minimum is the
investigation of three azimuths (Goovaerts 1997, p. 98).
In three dimensions, there is the additional need to run a
sensitivity analysis in the declination.
One might observe at least three basic types of
behavior in a directional semivariogram survey. In the
simplest situation, there is no significant difference
among experimental semivariograms for the different
directions tested. In this circumstance, one speaks of
isotropy and it is acceptable to average all experimental
semivariograms regardless of orientation. The result is
usually a smooth semivariogram—an omnidirectional
semivariogram—which is smoother than individual
directional semivariograms.
If the sampling is trend free and the average size of
the anomalies is smaller than the maximum length of the
sampling area, then the typical situation is that one
obtains semivariograms with different rates of increase
for short lags that level off at a common sill that
approximates the sampling variance (Barnes 1991), such
as in Fig. 5. This is the second basic type of behavior, a
semivariogram with what is called a geometric anisot-
ropy, which is a true function of distance and direction.
Figure 6 shows the third type of basic behavior
through eight semivariograms for the Elk data set at
increments of 22.5°, starting from the east–west direc-
tion. Now, instead of observing a sill for every semi-
variogram, one can see an exponential increase without
311
bound at different incremental rates. Many of the esti-
mated values surpass the value of the variance, which in
this instance is 23 mgal2 . What we have in such situa-
tions are a collection of artifacts, not genuine experi-
mental semivariograms. Even a casual inspection of
Fig. 1 reveals that there is a systematic increase in the
Bouguer gravity from northwest to southeast, which
violates the assumption of no-trend for the proper use of
the estimator in Eq. 1. Hence, the curves in Fig. 6 are
neither semivariogram estimates, nor the kind of semi-
variograms that will be required in a geostatistical
characterization of an attribute with a trend. In the
presence of trend, the semivariogram required for
modeling is that computed on the residuals obtained
after removing the trend. Yet to remove the trend, it is
necessary to have the semivariogram of the residual. The
simplest, yet most effective way out of this conundrum,
is to find a trend-free direction—namely a direction that
on average has a constant mean—and use the semi-
variogram in that direction as the semivariogram for the
residual. The justification for this is based on the fact
that the experimental semivariogram depends on dif-
ferences z(xi+h )
z(xi) in which the addition or
subtraction of a constant to each term does not change
the increment. The trend-free direction is perpendicular
to the direction of maximum dip and coincides with the
direction of minimal increase in the pseudo-semivario-
grams of a directional survey. In the case of the Elk
County data, this direction is about N67E.
A second directional analysis around the approxi-
mately trend-free direction—such as the one in
Fig. 7—helps to narrow the solution, which in this case
is approximately N63E. Other more sophisticated ap-
proaches not considered here include iterative modeling
of the trend and the semivariogram (Chilès and Delfiner
1999, pp. 115–128) and removal of the trend by filtering
through the calculation of increments (Chilès and Del-
finer 1999, chap. 4).
Var(Z)
semivariogram
Direction 1
Direction 2
Direction 3
Direction 4
lag
Fig. 5 Schematic example of geometrically anisotropic semivario-
gram
312

Fig. 6 Directional
semivariogram investigation for
the Elk County gravity data

the semivariogram is required for kriging estimation or

6 Step 5: simple modeling
If all that the user wants to obtain are some conclusions
from the inspection of the experimental semivariogram,
step 4 is the end of the process. Yet, more often than not,
for some form of stochastic simulation involving kri-
ging. In these situations, modeling of the semivariogram
becomes mandatory.
Kriging is the solution to the quadratic minimization
problem of finding weights that minimize the estimation

Fig. 7 Directional
semivariogram investigation
around the trend-free direction
error in a mean square sense. Any quadratic minimiza-
tion problem has a unique, positive solution, provided
that the coefficient matrix is not singular, which in the
case of the kriging minimization problem introduces the
requirement that the semivariogram be negative definite.
By a positive solution, it is meant that the objective
function—the estimation error—be positive, which is
313
essential to avoid imaginary standard errors. A semi-
variogram model is any negative definite analytical
expression of a shape likely to capture and emulate the
style of variation of some experimental semivariogram.
By replacing the experimental semivariogram by a neg-
ative definite model, the user avoids singular kriging
matrices no matter what the combination of arguments.
314
Table 1 Most commonly used
simple semivariogram models 0 < a, 0<C

Power model : PðhÞ ¼ a hb ; 0\b\2

3h

Exponential model : ExðhÞ ¼ C 1
e
a

h 2

Gaussian model : GðhÞ ¼ C 1
e
3ðaÞ
(
 3 
C 32 ha
12 ha ; 06jhj\jaj
Spherical model : SpðhÞ ¼
C; jaj6jhj
(
  
5 h 3 3 h 5
C 15 h

þ ; 06jhj\jaj
Pentaspherical : PeðhÞ ¼ 8 a 4 a 8 a
C; jaj6jhj
(
 h3 7 h5 3 h7 
2
C 7 ha
35 þ
; 06jhj\jaj
Cubic model : CuðhÞ ¼ 4 a 2 a 4 a
C; jaj6jhj
 
sin ðphaÞ
Sine hole effect : SðhÞ ¼ C 1
ph
a

This explanation is given to dispel any notion that the
use of semivariogram models is an unnecessary compli-
cation introduced solely to make life more miserable.
The use of negative definite models is utterly more effi-
cient than the alternative to test the non-singularity of
every kriging coefficient matrix for each particular set of
values derived from direct interpolation of the table of
experimental semivariogram values, even though this
would be a valid approach.
Although there is an infinite number of negative
definite functions, the basic shape of the semivariogram
rising from zero to reach a limiting value restricts to a
few the negative definite functions that are of interest.
Those most commonly employed are defined in Table 1
2.0
Power
Exponential
Gaussian
1.5 Spherical
Pentaspherical
Cubic
semivariogram
and displayed in Fig. 8. Parameters C and a conve-
niently relate directly to the sill and the range. A special
case of the negative definite model is the pure nugget
model, N, which can be considered a limiting case of
some of the other models when the range is infinitesi-
mally small.
N ¼ C0 ð1
H ð0ÞÞ;
where H(0) is the Heaviside function, which is 1 at lag 0
and 0 otherwise. In this particular case, the constant C0
is not called the sill but the nugget effect, a term derived
from the modeling of semivariograms of gold deposits.
The sum of a simple model and a pure nugget effect
model is also negative definite. The higher the nugget
effect relative to the nugget minus sill, the poor the
spatial continuity. To the limit, just a pure nugget effect
semivariogram indicates complete absence of spatial
continuity, making the use of geostatistics meaningless
as it produces the same results as classical statistics. Such
lack of continuity can be real, the result of too large
sampling space, or the consequence of numerous blun-
ders in the data. For example, an attribute with a true
range in its semivariogram of 100 m will have a pure

Sine hole effect nugget effect semivariogram when the attribute is sam-
pled at intervals of 1 km. In my experience, this is
1.0
commonly the case of geochemical data.
Modeling of a semivariogram is the process of
replacing the collection of estimated values by the closest
negative definite model, namely, the selection of the
0.5
most adequate model type and the determination of its
parameters. This can be done by:
(a) trial and error (Goovaerts 1997, 97–104);
0.0 (b) maximum likelihood (Kitanidis 1997, chap. 4); and
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 (c) weighted least squares (Jian et al. 1996).
lag
Considering that this paper presents a practical ap-
Fig. 8 Most common negative definite semivariogram models proach, I refer the reader to the references for theoretical
when the two parameters are equal to 1 discussions. For years, I have had the most satisfactory
 315

Fig. 9 Best fits for experimental semivariogram along N63E employing each one of the models in Table 1 plus a pure nugget model when
necessary
316

results employing weighted least squares, particularly estimator involving a semivariogram model—such as
when the experimental semivariogram follows a typical the most adequate form of kriging, which in the case
behavior devoid of anomalous fluctuations, such as the of the Elk data may be universal kriging because of
case of the semivariogram in Fig. 4. the presence of a trend—one can use crossvalidation
Regardless of the method used to find the model to study the sensitivity of the errors to changes in the
parameters, it is particularly hard for the novice to pick semivariogram. Conclusions derived from the analysis
the best type of model by simple inspection. Hence, the of the errors, however, must be taken cautiously be-
safest approach is to fit all models and then select the cause the errors are not independent.
model with the best goodness of fit, which is a trivial and Table 3 shows the sensitivity of crossvalidation errors
instantaneous undertaking when the modeling is not to two sets of anisotropic models, one with a maximum
done by trial and error. Figure 9 shows the results for range 10% larger than the range in the best simple
the Elk data using a program described in Jian et al. model and a minimum range 10% less than the range in
(1996) that is available from the Internet at http:// the best simple model (16.38, 13.40) and another set with
www.iamg.org/CGEditor/index.htm. Table 2 contains a discrepancy of 20% (17.86, 11.91). Although there is a
the optimal parameters and the sum for the squares of systematic improvement that suggests a minimum mean
the weighted differences, Rm. square error for a largest range oriented approximately
In a weighted least squares sense, the best model is in a north-south direction, for this example the
the Gaussian one, closely followed by the cubic model. improvement is not large enough to be considered sig-
In the absence of a trend, if there is anisotropy, one nificant or to justify the complications of an anisotropic
has to model as many directions as dimensions in the model.
sampling space. For two dimensions, one has to model
one semivariogram for the direction of maximum range
and another one for the direction of the minimum range.
Programs making use of anisotropic models generally 7 Step 6: nested modeling
will expect that:
A sum of negative define semivariograms is also negative
(a) the two directions are perpendicular;
definite. The sum of a simple model plus a pure nugget
(b) the type of model is the same; and
effect model is just a special case. This property of
(c) both models have the same sill; which in most cases
negative definite semivariograms opens infinite possi-
forces some approximations. Those programs auto-
bilities of semivariogram mixing, which in geostatistical
matically model the range for intermediate directions
jargon is called semivariogram nesting. In practice, the
as the radius of an ellipse in which the axes are the
goodness of fit rapidly reaches a saturation point,
minimum and maximum ranges.
explaining why one rarely sees nested models involving
For cases with trend and modeled only in the more than a pure nugget effect model plus two simple
trend-free direction, such as the demonstration data models, not necessarily of the same type.
along N63E, if the user wants to investigate the pos-
sibility of anisotropy, the investigation may be done
indirectly making use of crossvalidation. Crossvalida-
tion is a verification process in which each observation Table 3 Sensitivity of Elk County Bouguer gravity to anisotropic
is removed with replacement to produce an estimate at semivariogram models
the same site of the removal. Each estimate is then Maximum Minimum Orientation of Mean square
used to calculate a difference with the corresponding range (km) range (km) largest range error (mgal2)
censored measurement, thus generating a set of errors
that one can use to investigate their sensitivity to the 14.89 14.89 0.231
16.38 13.40 N63E 0.233
selection of the estimation method and some of its N83E 0.235
parameters (Olea 1999, Chap. 7). If one employs an N77W 0.235
N57W 0.234
N37W 0.232
N17W 0.230
Table 2 Results of fitting simple models by weighted least squares N3E 0.229
N23E 0.229
Model Rm C0 a or C b or a
N43E 0.231
(mgal4) (mgal2) (mgal2) (km)
17.86 11.91 N63E 0.236
N83E 0.240
Gaussian 0.081 0.038 0.990 14.885 N77W 0.241
Cubic 0.085 0.033 0.991 20.525 N57W 0.238
Spherical 0.202 0.000 1.083 25.449 N37W 0.234
Pentaspherical 0.217 0.000 1.100 31.958 N17W 0.230
Exponential 0.349 0.000 1.663 72.665 N3E 0.227
Sine hole effect 0.410 0.038 0.909 15.904 N23E 0.228
Power 0.565 0.000 0.069 0.857 N43E 0.231
 317

Table 4 Best simple and double nested models

Model Rm (mgal4) AIC C0 (mgal2) C (mgal2) a (km)

Simple Gaussian 0.081
104.2 0.038 0.990 14.885

Nested Gaussian 0.025
123.4 0.010 0.6900.380 22.3118.042

To keep an eye on the parsimony of nested modeling,
one can use the Akaike information criterion (AIC)
from time series analysis. The AIC is a measure of
goodness of fit involving not only the weighted errors,
but the number of points used for the fitting, n, and the
number of parameters, p, as well (Tong 1983, p. 135):
 
Rm
AIC ¼ n ln þ 2p
n
The smaller the Akaike information criterion, the better
is the fit. Given an experimental semivariogram, when n
and p remain constant, such as in Table 3, the ranking
by Rm or AIC is the same.
By looking at the best simple model in Fig. 10a, one
can see that between a lag of 8 and 20 km there are 8
experimental points below the curve, two of them clearly
below, which justify trying a more complex model to aim

Fig. 10 Best semivariogram

models. (a) Simple Gaussian
model. (b) Best double nested
Gaussian model.
318
for a better fit. Table 4 and Fig. 10b provide the answer:
a double nested Gaussian model.
The AIC for the nested model is indeed smaller than
that for the simple one. Hence, the improvement is
worth increasing the number of parameters from 3 to 5.
Considering that the crossvalidation does not show any
significant evidence of anisotropy for this nested model
either, the isotropic model:
cðhÞ ¼ Nð0:01Þ þ Gðh; 0:69; 22:3Þ þ Gðh; 0:38; 8:0Þ
is the best model for the Bouguer gravity anomaly data
from Elk County.
If there is a sill, then the covariance is easily obtained
by subtracting the semivariogram from the total sill,
which in this case would be:
CovðhÞ ¼ 1:08
Nð0:01Þ
Gðh; 0:69; 22:3Þ

Gðh; 0:38; 8:0Þ
The main advantage of this indirect way to model the
covariance is that it does not require knowledge of the
mean.
8 Concluding remarks
I hope the novice reader, for which this paper is in-
tended, is now less intimidated and more confident of
being able to model a semivariogram or a covariance.
Sophistications and variants abound. The six steps
described here are by no means the absolute way to go.
The ultimate test of understanding for the reader will be
to feel confident enough to try her or his own version of
these basic steps.
Acknowledgements I am grateful to John H. Doveton and two
anonymous reviewers for critical reading of the manuscript that
resulted in suggestions that improved the presentation.
References
Barnes RJ (1991) The variogram sill and the sample variance. Math
Geol 23:673–678
Chilès J-P, Delfiner P (1999) Geostatistics—modeling spatial
uncertainty. Wiley, New York, 695 p
Collins DR (1999) User’s guide for the LEO system, version 3.9.
Kansas Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–48, 13 p
Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1998) GSLIB—geostatistical software
library and user’s guide. Oxford University Press, New York,
369 p and 1 compact disk
Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation.
Oxford University Press, New York, 483 p
Isaaks EH, Srivastava, RM (1989) Introduction to applied geo-
statistics. Oxford University Press, New York, 561 p
Jian X, Olea RA, Yu Y-S (1996) Semivariogram modeling by
weighted least squares. Comput Geosci 22:387–397
Journel AG, Huijbregts CJ (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic,
London, 600 p
Kitanidis PK (1997) Introduction to geostatistics: applications to
hydrology. Cambridge University Press, New York, 249 p
Lam C-K (1987) Interpretation of statewide gravity survey of
Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Open-File Report 87–1. 213
p and 6 plates
Olea RA (1999) Geostatistics for engineers and earth scientists.
Kluwer, Boston, 303 p
Pannatier Y (1996) VARIOWIN: software for spatial data analysis
in 2D. Springer, New York, 91 p
Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1992)
Numerical recipes in fortran, 2nd edn. Cambridge University
Press, New York, 963 p
Tong H (1983) Threshold models in non-linear time series analysis.
Springer, New York, 323 p
Verly G (1986) Multigaussian kriging—a complete case study. In:
Ramani RV (ed) Proceedings of the 19th APCOM international
symposium, Society of Mining Engineers, Littleton, Colorado,
pp 283–298
Webster R, Oliver MA (1992) Sample adequately to estimate
variograms of soils properties. J Soil Sci 43:177–192
Xia J, Yarger H, Lam C-K, Steeples D, Miller R (1992) Bouguer
gravity anomaly map of Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey
Map M-31