ISSN 1064-2293, Eurasian Soil Science, 2021, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 176–188. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2021.

Russian Text © The Author(s), 2021, published in Pochvovedenie, 2021, No. 2, pp. 168–182.

GENESIS AND GEOGRAPHY

OF SOILS

Geospatial Modeling of Nitrogen and Carbon Content and Stock

in the Forest Litter Horizons Based
on Sentinel-2 Multi-Seasonal Satellite Imagery
E. A. Gavrilyuka, *, A. I. Kuznetsovaa, and A. V. Gornova
aCenter for Forest Ecology and Productivity, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 117997 Russia
*e-mail: egor@ifi.rssi.ru
Received April 2, 2020; revised June 20, 2020; accepted June 22, 2020

Abstract—The capabilities of Sentinel-2 optical multispectral satellite data for modeling nitrogen (N) and
carbon (C) contents, their ratio (C : N), and stocks in the litter horizons of forest soils were assessed. The
study was conducted in the Bryansk Forest Nature Reserve and its buffer zone. The organic horizon samples
were taken on 33 plots selected with due account for the tree species diversity of the reserve’s forests. Two lay-
ers of the organic horizon—L and FH—were sampled separately. The main variables for geospatial modeling
were derived from a time series of eight Sentinel-2 multi-seasonal satellite images. Basic terrain characteris-
tics and pixel coordinates were also added to variables’ stack. We used random forest to build regression mod-
els and the corresponding standard methods to assess their performance. The best results were obtained for
the C : N ratio: the coefficient of determination R2 = 0.71 with a scaled root-mean-square error RMSE =
12.5% in the L layer, and R2 = 0.83 with RMSE = 10.6% in the FH layer. For other models, the values of R2
ranged from 0.23 to 0.61, and the RMSE ranged from 15.8 to 48.6% with the least reliable results for the N
and C stocks. Satellite-based variables were most informative for the contents of N and C, and, notably, for
the C : N ratio. The most significant periods in the time series were early spring, summer, and snowy winter.
To conclude, Sentinel-2 satellite imagery can be successfully used for estimation and mapping the contents
and stocks of N and C in the forest soil organic horizon as a free and relevant alternative to thematic data on
the species composition and related properties of stands.

Keywords: forest soil, coniferous–broadleaved forests, C : N ratio, remote sensing data, random forest,
machine learning
DOI: 10.1134/S1064229321020046

INTRODUCTION obtained on the basis of remote sensing data are used

Forest litter, being a product of the functioning of
forest biogeocenoses, regulates a wide range of ecosys-
tem processes. Data on the nitrogen (N) and carbon
(C) contents and their ratio (C : N) characterize the
quality of forest litter and are indicative of the rate of
mineralization processes, which directly affect the
productivity of forest soils and their carbon sequestra-
tion capacity [10, 18, 52]. In the context of global cli-
mate change, much attention is paid to updating the
estimates of the soil organic matter stocks. It has been
shown that the share of litter in the total carbon stocks
can reach 30% [9, 19]. Remote sensing data (RSD) are
currently widely used as a basis for digital mapping of
soils and geospatial modeling of their quantitative
characteristics [15]. The global information system
SoilGrids [34] is a conceptual example of the joint use
of satellite and ground data to obtain thematic maps of
major soil properties using machine learning methods.
It should be noted that in most studies devoted to geo-
spatial modeling of soil parameters, the variables
in combination with climatic, orographic, geological,
and other thematic maps; often, their informativeness
remains relatively low [33, 44, 48].
The potential for using satellite imagery, both opti-
cal and radar, to assess the properties of soils, espe-
cially forest soils, is often limited because of the dense
vegetation cover. The canopy density of more than
30% excludes the possibility of direct analysis of the
spectral characteristics of the underlying surface [29].
However, individual soil properties can be closely
related to the qualitative and/or quantitative charac-
teristics of vegetation, which leaves room for an indi-
rect assessment of such properties. In particular,
woody plants of dominant species composing different
types of forests significantly affect the composition of
organic matter, acidity, total N content, and C : N
ratio in forest soils, both in their organic and upper
(0–10 cm) mineral horizons [27, 43]. Therefore, the-
matic characteristics of forest cover (prevailing tree
species, proportion of coniferous and deciduous trees,

176
 GEOSPATIAL MODELING OF NITROGEN AND CARBON CONTENT AND STOCK 177

30°0′ 40°0′ E
EST
LVA

55°0′ LTU N
RUS
BLR 52°33′

50°0′
UKR
N MDA
ROU

52°30′

52°27′

1 3 5 7 9 11
2 4 6 8 10 12
0 1 2 4 6 km 8

33°50′ 33°55′ 34°00′ 34°05′ E

Fig. 1. Location of study area and composition of tree stands according to [1]: (1) pine, (2) broadleaved, (3) birch, (4) aspen,
(5) black alder, (6) mixed coniferous, (7) mixed coniferous–hardwood, and (8) mixed hardwood. Other designations: (9) forest-
less area, (10) boundary of the Bryanskii Les Reserve, (11) water courses, and (12) location of GTPs.

forest type, canopy density, ground phytomass, etc.)
are often used as variables in geospatial modeling of
various properties of forest soils, including the C : N
ratio and C and N stocks in litter [21, 24, 25]. At the
same time, the recognition and mapping of the species
structure of forests is one of the classical problems
solved with the use of remote sensing data with varying
degrees of success [31]; the same concerns the assess-
ment of biometric and structural characteristics of for-
est stands [41]. Accordingly, satellite imagery bands
and/or their derivatives are potentially capable of
replacing thematic variables describing variability of
the forest cover characteristics. As the properties of lit-
ter are directly related to the species composition of
forest stands, the organic (litter) horizon of forest soils
should potentially demonstrate indirect relationships
with spectral features of the tree canopy. At the same
time, although there are studies aimed at determining
the coverage area [39], moisture [51], and the degree of
decomposition [45] of forest litter from remote sensing
data, we failed to find analogous works devoted to
assessing the contents of C and N in forest litter.
We studied possibilities of using a time series of
optical multispectral satellite images of high spatial
resolution together with terrain data for geospatial
modeling of the C and N contents in forest litter using
machine learning methods for the territory of the Bry-
ansk Forest Reserve and its buffer zone. Litter subho-
rizons L (fresh or weakly decomposed litter) and FH
(a layer of fermentation and decomposition of plant
residues) were considered independently from one
another. For each of them, five quantitative indicators
were analyzed, i.e., the contents (%) and stocks (g/m2)
of organic C and N and their ratio (C : N).
OBJECTS AND METHODS
Study area. The study was carried out in the south-
ern part of the Bryansk outwash plain (polessie land-
scape) within the “Bryanskiy Les” State Natural Bio-
spheric Reserve and its buffer zone (Fig. 1); 97% of
this territory is under forests, the total area of which is
more than 200 km2.
According to geobotanic zoning, this territory
belongs to the Polessie subprovince of the East Euro-
pean province of the European region of broadleaved
forests [14]. The forests of the reserve were greatly
affected by various economic activities in the past. The
modern forest cover is mainly represented by early

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

178 GAVRILYUK et al.
succession communities with monodominant (pine,
birch, black alder, and aspen forests) or oligodominant
(mixed coniferous–deciduous and small-leaved for-
ests) composition of stands [1, 3, 4]. At the same time,
unique areas of polydominant coniferous–deciduous
and broadleaved forests have been preserved in the
reserve [2, 30].
The climate of the territory is moderately continen-
tal, with four pronounced phenological seasons during
the year. The mean air temperature in the winter
months is –5.2°С; in the summer months, +18.4°С;
the mean annual precipitation is 556 mm, with its
larger part (33%) in the summer period [12]. In terms
of soil-geographical zoning, the reserve is included in
the Central Russian province of podzolic soils [6]. In
the landscape structure of the territory, there are areas
of floodplains, terraces, polessie (outwash plain), and
cis-polessie landscapes [5]. Gray-humus organo-
accumulative soils [8] (Umbrisols according to WRB
[49]) are developed from the alluvial deposits on
floodplains [17]. Soddy podzols [8] (Albic Podzols
(Arenic)) with a pronounced humus horizon are
developed from glaciofluvial sands (or loamy sands)
and from clayey eluvium of siliceous claystone [16]
within the terrace, polessie, and cis-polessie land-
scapes. Gley features are encountered everywhere. On
less disturbed territories of the reserve, brown forest
soils (Cambisols) are formed [7].
Initial data. Three types of data are applied in our
study: the results of ground surveys, satellite images,
and a digital elevation model (DEM) of the area with
its derivatives. In addition, the spatial coordinates of
the position of the centers of the image pixels (in the
form of horizontal and vertical serial numbers) were
added as two auxiliary independent variables for geo-
spatial modeling, which is a common practice. It should
be noted that a relatively small size of the study area
makes it impractical to use climatic data as additional
variables, and there are no actual maps of soils of suffi-
cient detail (on a scale of about 1 : 100000) that could be
used in the work on the territory of the reserve.
Field data and their preliminary processing. During
field studies in 2016–2017, 33 ground test plots (GTPs)
of 400 m2 were laid in forests of the reserve and its buf-
fer zone. These test plots (Fig. 1) were located in forest
areas homogeneous in the species structure of the tree
layer so that the sample contained litter from all types
of forest stands typical for the study area. At the same
time, to assess the species composition of forests, a
map (hereinafter, a map of tree species) obtained as a
result of thematic processing of satellite data from
Landsat [1] and materials of forest inventory of the
reserve in 2006 were used. At each GTP, a geobotani-
cal description was performed with the identification
of the full floristic composition with due account for
the layered structure of forest cenoses. In each layer,
the species participation was determined using the
Brown-Blanquet cover-abundance scale [11]. At all
GTPs, forest litter was sampled using a 25 × 25 cm
frame in three or four replicates (108 samples in total).
Under laboratory conditions, the selected samples
were dried to an absolutely dry state at 105°C,
weighed, and the contents of N and C were deter-
mined on an EA1110 (CHNS-O) elemental analyzer.
When calculating carbon stocks, we used the guide-
lines for quantifying the volume of absorption of
greenhouse gases [13]. As a result, five indicators were
estimated for the L- and FH-subhorizons of the forest
litter: N content (N%), C content (C%), C : N ratio,
N stock (Nstk), and C stock (Cstk). The statistical anal-
ysis of the obtained results (Table 1) indicates suffi-
cient homogeneity (coefficient of variation <30%) and
representativeness (power over 80%) of the samples for
N (%), C (%), and C : N. The samples are heteroge-
neous with respect to N and C stocks, which may be a
consequence of the insufficient number of replicates
on the test plots. Nevertheless, they are representative
for all parameters, except for Nstk in the L subhorizon
(sample power about 60%).
Satellite data and their preliminary processing. Sen-
tinel-2 multi-season multispectral images were used as
the main data source for geospatial modeling [28].
Based on the analysis of the annual global MODIS
data on the dynamics of land cover (MCD12Q2, ver-
sion 6 [32]), eight successive phenological periods
were identified for the study area (Table 2). For each of
them, composite images were formed from the Senti-
nel-2 scenes obtained in 2016–2018. MCD12Q2 is a
set of annual global thematic images with a spatial res-
olution of 500 m for the period from 2000 to 2017. The
images contain information at the pixel level about
seven key dates in the dynamics of the curve of the
spectral index EVI2 [35] and the degree of reliability of
their determination. Key dates correspond to the
beginning and middle of growth; reaching a plateau;
peak; and beginning, middle, and end of a decrease in
the index values. For local areas that are relatively
homogeneous in climatic conditions, as in our case,
the median values of these dates estimated over all
valid image pixels can be reliably correlated with the
successive change in the phenological phases of green
vegetation. To determine the boundaries of the four
main seasons (winter, spring, summer, autumn), we
used the data of 2017, after which three additional
periods (beginning, middle, and end) were analytically
identified for spring and autumn seasons. The bound-
aries of the additional periods were selected in such a
way that they were located symmetrically with respect
to the initial dates of the middle of the increasing and
decreasing parts of the curve of the EVI2 index; the
length of each period was at least 15 days.
For all periods, except for winter, three Sentinel-2
scenes of the corresponding time range with the mini-
mum cloud cover were selected from the archive.
Composite images of the periods were formed from
the median values of the pixels of the chosen scenes
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021
 GEOSPATIAL MODELING OF NITROGEN AND CARBON CONTENT AND STOCK 179

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for ground data: above the line, for the L subhorizon; under the line, for the FH subhorizon
Indicator Mean ν CVВ Minimum 1st quartile Median 3rd quartile Maximum Sample power*
N% 2.2 0.4 19.5 1.1 1.9 2.2 2.4 3.1 88.4
2. 0 0. 5 25.3 1.0 1.6 1. 9 2.3 3.5 85.4
C% 44.4 3.1 6.9 32.8 42.9 44.9 46.3 49.5 92.3
37.5 7. 1 18.9 18.1 32.0 39.0 43.1 49.8 80.8
C:N 21.3 5.4 25.4 14.5 17.5 20.3 23.5 39.4 82.6
19.5 5.2 26.8 12.1 15.9 17.2 22.2 36.8 84.3
Nstk, g/m2 8.7 6. 0 68.4 1.2 5. 0 6.9 11.2 30.3 59.3
20.8 11.3 54.2 3.1 11.3 19.9 28.4 58.8 87.2
Cstk, g/m2 185.4 127.2 68.6 21.1 88.9 145.5 268.3 712.8 92.1
415.3 262.7 63.3 46.3 196.6 344.8 583.0 1425.1 90.4
ν is the standard deviation, and CV is the coefficient of variation, %.
* Sample power (%) was estimated according to a standard t-test at the significance level of α = 0.1 and the effect value of 10% of the
range.

calculated independently for each spectral band. For 10 m), the results of measurements at GTPs were com-
the period of snowy winter, a single, completely cloud- pared with the median values of the variables in a 3 ×
less scene was used. All selected Sentinel-2 images 3 pixel (30 × 30 m) window around the locations of
were preliminarily converted into L2A level products GTPs sites.
(reflectance values at the ground level) using the Optimization of the set of variables. The original set
Sen2Cor software module [40]. of variables was optimized first using correlation anal-
DEM and its derivatives. The basic orographic ysis and then using the recursive feature elimination
characteristics of the terrain were obtained from the method. In the correlation analysis, the pairwise Pear-
DEM with a spatial resolution of 10 m formed as a result son correlation (r) was assessed for all variables, after
of interpolation of the elevation values along the con- which, from the pairs with r> 0.95, the variables with
tour lines of a topographic map on a scale of 1 : 50000 the higher mean r value calculated for each variable for
(contour interval 5 m). The indices of elevation, slope, all its pairs were discarded. The procedure for recur-
aspect (as the sine and cosine of its angular values), sive feature elimination implies the sequential con-
and general slope curvature [46], as well as the topo- struction of regression models (with fixed algorithm
graphic wetness index [22], were calculated using parameters) for the analyzed indicator with a step-by-
standard GIS SAGA tools [26] and served as geospa- step filtering out of the least informative variables. At
tial variables. the same time, at each stage of screening, the perfor-
Formation of the initial set of variables. Taking into mance of the model is assessed, which makes it possible
account the high correlation between the Sentinel-2 to form an optimal set of the most significant variables
bands in the visible, near infrared and mid infrared providing the best accuracy from the point of view of the
regions of the spectrum, we used classical principal selected formal criterion. As such a criterion, we used
component analysis [36] to reduce the space of vari- the mean square error (MSE) of the model assessed by
ables. In our case, the first two principal components, the repeated cross-validation method (25 repetitions
depending on the survey period, described from 88%
(late autumn) to 98% (snowy winter) of the total vari-
ance in ten major bands of Sentinel 2 (bands 2–8, 8A, Table 2. Phenological periods, for which composite Senti-
11, and 12), which made it possible to compress data nel-2 images were collected in different seasons
by five times without significant loss of information. Length,
Six bands with a spatial resolution of 20 m (bands 5– Period Boundaries
days
7, 8A, 11, and 12) were preliminarily brought to a res-
olution of 10 m by the nearest neighbor method. As a Winter October 26–March 30 166
result, after transforming the images by the principal Beginning of spring March 31–April 30 31
component method, sixteen features obtained on the Middle of spring May 1–15 15
basis of satellite data (two principal components for
each of the eight phenological periods), in combina- End of spring May 16–30 15
tion with six orographic characteristics of the terrain Summer May 31–July 24 45
and two coordinates of the position of pixels, made up Beginning of autumn July 25–September 3 41
the initial set of geospatial variables for modeling. Tak- Middle of autumn September 4–October 4 31
ing into account the accuracy of georeferencing of
both satellite and field data (the average error is about End of autumn October 5–October 25 21

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

180 GAVRILYUK et al.
with the division of the original sample into 4 parts).
According to the results of this procedure, only those
variables that were not optimal for any of the consid-
ered indicators were excluded from further analysis;
thus, a single set of variables was used for all models.
Development of regression models. We used the
random forest machine learning algorithm [23] to
build regression models, as well as the entire set of
methods for the automatic selection of algorithm
parameters, assessing the informativeness of variables,
the quality of training, and the performance of predic-
tions implemented in the R environment in caret [38]
and ranger [50] packages.
Random forest is a statistical method for classifica-
tion and regression problems. It is based on the use of
a large number (ensemble) of decision trees, each of
which is constructed from an incomplete sample
obtained from the initial sample using a bootstrap
(random sampling with return); a fixed number of
variables is randomly selected from the complete set.
In the basic version of the algorithm, classification is
carried out using a simple vote of classifiers defined by
individual trees, and regression modeling is performed
by averaging the results over all trees. Nowadays, ran-
dom forest is one of the most popular methods of
machine learning, since it combines relative versatil-
ity, ease of configuration, and speed of work with high
performance indicators of the resulting models.
We used an ensemble of 1000 trees. Other parame-
ters of the algorithm—in particular, the number of
random features for each splitting of the tree, the split-
ting method, and the minimum node size—were cho-
sen individually for each modeled indicator by a sim-
ple enumeration of options, similar to the procedure
for recursive feature elimination.
Evaluation of the performance and statistical signif-
icance of models. The performance of the models was
assessed by standard statistical metrics: the coeffi-
cient of determination (R2), the root mean square
error (RMSE), and its relative values: the percentage
from the average (RMSEAVG) and the range
(RMSERNG) of the modeled indicators. In this case,
we used both estimates obtained on the basis of the full
initial sample (33 measurements) integrated into ran-
dom forest algorithm using the out-of-bag (OOB)
method and obtained for the training and control sub-
sets (in a ratio of 25/8) of the full initial sample. The
OOB method implies the formation of separate boot-
strap samples for training each of the trees of the
ensemble, which allows using measurements that are
not included in them to assess the performance of
individual trees and then the entire model by averaging
the results. The measurements for the control sample
were chosen analytically in such a way as to avoid their
falling on the distribution edges for all analyzed
parameters and to ensure the representativeness of all
types of forest stands.
The statistical significance of the models as a whole
(p-value) was assessed by the method described in
[20], which is a multiple permutation test (in our case,
200 iterations) for the dependent variable (the value,
for which the simulation is performed). The permuta-
tion procedure implies a random permutation of the
values of the variable, after which the model is fitted
and the efficiency is assessed (in our case, by RMSE).
The proportion of cases, when permutation models
are more efficient than the original one, characterizes
the sought p-value.
Choice of the best prediction model. On the basis of
the absolute value of RMSE, three types of model pre-
diction results—average, adjusted average, and
median—were evaluated in order to determine the most
effective option for each modeled indicator. The first
type, which is a standard for random forest regressions,
is averaging the results across all trees in the ensemble.
The second type is obtained from the values of the first
by applying a simple linear model (the predicted values
are fitted to the original measurements) to correct the
common effect of overestimating low values and under-
estimating high values. To construct this additional
model, we used the repeated median method [47]
implemented in the R-package mblm [37]. The third
type is the median value (in the 50th percentile)
obtained by constructing a quantile regression in its
implementation for random forests [42].
Assessment of the informativeness of variables. As a
measure of the informativeness of variables in the
learning process, we used the standard for random for-
ests indicator of the mean decrease in the overall
model accuracy (MDA, Mean Decrease in Accuracy)
after a random permutation of the values of the esti-
mated independent variable. In contrast to the similar
permutation test for statistical significance described
above, the value permutation, model overfitting, and
accuracy assessment take place only once for each
variable. The RMSE, value was chosen as the criterion
for the accuracy of the model.
Geospatial modeling. To obtain thematic products
characterizing the distribution of the analyzed indica-
tors over the study area, the corresponding models
with the most efficient prediction trained on the full
sample were applied to the optimized set of variables at
the pixel-by-pixel level. At the same time, using quan-
tile regression, the boundaries of the 80% confidence
interval were estimated—the values in the 10th and
90th percentiles of the distribution of predictions of all
trees of the ensemble. The difference between these
values relative to the prediction result characterizes the
limiting errors of modeling errors in the directions of
underestimation and overestimation, respectively,
within a given confidence interval. As a spatial mea-
sure of modeling uncertainty for the obtained thematic
products, the ratio of the width of the confidence
interval (the difference in values at its boundaries) to the
forecast result, expressed as a percentage, was used.
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021
 GEOSPATIAL MODELING OF NITROGEN AND CARBON CONTENT AND STOCK 181

Table 3. Summary statistics of the performance of regression models for the L (above the line) and FH (under the line)
subhorizons
N% C% C:N Nstk, g/m2 Cstk, g/m2
Index method of performance evaluation *
oob test oob test oob test oob test oob test

Prediction type** Av. Av. Med. LAv. Med. Med. Med. Av. Med. LAv.
Med. Av. Med. Med. Av. LAv. Med. Med. Av. Av.
0.48 0.57 0.46 0.46 0.71 0.77 0.58 0.49 0.61 0.54
R2
0.44 0.12 0.56 0.44 0.83 0.95 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.24
RMSE 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.8 2.7 1.9 3.4 3.5 72.3 77.8
0.4 0.4 4.2 3.8 2.1 0.8 9.2 9.1 190.9 229.8
RMSERNG, % 15.8 24.4 16.8 35.2 12.5 15.1 15.5 25.5 14.3 28.1
17.7 38.6 17.5 25.6 10.6 8.6 18.4 29.6 20.7 31.3
RMSEAVG, % 12.5 11.5 4.0 4.0 12.8 9.2 39.8 43.0 40.3 45.4
18.1 19.1 11.1 9.8 10.9 4.3 46.0 42.9 48.6 54.9
p< 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.005
0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.005 0.010
* Method of model performance evaluation: oob—out-of-bag method, learning on the total sample; test—learning with a preliminary
division of the sample into the learning and control subsamples.
** The type of model prediction according to the RMSE value: Av.—average, LAv.—average corrected by linear model, and Med.—
median.

RESULTS zon L) and 2.6 (subhorizon FH) times lower than

Optimal variables for modeling. According to the
results of the correlation analysis of the initial variables,
the principal components of late spring and early
autumn were discarded, because they were strongly cor-
related with similar variables for the adjacent phenolog-
ical periods. After the procedure of recursive feature
elimination, six more variables were eliminated: the
principal components of the end of autumn, indicators
of orientation and curvature of slopes, and the topo-
graphic wetness index. Thus, the optimal dataset for
modeling N and C contents and stocks in the forest lit-
ter consisted of fourteen geospatial variables:
— ten satellite imagery-based variables (two princi-
pal components for the periods of snowy winter, early
and mid-spring, mid-summer and mid-autumn);
— two characteristics based on the DEM (elevation
and slope); and
— two coordinates of the spatial position of pixels.
Model performance. Table 3 shows the perfor-
mance indicators of the obtained regression models
for the content and stocks of N and C in the forest lit-
ter. The estimates for models with training on the total
sample (based on the OOB method) are more consis-
tent in terms of the metrics used (high R2 values are
accompanied by low relative RMSE values and vice
versa) than the estimates for models with a prelimi-
nary division of the sample into training and control
subsamples, though the absolute values of RMSE are
generally quite close for both approaches. Models for
the C : N values are an exception. For them, the
RMSE values for the control sample are 1.4 (subhori-
analogous OOB indicators, which may be a random
feature of measurements selected for manual control.
The best results were demonstrated by models for the
C : N ratio: R2 = 0.71 at RMSERNG = 12.5% for the L
subhorizon, and R2 = 0.83 at RMSERNG = 10.6% for
the FH subhorizon, which was quite expectable given
the known close relationship of these indicators with
the proportion between conifers and hardwood spe-
cies in stands. For absolute values of the contents of N
and C (in percent) in both subhorizons, R2 was in the
range from 0.44 to 0.56 with RMSERNG from 15.8 to
17.7%, which could be estimated as a moderate degree
of model efficiency. The worst results were obtained
for the indicators of the stocks of N and C (Nstk and Cstk)
in both subhorizons: R2 from 0.23 to 0.61 with RMSEAVG
from 39.8 to 48.6%, which, first of all, could be a con-
sequence of the heterogeneity of the initial sample.
Nevertheless, the random forest method, as a rule,
gives reliable results even with a small volume and het-
erogeneity of training data, including data with a large
number of independent variables. Thus, all the
obtained models were statistically significant; most of
them, at p < 0.005; in the worst case, at p < 0.015 (for
Nstk in the FH subhorizon). At the same time, it was
impossible to unambiguously give preference to any of
the three types of forecasting considered: for ten mod-
els out of twenty, the median value was the best; for
seven, a simple average; and for the remaining three,
the adjusted average. Figure 2 shows scatter diagrams
of measured and predicted values according to the best
forecast type for all analyzed indicators. As can be seen

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

182 GAVRILYUK et al.

Predictions N%, % C%, % C:N Nstk, g/m2 Сstk, g/m2

25
3.0
20
2.5 45 30 400
15
(a) 2.0
10 200
40 20
1.5 5

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 40 45 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 200 400

47 15 300
2.5 25
(b) 45 200
10
2.0 20
43 100
5
15
2.0 2.5 43 45 47 15 20 25 5 10 15 100 200 300
3.5 50
1000
30
3.0 40 750
40 25
(c) 2.5 500
2.0 20 20
30 250
1.5 15

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 30 40 50 15 20 25 30 0 20 40 0 250 500 7501000

45 27
800
24 15
2.5 40 600
(d) 21 10
2.0 35 400
18 200
1.5 5
30 15
1.5 2.0 2.5 30 35 40 45 15 18 21 24 27 5 10 15 200 400 600 800
Measurements
Fig. 2. Scatter diagrams of measured and predicted values of the contents and stocks of N and C in the forest litter for the (a, b) L
and (c, d) FH subhorizons estimated by the OOB method for the (a, c) total sample and (b, d) separate control sample.

from the diagrams, the characteristic tendencies
towards overestimating low and underestimating high
values are expressed to varying degrees in all models.
According to the quantitative assessments of model
performance, additional adjustment of the results by
an additional linear model did not make any signifi-
cant improvement. The most likely reason for this sit-
uation may be the low sensitivity of the variables used
to the variability of the analyzed litter properties after
they reach certain threshold values at both ends of the
distribution (i.e., when the saturation effect is
observed). In general, the greatest uncertainty in the
prediction (with a tendency to underestimate high val-
ues of the indicator) for most of the models was
observed. However, for the C content indicator, the
opposite situation—overestimation in the range of low
values—was observed.
Informativeness of variables. The final informative-
ness of the selected variables for each of the modeled
indicators is shown in Fig. 3. For the contents of N and
C and, particularly, for the C : N ratio, we can state a
significant superiority of the predictors obtained on
the basis of satellite images over the predictors
obtained on the basis of DEM, which indirectly
reflects the high correlation of spectral characteristics
with the species structure of forest stands. At the same
time, for the indicators of N and C stocks (except for
the C stock in the FH subhorizon), the elevation of the
territory and the coordinates of the position of the pix-
els exceed all satellite variables in terms of their infor-
mation content. This can be interpreted as a conse-
quence of a lower correlation of these indicators with
the species composition of forest stands on one hand,
and of their stronger dependence on their position in
the landscape, on the other hand. In addition, the
stocks of N and C in the litter are associated not only
with the quality of litter but also with its weight, which
depends primarily on the phytomass and productivity
of forest stands, determined by habitat conditions,

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

 GEOSPATIAL MODELING OF NITROGEN AND CARBON CONTENT AND STOCK 183

which are not always clearly reflected in the spectral Informativeness, %

properties of the forest canopy.
100
In general, the most significant periods of the year 80
in modeling were early spring, summer, and snowy
60
winter. However, the degree of informativeness of
individual variables varies greatly from indicator to (a) 40
indicator. Interestingly, the images of the autumn 20
period, despite the high potential for recognizing the 0
species structure due to the change in foliage color, –20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
turned out to be of little information for modeling the
characteristics of the litter (except for the C stock in 100
the FH subhorizon). It should also be noted that, in 80
most cases, the second principal components reflect-
ing variability of spectral brightness between different 60
bands for separate phenological periods are naturally (b) 40
more informative than the first principal components 20
characterizing differences in the total intensity of the 0
reflected radiation. Nevertheless, it is impossible to
–20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
completely exclude the first components from the
models without a significant loss of their efficiency. 100
Results of geospatial modeling. Based on the analy- 80
sis of model performance and informativeness of the 60
variables, the most reliable results of geospatial mod-
eling based on satellite data can be obtained for the (c) 40
C : N ratio (Fig. 4). Visual comparison with the map 20
of tree species (Fig. 1) shows a clear spatial consistency 0
of the predicted C : N values with the species compo- –20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
sition of forest stands, which is due to the high infor-
mation content of satellite variables in the learning 100
process. The lowest C : N values correspond to broad- 80
leaved forests; slightly higher values, to small-leaved 60
forests; and the highest values, to coniferous and (d) 40
mixed stands. For the modeled remaining indicators
(not shown), spatial differentiation according to the 20
species composition of forest stands is also character- 0
istic. However, the variability of their values within –20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
homogeneous forest areas is less pronounced than that
for the C : N ratio because of the weaker relationships 100
with the variables used (which is reflected in the mod- 80
erate values of the coefficient of determination of the
60
models). In addition, for C and N stock estimates, local (e) 40
effects of “blockiness” (pronounced vertical and hori-
zontal boundaries between image areas) are observed 20
due to the high information content of the variables 0
responsible for the spatial coordinates of pixels. –20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
The spatial consistency of results of modeling Variables
(Fig. 5) for the two litter subhorizons is clearly pro-
nounced for the N content (Pearson’s correlation
coefficient r = 0.87) and the C : N ratio (r = 0.97); the Fig. 3. Relative informativeness of variables in regression
rest of the parameters are characterized by a moderate modeling of (a) N(%), (b) C(%), (c) C : N, (d) Nstk, and
positive correlation (r from 0.41 to 0.65). The values of (e) Cstk. Initial values were normalized to the absolute
modeling uncertainty increase in proportion to the maximum. Dada for the L subhorizon are given in dark
gray, and data for the FH subhorizon are given in light gray.
predicted values for the C : N ratio in both subhorizons Variables: (1) winter I (1st principal component of the
(r = 0.86 for L, and r = 0.79 for FH), as well as for the winter image), (2) winter II, (3) beginning of spring I,
N content in the FH subhorizon (r = 0.78). For other (4) beginning of spring II, (5) middle of spring I, (6) mid-
indicators, no pronounced dependence is observed dle of spring II, (7) summer I, (8) summer II, (9) middle of
autumn I, (10) middle of autumn II, (11) elevation,
(r varies from –0.43 to 0.66). In general, the highest (12) slope, (13) pixel coordinate along the X axis, and
uncertainty values are typical of the areas with rela- (14) pixel coordinate along the Y axis.

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

184 GAVRILYUK et al.

33°50′ 33°55′ 34°00′ 34°05′ E

52°35′ >36 (a) 100 (c)
25 50

<14 <1

52°30′

52°25′
N
>36 (b) 100 (d)
25 50

<14 <1

Boundary of the reserve Water course Forestless area 0 2 4 8 12 16 km

Fig. 4. The results of geospatial modeling the C : N ratio in the (a) L and (b) FH subhorizons of forest litter for the studied area
with (c, d) pixel-by-pixel estimates of uncertainty expressed in percent.

tively low canopy density and/or areas near forest
boundaries. It is obvious that image pixels, for which
“mixed” spectral brightness of signals from underlying
surfaces of different types is observed, are difficult for
unambiguous interpretation (unless such areas are
purposefully provided with GTPs), which accordingly
affects the operation of the models.
DISCUSSION
Two main factors that do not allow us to make
unambiguous conclusions about the stability and uni-
versality of the results obtained in this work are the local
character of the study area and the relatively small
amount of ground data used to train regression models.
In particular, the locality imposes restrictions on con-
clusions about the relative informativity of variables of
various types, since it is obvious that the role of oro-
graphic and/or climatic data (which were not consid-
ered in the work for reasons of rationality) can signifi-
cantly increase as the spatial coverage and diversity of
forest growth conditions in the territory for which the
simulation is carried out. In turn, the small volume of
ground data limits the possibilities for reliable verifica-
tion of the model prediction results, so that the model
performance estimates obtained in our study are more
of a comparative nature rather than accurate quantita-
tive results. In other words, we can definitely conclude
that the N and C contents, as well as the C : N ratio, are
modeled more accurately than the N and C stocks.
However, in order to judge how the quantitative esti-
mates of the model performance are close to the real
accuracy of thematic products, it is necessary to gener-
ate an independent set of ground control data compara-
ble in volume to that used for training.
In addition to the sample size, the spatial location
of the GTPs plays an equally important role. In this
study, when planning ground-based surveys, mainly
the species composition of forest stands was taken
into account, and this turned out to be sufficient for
successful modeling of the C : N ratio and satisfac-
tory results for N and C contents. However, N and C
stocks proved to be more sensitive to the position of
forest stands in the landscape, which is confirmed in

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

 GEOSPATIAL MODELING OF NITROGEN AND CARBON CONTENT AND STOCK 185

(a) (b) (c)

FH subhorizon Uncertainty, % Uncertainty, %
3.5 80

3.0 90
60 1600
N%, %

2.5 2000 1000 1200

40 500
60 800
2.0 1000 400

1.5 20 30

1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
50
20 60
40 4000 2000
C%, %

3000 15 1200 1500

2000 800 40 1000
1000 10 400 500
30
20
5
30 40 50 40 42 44 46 48 30 40
100
75
30 75
1000
3000
2000 50 750
C:N

2000 50 500
1000 1000 250
20 25
25
0
0 20 30 0 15 20 25 30 35 15 20 25 30
30 250
400
200
Nstk, g/m2

20 2000 300 2000 1600

1500 1500 150 1200
1000 200 1000 800
10 500 500 400
100 100

50
0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 10 15 20 25
600 300
800
Сstk, g/m2

600 400 1600

2000 1200 200 1000
400 800
1000 500
200 400
200 100

0 200 400 600 800 0 100 200300400500 200 400 600 800
L subhorizon Predictions Predictions

Fig. 5. 2D histograms of the distribution of the study area (hectares) in terms of the (a) contents and stocks of N and C in the
forest litter and uncertainty of predicted values for the (b) L and (c) FH subhorizons.

EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021

186 GAVRILYUK et al.
a number of studies. Thus, the stocks of litter of auto-
morphic and semihydromorphic soils can differ almost
twofold [19]. In addition, low canopy density has been
found to be a significant source of uncertainty in pre-
dictions from geospatial modeling. Thus, for further
research in this direction, when choosing the sites for
GPTs, it is necessary to take into account both the spe-
cies and morphostructural characteristics of forest
stand and the landscape features of the territory.
Despite the indicated limitations, the results
obtained sufficiently characterize the potential of the
proposed approach, which implies the use of a time
series of satellite images as the main variables for geo-
spatial modeling of the contents and stocks of N and C
in the forest floor. As already noted, we could not find
works analogous to our study in terms of the analyzed
indicators and the initial data used. However, several
studies close in thematic and methodological aspects
can be considered as analogues for comparison. All of
them use the national forest inventory materials to
model the properties of forest litter at the subcontinen-
tal level. Beguin et al. used materials with 500 GTPs and
geospatial data on the proportions of coniferous and
hardwood species in the composition of forest stands
in combination with the absolute elevation of the relief
to model the C : N ratio in the organic horizon of soils
of boreal forests of Canada [21]. Various machine
learning methods were compared for constructing
regression models, including random forests. The per-
formance indicators of the best of the considered
models were at the level of R2 = 0.4 and RMSE = 30%
(the authors provide only graphical data without exact
numbers). For a similar task in the forests of Europe,
Carre with coauthors used 739 GTPs and about
40 variables, including maps of the prevailing tree spe-
cies and landforms, as well as climatic data [25]. The
simulation was done using simple kriging and neural
networks. The results of kriging were the most accu-
rate: R2 = 0.6, RMSE = 4.91 (relative error values were
not estimated). Cao with coauthors used 3303 GTPs
and more than 30 different variables, including the-
matic characteristics of soils, climate, forests, topog-
raphy, and parent rock, as well as seasonal values of the
spectral index NDVI, to model C stocks in the litter
and upper mineral soil layer of US forests [24]. Three
methods of training models were considered, and the
best results were obtained for the random forest algo-
rithm: R2 = 0.2, RMSE = 923 g/m2 (only absolute val-
ues are given). As can be seen from the above exam-
ples, the results of modeling the properties of forest lit-
ter for large areas, even using large training samples
and a wide range of types of geospatial variables, are
characterized by relatively low accuracies (comparable
to or lower than in our local study). Therefore, the
issues of assessing the possibilities of scaling the pro-
posed approach and determining the conditions under
which sufficiently reliable modeling results can be
obtained are of the highest priority for further research
in this area.
CONCLUSIONS
This work demonstrates the possibilities of using
optical multi-season satellite images for geospatial
modeling of the contents and stocks of N and C in the
forest litter, without the need for preliminary recogni-
tion of the species structure of stands, which is their
main predictor. This approach makes it possible to
automatically take into account the variability of the
share of trees of different species and/or groups of spe-
cies in the composition of forest stands, as well as a
number of accompanying characteristics, such as can-
opy density, sanitary condition, etc. in the constructed
regression models. This is due to differences in the
seasonal dynamics of spectral properties of the tree
canopy. At the same time, it is obvious that thematic
products of qualitative and/or quantitative character-
istics of forest cover obtained on the basis of remote
sensing data or from forest inventory materials can be
successfully used as variables for modeling the proper-
ties of litter. However, given the wide availability of
optical satellite images, which, as a rule, are immedi-
ately ready for thematic processing, it is more rational
to directly assess the properties of the organic soil
horizon without intermediate products, which may
have different degrees of generalization, relevance,
and reliability.
For the further development of this study, it is
planned to expand ground-based surveys on the terri-
tory of the Bryansk Forest Reserve, taking into
account the obtained thematic products for more reli-
able validation and calibration of models, as well as to
verify the reliability of our conclusions and the effi-
ciency of the approaches used for forests of the taiga
biome in the European part of Russia.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the director of the Center for
Forest Ecology and Productivity, corresponding member of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Sci. N.V. Lukina for
the proposed idea of this study, to the administration of the
Bryanskii Les Reserve for assistance in field work, and to
the team of the Chromatography ecoanalytical laboratory
(collective use center) of the Institute of Biology, Komi Sci-
ence Center, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sci-
ences (accreditation certificate no. ROSS RU.0001.511257
for quantitative determination of carbon and nitrogen in the
collected samples.
FUNDING
This study was performed within the framework of state
assignment of the Center for Forest Ecology and Productiv-
ity “Methodological approaches to the assessment of struc-
tural arrangement and functioning of forest ecosystems”
(registration no. АААА-А18-118052590019-7) (thematic
analysis of data). It was partly supported by the Program of
the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Bio-
diversity of Natural Systems. Rational Use of the Biologi-
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021
 GEOSPATIAL MODELING OF NITROGEN AND CARBON CONTENT AND STOCK
cal Resources of Russia” (registration no. AAAA-A18-
11802199063-2 (statistical analysis of the results). The
development of data bases with the results of ground surveys
was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project
no. 16-17-10284).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
1. E. A. Gavrilyuk, A. V. Gornov, and D. V. Ershov, “As-
sessment of spatial distribution of tree species in the Brya-
nskiy Les Nature Reserve and its protective zone based on
different season Landsat satellite data,” Byull. Bryansk.
Otd., Ross. Bot. O-va, No. 3 (15), 13–23 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.22281/2307-4353-2018-3-13-23
2. A. V. Gornov, M. V. Gornova, E. V. Tikhonova,
N. E. Shevchenko, A. I. Kuznetsova, E. V. Ruchinskaya,
and D. N. Teben’kova, “Assessment of succession state
of coniferous–broadleaved forests in European part of
Russia based on population approach,” Lesovedenie,
No. 4, 243–257 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0024114818040083
3. O. I. Evstigneev, Doctoral Dissertation in Biology
(Nizhny Novgorod, 2010).
4. O. I. Evstigneev, History and Nature Management in the
Nerusso-Desnyanskoe Polesie (Desyatochka, Bryansk,
2009) [in Russian].
5. O. I. Evstigneev and Yu. P. Fedotov, “Assessment of
vegetation cover diversity in Russian-Ukrainian cross-
boundary ecological network by the example of Nerus-
so-Desnyanskoe Polesie,” in Proceedings of Russian-
Ukrainian Meeting “Prospective Development of Ecologi-
cal Network and Creation of Cross-Boundary Protected
Territories in the Desna River Basin” (Moscow, 1999),
pp. 27–43.
6. “A map of soil-geographic zonation, scale 1 : 1 5000000,”
in National Soil Atlas of Russian Federation, Ed. by
S. A. Shoba (Astrel’-AST, Moscow, 2011), pp. 198–201.
7. Yu. A. Kiseleva, “Specific development of woodland
soils by example of the Bryanskiy Les Nature Reserve
(formation of brown and podzolic soils),” in Role of
Soils in Biosphere, Tr. Inst. Pochvoved., Mosk. Gos.
Univ., Ross. Akad. Nauk no. 1 (Moscow, 2002),
pp. 56–78.
8. L. L. Shishov, V. D. Tonkonogov, I. I. Lebedeva, and
M. I. Gerasimova, Classification and Diagnostic System
of Russian Soils (Oikumena, Smolensk, 2004) [in Rus-
sian].
9. A. I. Kuznetsova, N. V. Lukina, E. V. Tikhonova,
A. V. Gornov, M. V. Gornova, V. E. Smirnov, A. P. Ger-
askina, N. E. Shevchenko, D. N. Tebenkova, and
S. I. Chumachenko, “Carbon stock in sandy and loamy
soils of coniferous–broadleaved forests at different suc-
cession stages,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 52, 756–768 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229319070081
10. O. V. Menyailo, A. I. Matvienko, M. I. Makarov, and
Sh.-K. Cheng, “Role of nitrogen in carbon balance in
forest ecosystems,” Lesovedenie, No. 2, 143–159 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.7868/S0024114818020067
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021
187
11. B. M. Mirkin, L. G. Rozenberg, and L. G. Naumova,
Dictionary of Definitions and Terms of Modern Phyto-
cenology (Moscow, 1989) [in Russian].
12. Climate, Bryanskiy Les Nature Reserve official website.
http://www.bryansky-les.ru/naturalconditions/klimat/.
13. Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronment of Russian Federation no. 20-r of June 30,
2017 on Methodological recommendations for quanti-
tative determination of greenhouse gas consumption
volume. https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/
doc/71612096/.
14. Vegetation of the European Part of USSR, Ed. by
S. A. Gribov, T. I. Isachenko, and E. M. Lavrenko
(Nauka, Leningrad, 1980) [in Russian].
15. I. Yu. Savin, A. V. Zhogolev, and E. Yu. Prudnikova,
“Modern trends and problems of soil mapping,” Eur-
asian Soil Sci. 52, 471–480 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229319050107
16. L. A. Sokolov, “Classification of pedogenic and litter-
ing mountain minerals in Bryansk forest massif,” in
Proceedings of Scientific Conference “Input of Scientists
and Professionals in National Economics” (Bryansk,
1998), Vol. 2.
17. M. V. Stefurishin, “Assessment of soil-ecological con-
ditions of water-glacial landscapes of the Bryansk forest
massif,” in Problems of Forest Science and Forestry
(Bryansk State Engineering and Technological Acade-
my, Bryansk, 2000), No. 10, pp. 48–50.
18. N. G. Fedorets and O. N. Bakhmet, Ecological Features
of Transformation of Carbon and Nitrogen Compounds in
Forest Soils (Karelian Scientific Center, Russian Acad-
emy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2003) [in Russian].
19. O. V. Chernova, I. M. Ryzhova, and M. A. Podvezen-
naya, “Assessment of organic carbon stocks in forest
soils on a regional scale,” Eurasian Soil Sci. 53, 339–
348 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229320030023
20. A. Altmann, L. Tolosi, O. Sander, and T. Lengauer,
“Permutation importance: a corrected feature impor-
tance measure,” Bioinformatics 26, 1340–1347 (2010).
21. J. Beguin, G.-A. Fuglstad, N. Mansuy, and D. Pare,
“Predicting soil properties in the Canadian boreal for-
est with limited data: comparison of spatial and non-
spatial statistical approaches,” Geoderma 306, 195–
205 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.06.016
22. K. J. Beven and M. J. Kirkby, “A physically-based vari-
able contributing area model of basin hydrology,” Hy-
drol. Sci. Bull. 24 (1), 43–69 (1979).
23. L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Mach. Learn. 45 (1),
5–32 (2001).
24. B. Cao, G. M. Domke, M. B. Russell, and B. F. Wal-
ters, “Spatial modeling of litter and soil carbon stocks
on forest land in the conterminous United States,” Sci.
Total Environ. 654, 94–106 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.359
25. F. Carre, N. Jeannee, S. Casalegno, O. Lemarchand,
H. I. Reuter, and L. Montanarella, “Mapping the CN
ratio of the forest litters in Europe—lessons for global
digital soil mapping,” in Digital Soil Mapping, Ed. by
J. L. Boettinger, (Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, 2010),
pp. 217–225.
26. O. Conrad, B. Bechtel, M. Bock, H. Dietrich,
E. Fischer, L. Gerlitz, J. Wehberg, V. Wichmann, and
J. Böhner, “System for Automated Geoscientific Anal-
188 GAVRILYUK et al.
yses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4,” Geosci. Model. Dev. 8, 1991–
2007 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1991-2015
27. N. Cools, L. Vesterdal, B. De Vos, E. Vanguelova, and
K. Hansen, “Tree species is the major factor explaining
C : N ratios in European forest soils,” For. Ecol. Man-
age. 311, 3–16 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.047
28. ESA Sentinel-2. http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/
Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-2. Accessed
March 20, 2019.
29. P. Escribano, T. Schmid, S. Chabrillat, E. Rodríguez-
Caballero, and M. García, “Optical remote sensing for
soil mapping and monitoring,” in Soil Mapping and
Process Modeling for Sustainable Land Use Management,
Ed. by P. Pereira, et al. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2017),
pp. 87–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805200-6.00004-9
30. O. I. Evstigneev and V. N. Korotkov, “Pine forest suc-
cession on sandy ridges within outwash plain (Sandur)
in Nerussa-Desna Polesie,” Russ. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. 1
(3), (2016).
https://doi.org/10.21685/2500-0578-2016-3-2
31. F. Fassnacht, H. Latifi, K. Stereńczak, A. Modzelews-
ka, M. Lefsky, L. Waser, C. Straub, and A. Ghosh,
“Review of studies on tree species classification from
remote licensed data,” Remote Sens. Environ. 186,
64–87 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.08.013
32. M. Friedl, J. Gray, D. Sulla-Menashe, and M. Friedl,
MCD12Q2: MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Dynamics
Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 (Land Processes
Distributed Active Archive Center, Sioux Falls, SD, 2019).
https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD12Q2.006
33. B. Gallo, J. Demattê, R. Rizzo, J. Safanelli,
W. Mendes, I. Lepsch, M. Sato, D. Romero, and
M. Lacerda, “Multi-temporal satellite images on top-
soil attribute quantification and the relationship with
soil classes and geology,” Remote Sens. 10, 1571 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101571
34. T. Hengl, J. Mendes de Jesus, G. B. M. Heuvelink,
M. Ruiperez Gonzalez, M. Kilibarda, A. Blagotić,
W. Shangguan, et al., “SoilGrids250m: global girded
soil information based on machine learning,” PLoS
One 12 (2), e0169748 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748
35. Z. Jiang, A. R. Huete, K. Didan, and T. Miura, “De-
velopment of a two-band enhanced vegetation index
without a blue band,” Remote Sens. Environ. 112,
3833–3845 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.06.006
36. I. T. Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed.
(Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002).
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/b98835
37. L. Komsta, mblm: Median-based linear models,
R package version 0.12.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=mblm.
38. M. Kuhn, Classification and regression training,
R package version 6.0-84. https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=caret.
39. Q. Li, L. Ma, S. Liu, A. Wufu, Y. Li, S. Yang, and
X. Yang, “Plant litter estimation and its correlation with
sediment concentration in the Loess Plateau,” PeerJ
Preprints, (2019).
https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27891v1
40. J. Louis, V. Debaecker, B. Pflug, M. Main-Knorn,
J. Bieniarz, U. Müller-Wilm, E. Cadau, and F. Gascon,
“Sentinel-2 L2A Sen2Cor Processor: L2A processor for
users,” in Proceedings of Living Planet Symposium 2016,
Prague, Czech Republic, May 9–13, 2016 (European
Space Agency, Paris, 2016), pp. 1–8.
41. G. Matasci, T. Hermosilla, M. A. Wulder, J. C. White,
N. C. Coops, G. W. Hobart, and H. S. Zald, “Large-
area mapping of Canadian boreal forest cover, height,
biomass and other structural attributes using Landsat
composites and lidar plots,” Remote Sens. Environ.
209, 90–106 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.020
42. N. Meinshausen, “Quantile regression forests,” J. Mach.
Learn. Res. 7, 983–999 (2006).
43. Q. Quan, C. Wang, N. He, Zh. Zhang, X. Wen, H. Su,
Q. Wang, and J. Xue, “Forest type affects the coupled
relationshipsof soil C and N mineralization in the tem-
perate forests of northern China,” Sci. Rep. 4, 6584
(2014).
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06584
44. A. Ramcharan, T. Hengl, T. Nauman, C. Brungard,
S. Waltman, S. Wills, and J. Thompson, “Soil property
and class maps of the conterminous US at 100 meter
spatial resolution based on a compilation of national
soil point observations and machine learning,” Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 82, 186–201 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.04.0122
45. L. Sabetta, N. Zaccarelli, G. Mancinelli, S. Mandrone,
R. Salvatori, M. L. Costantini, G. Zurlini, and L. Ros-
si, “Mapping litter decomposition by remote-detected
indicators,” Ann. Geophys. 49 (1), 219–226 (2006).
46. P. A. Shary, “Land surface in gravity points classifica-
tion by complete system of curvatures,” Math. Geol. 27
(3), 373–390 (1995).
47. A. F. Siegel, “Robust regression using repeated medi-
ans,” Biometrika 69 (1), 242–244 (1982).
48. S. Wang, K. Adhikari, Q. Wang, X. Jin, and H. Li,
“Role of environmental variables in the spatial distribu-
tion of soil carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and C : N ratio
from the north-eastern coastal agroecosystems in Chi-
na,” Ecol. Indic. 84, 263–272 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.08.046
49. IUSS Working Group WRB, World Reference Base for
Soil Resources 2014, International Soil Classification
System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil
Maps, World Soil Resources Reports No. 106 (UN Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 2014).
50. M. N. Wright and A. Ziegler, “A fast implementation of
random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and
R,” J. Stat. Software 77 (1), 1–17 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v077.i01
51. X. Yang, Y. Yu, H. Hu, and L. Sun, “Moisture content
estimation of forest litter based on remote sensing da-
ta,” Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (7), 421 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6792-2
52. Y. Yang, Y. Luo, and A. C. Finzi, “Carbon and nitrogen
dynamics during forest stand development: a global
synthesis,” New Phytol. 190, 977–989 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03645.x
Translated by D. Konyushkov
EURASIAN SOIL SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2021