Does digital soil mapping prediction performance of soil texture improve when adding uncertain field texture estimates? A study based on clay content

• Laboratory and field texture weighted data for calibrating DSM of clay content. • Weighting calibration data strongly reduces prediction uncertainty compared to not weighting. • Adding field texture data using different sampling strategies changes maps and predictions uncertainties. • Different end-users may choose different strategies depending on the range of clay content values whose prediction interval they want to narrow. • Using a large number of hand-feel soil texture estimates leads to overly smooth maps and over-optimistic prediction intervals. Hand-feel soil texture observations (HFST) are less accurate, yet much more numerous, than laboratory measurements of soil texture (LAST). Therefore, it is tempting to incorporate both LAST and HFST information as calibration data in digital soil mapping (DSM) of particle-size distribution. We used about 1000 LASTs and 15,000 HFSTs over an area of about 6,800 km 2 . We incorporated the uncertainties of HFST and LAST calibration data in DSM and compared it with a case where measurement errors were ignored. We added progressively HFST calibration data to LAST data and ran predictions and k-fold validations keeping the same validation set for all experiments. We added HFSTs according to different strategies: either based on the most uncertain predicted areas from the LAST-only model, or those from the preceding LAST + nHFST model, or randomly. We discuss the pros and cons of these different strategies. Adding HFST data brought useful information for model calibration, but only if the uncertainty was accounted for. Various strategies for adding HFSTs led to different unbalanced samplings, maps and prediction intervals. We explain how these various unbalanced samplings sharpened or enlarged the predictive distribution of various clay content ranges. Adding a too large number of HFSTs led to an over-optimistic estimation of the 90 % prediction interval and to large homogeneous patterns, smoothing the spatial variation of clay content. Adding HFSTs using weights to acknowledge their uncertainty substantially improved DSM predictions, but the number of HFSTs and the strategy to add them must be carefully adapted.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geoderma
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117277
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.80
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does digital soil mapping prediction performance of soil texture improve when adding uncertain field texture estimates? A study based on clay content

G.B.M. Heuvelink, Stephan van der Westhuizen, Hocine Bourennane, Dominique Arrouays et al.
1 citations
Geoderma
Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
0.80
article

Does digital soil mapping prediction performance of soil texture improve when adding uncertain field texture estimates? A study based on clay content

G.B.M. Heuvelink, Stephan van der Westhuizen, Hocine Bourennane, Dominique Arrouays, Anne C Richer-De-Forges, Thomas G. Orton, Songchao Chen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

• Laboratory and field texture weighted data for calibrating DSM of clay content. • Weighting calibration data strongly reduces prediction uncertainty compared to not weighting. • Adding field texture data using different sampling strategies changes maps and predictions uncertainties. • Different end-users may choose different strategies depending on the range of clay content values whose prediction interval they want to narrow. • Using a large number of hand-feel soil texture estimates leads to overly smooth maps and over-optimistic prediction intervals. Hand-feel soil texture observations (HFST) are less accurate, yet much more numerous, than laboratory measurements of soil texture (LAST). Therefore, it is tempting to incorporate both LAST and HFST information as calibration data in digital soil mapping (DSM) of particle-size distribution. We used about 1000 LASTs and 15,000 HFSTs over an area of about 6,800 km 2 . We incorporated the uncertainties of HFST and LAST calibration data in DSM and compared it with a case where measurement errors were ignored. We added progressively HFST calibration data to LAST data and ran predictions and k-fold validations keeping the same validation set for all experiments. We added HFSTs according to different strategies: either based on the most uncertain predicted areas from the LAST-only model, or those from the preceding LAST + nHFST model, or randomly. We discuss the pros and cons of these different strategies. Adding HFST data brought useful information for model calibration, but only if the uncertainty was accounted for. Various strategies for adding HFSTs led to different unbalanced samplings, maps and prediction intervals. We explain how these various unbalanced samplings sharpened or enlarged the predictive distribution of various clay content ranges. Adding a too large number of HFSTs led to an over-optimistic estimation of the 90 % prediction interval and to large homogeneous patterns, smoothing the spatial variation of clay content. Adding HFSTs using weights to acknowledge their uncertainty substantially improved DSM predictions, but the number of HFSTs and the strategy to add them must be carefully adapted.

GeodermaVol. 456
The University of Queensland (AU), Zhejiang University of Science and Technology (CN), Stellenbosch University (ZA), ISRIC - World Soil Information (NL), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Agriculture and Food (AU), Soil Science Research Unit (FR), Zhejiang University (CN), Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
0.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.