Affiliation:
1. Postgraduate Program in Modeling and Geological Evolution, Geoscience Institute, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Seropédica 23890-000, RJ, Brazil
2. Soils Department, Agronomy Institute, Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ), Seropédica 23890-000, RJ, Brazil
3. Laboratory for Research in Applied Geophysics, Department of Geology, Federal University of Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba 81530-000, PR, Brazil
4. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa Solos), 1.024 Jardim Botânico Street, Rio de Janeiro 22460-000, RJ, Brazil
Abstract
Airborne geophysical data (AGD) have great potential to represent soil-forming factors. Because of that, the objective of this study was to evaluate the importance of AGD in predicting soil attributes such as aluminum saturation (ASat), base saturation (BS), cation exchange capacity (CEC), clay, and organic carbon (OC). The AGD predictor variables include total count (μR/h), K (potassium), eU (uranium equivalent), and eTh (thorium equivalent), ratios between these elements (eTh/K, eU/K, and eU/eTh), factor F or F-parameter, anomalous potassium (Kd), anomalous uranium (Ud), anomalous magnetic field (AMF), vertical derivative (GZ), horizontal derivatives (GX and GY), and mafic index (MI). The approach was based on applying predictive modeling techniques using (1) digital elevation model (DEM) covariates and Sentinel-2 images with AGD; and (2) DEM covariates and Sentinel-2 images without the AGD. The study was conducted in Bom Jardim, a county in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil with an area of 382,430 km², with a database of 208 soil samples to a predefined depth (0–30 cm). Non-explanatory covariates for the selected soil attributes were excluded. Through the selected covariables, the random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models were applied with separate samples for training (75%) and validation (25%). The model’s performance was evaluated through the R-squared (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE), as well as null model values and coefficient of variation (CV%). The RF algorithm showed better performance with AGD (R2 values ranging from 0.15 to 0.23), as well as the SVM model (R2 values ranging from 0.08 to 0.23) when compared to RF (R2 values ranging from 0.10 to 0.20) and SVM (R2 values ranging from 0.04 to 0.10) models without AGD. Overall, the results suggest that AGD can be helpful for soil mapping. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the accuracy of AGD in predicting soil properties could vary depending on various common factors in DSM, such as the quality and resolution of the covariates and available soil data. Further research is needed to determine the optimal approach for using AGD in soil mapping.
Funder
Scientific and Technological Development
Research Support Foundation of the State of Rio de Janeiro
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference77 articles.
1. Chapter 1 Spatial Soil Information Systems and Spatial Soil Inference Systems: Perspectives for Digital Soil Mapping;Lagacherie;Developments in Soil Science,2006
2. Hartemink, A.E., McBratney, A., and Mendonça-Santos, M.D.L. (2008). Digital Soil Mapping with Limited Data, Springer.
3. On Digital Soil Mapping;McBratney;Geoderma,2003
4. Jenny, H. (1994). Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology, Dover.
5. Digital Mapping of GlobalSoilMap Soil Properties at a Broad Scale: A Review;Chen;Geoderma,2022