Estimation of Soil Organic Matter and Clay Using Digital Elevation Model

Document Type : Research Paper

10.22092/ijsr.2016.106320

Abstract

Different resolutions of digital elevation models (DEMs) can generate varied topographic and hydrological features. The objective of this study was determination of suitable cell size of DEMs and its effects on prediction of some soil properties. For this purpose, two study areas were selected with different topographic properties in Selin plain, East-Azerbaijan Province. A total of 31 and 37 points were selected randomly from study area (1) and (2), respectively, and then, elevation, slope, clay and organic matter contents were measured by GPS, manual, hydrometer and Walkly-Black methods. The results showed that the number of cells with sink was more in smaller cell size than bigger cells, causing error in determination of hydrological characteristics. Therefore, they must be removed. Appropriate cell size of DEMs depends on the properties of the area topography, which for the study area (1) and (2) with flat and severely undulating topography, the cell size was 50 and 40 meters, respectively. Geostatistical analysis showed that, in both study areas, spatial correlation linearly decreased with increases in cell size upto 75 m; while in study area (2), it decreased with more intensity, reflecting the loss of large volumes of topographic information. Difference between R2 values for the estimation of soil organic matter and clay from DEMs with different cell sizes was less in area (1) than area (2). Generally, the results of this study showed that lower cell size (<75 m) was recommendable for areas with sever topographic changes and complex morphology, while higher cell size (200 m) was suitable for flat areas. 

Keywords


  1. ایوبی، ش.، خرمالی، ف.، شتایی جویباری، ش. 1386. استفاده از تکنیک زمین آمار در تعیین مناسب­ترین ابعاد سلولی مدل رقومی زمین برای برآورد مشخصه­ی توپوگرافی (LS) مدل برآوردی فرسایش RUSLE در منطقه تاش علیا (استان گلستان). پژوهش و سازندگی در منابع طبیعی. 77. 129-122.
  2. محمدی، ج. 1385. پدومتری (2) (آمار مکانی). انتشارات پلک.
  3. Cambardella, C.A., Moorman, T.B., Nocak, J.M., Parkin, T.B., Karlen, D.L., Turco,R.F. and Konopka, A.E. 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58: 1501–1511.
  4. Cavazzi, S., Corstanje, R., Mayr, T., Hannam, J. and Fealy, R. 2013. Are fine resolution digital elevation models always the best choice in digital soil mapping? Geoderma. 195-196: 111-121.
  5. Chaubey, I., Cotter, A.S, Costello, T.A. and Soerens T.S. 2005. Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty; Hydrol. Process. 19(3): 621–628.
  6. Derek, C.F. and Williams. P.2007. Karst hedrogeology and geomorphology. Jhonwiley.pp 354.
  7. Gee, G.H. and Bauder, J.W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In: A. klute, (eds.), Methods of soil Analysis. Physical Properties. SSSA, Madison, WI 9: 383-411.
  8. Hengl, T. 2006. Finding the right pixel size; Comput. Geosci. 32(9): 1283–1298.
  9. Kienzle, S. 2004. The effect of DEM raster resolution on first order, second order and compound terrain derivatives. Transactions in GIS 8 (1): 83–112.
  10. Sharma, A., Tiwari,K.N. and Bhadoria, P.B.S. 2011. Determining the optimum cell size of digital elevation model for hydrologic application. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 120(4): 573–582.
  11. Lagacherie, P. andMcBratney, A. 2005. Spatial soil information systems and spatial soil inference systems: perspectives for digital soil mapping. In: Lagacherie, P., McBratney, A. andVoltz, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Global Workshop on Digital Soil Mapping, ontpellier 14–17 September 2004. Developments in Soil Science Series. Elsevier, INRA,Montpellier, pp. 1–15.
  12. Lee, G.S. and Lee, K.H. 2006. Scaling effect for estimating soil loss in the RUSLE model using remotely sensed geospatial data in Korea.Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 3(1): 135–157.
  13. Pain, C.F. 2005. Size does matter: relationships between image pixel size and landscape process scales. MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modeling and Simulation. 1430–1436.
  14. Thompson, A.J., Bell, J.C., Butler, C.A. 2001. Digital elevation model resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling. Geoderma. 100: 67–89.
  15. Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of Degtgareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid in soil analysis. 1. Experimental. Soil Science Society America Journal. 79: 459-465.
  16. Wang, G., Gartner, G.Z., Parysow, P. and Anderson, A.B. 2001. Spatial prediction and uncertainty assessment of topographic factor for the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation using digital elevation models. Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 56: 65-80.
  17. Zhang, J.X, Chang, K.T. and Wu, J.Q. 2008. Effects of DEM Resolution and Source on Soil Erosion Modeling: a Case Study Using the WEPP Model; Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 22(8): 925–942.