Comparison of Corrected and Uncorrected Land Indices in Parametric Method of Land Suitability Evaluation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Former PhD student of Tehran University and Assistant Professor.of Soil and Water Research Institute

2 Professor of Tehran University

3 Associate Prof.of Tehran University

Abstract

Performance of land suitability evaluation and land production potential prediction are very important in land use planning. The study region with a surface area of about 3050 hectares  is located in Aghili plain, Gotvand, Khuzestan province, between 32° 07¢and 32° 10¢ N latitude and 48° 52¢ and 48° 56¢ E longitude. The aims of this research were to compare effects of corrected and uncorrected land indices on land suitability classes and accuracy of land production potential prediction. Land index was calculated using Storie  and square root formulas. Based on the obtained results, the corrected land indices calculated by Storie and Square Root formulas of parametric method showed higher values compared with uncorrected ones and upgraded land suitability classes. The share of land suitability classes S1, S2, S3, and N, using square root formula for uncorrected land indices, were determined as, respectively, 0.0%, 88%, 9%, and 3%. These values using the corrected land indices were obtained as, respectively, 32%, 63%, 5%, and 0.0%. The share of land suitability classes S1, S2, S3, and N, using Storie formula for uncorrected land indices, were, respectively, 0.0%, 4%, 55% and 5%. By using the corrected land indices, these percentages were obtained as, respectively, 55%, 38%, 6%, and 1%. Another conclusion was that the upgrading of the land suitability classes was more when Storie formula was used for the corrected land index, compared with the square root formula. This higher upgrading is more in accordance with conditions of the studied area. For validation of the methods used in this research, regression correlation was established between predicted yield for corrected and uncorrected land indices, using both Storie and square root formula and the observed yield. Root mean squared deviation (RMSD) was also used for evaluation of the methods and showed the higher accuracy of uncorrected square root method, with RMSD= 738 kg/ha, compared to other methods.





Performance of land suitability evaluation and land production potential prediction are very important in land use planning. The study region with a surface area of about 3050 hectares  is located in Aghili plain, Gotvand, Khuzestan province, between 32° 07¢and 32° 10¢ N latitude and 48° 52¢ and 48° 56¢ E longitude. The aims of this research were to compare effects of corrected and uncorrected land indices on land suitability classes and accuracy of land production potential prediction. Land index was calculated using Storie  and square root formulas. Based on the obtained results, the corrected land indices calculated by Storie and Square Root formulas of parametric method showed higher values compared with uncorrected ones and upgraded land suitability classes. The share of land suitability classes S1, S2, S3, and N, using square root formula for uncorrected land indices, were determined as, respectively, 0.0%, 88%, 9%, and 3%. These values using the corrected land indices were obtained as, respectively, 32%, 63%, 5%, and 0.0%. The share of land suitability classes S1, S2, S3, and N, using Storie formula for uncorrected land indices, were, respectively, 0.0%, 4%, 55% and 5%. By using the corrected land indices, these percentages were obtained as, respectively, 55%, 38%, 6%, and 1%. Another conclusion was that the upgrading of the land suitability classes was more when Storie formula was used for the corrected land index, compared with the square root formula. This higher upgrading is more in accordance with conditions of the studied area. For validation of the methods used in this research, regression correlation was established between predicted yield for corrected and uncorrected land indices, using both Storie and square root formula and the observed yield. Root mean squared deviation (RMSD) was also used for evaluation of the methods and showed the higher accuracy of uncorrected square root method, with RMSD= 738 kg/ha, compared to other methods.





 

Keywords

References

  1. ایوبی ، ش و جلالیان، ا. 1385. ارزیابی اراضی (کاربردهای کشاورزی). مرکز نشر دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان. 394 صفحه.
  2. سیدجلالی ، س.ع.، 1375. ارزیابی تناسب و تعیین مدل پتانسیل تولید اراضی برای گندم در منطقه میان آب شوشتر، استان خوزستان، نشریه فنی شماره 1064، موسسه تحقیقات خاک و آب.
  3. Bandyopadhyay. S., R. K. JaiswAal, V. S. Hegde and V. Jayaraman. 2009. Assessment of land suitability potentials for agriculture using a remote sensing and GIS based approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30(4): 879–895.
  4. Bouma, J. 1999. Land evaluation for land scape units. In: Summer M. E. (Ed.). Handbook of soil science. P: E393-E412.
  5. De la Rosa D. and C. A. Van Diepen. 2002.  Qualitative and Quantitative Land Evaluations. In: W. Verheye (Ed.) . Land Use and Land Cover, in Encyclopedia of Life Support System (EOLSS-UNESCO), Eolss Publishers. Oxford, UK.
  6. De la Rosa, D., F. Mayol., E. Diaz-Pereira., M. Fernandez and  D. De la Rosa Jr. 2004. A land evaluation decision support system (MicroLEIS DSS) for agricultural soil protection. With special reference to the Mediterranean region. Environ. Model. Softw. 19: 929–942.
  7. FAO. 1976. A Framework for Land Evaluation. Soil Bull., vol. 32. Rome, Italy.
  8. FAO. 1978. Report on the Agro-Ecological Zones Project, Vol. 1. Methodology and Results for Africa. World Soil Resources Report No. 48. FAO, Rome, 158 pp., 2nd printing 1982.
  9. FAO. 1983. Guidelines: Land Evaluation for Rainfed Agriculture. FAO Soils Bulletin No. 52. (Rome, Italy).
  10. Fontes, M. P. F., R. M. O. Fontes, and P. A. S. Carneiro. 2009. Land suitability, water balance and agricultural technology as a Geographic–Technological Index to support regional planning and economic studies. Land Use Policy, 26 (3): 589–598.
  11. Food and Agricultural Organization. 1979. Report on agro-ecological zones project. Vol.  1: Methodology and result for Africa. World soil resources report No. 48, FAO, Rome.
  12. Givi, J., Prasher, S. O., and Patel, R. M. 2004. Evaluation of pedotransfer functions in predicting the soil water contents at field capacity and wilting point. Agricultural water management vol 70. 83-96.
  13. Hoobler, B. M., G. F. Vance., J. D. Hammerlock., L. C. Munn., and J. A. Hayward. 2003. Applications of land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) and a geographic information system (GIS) in East Park County, Wyoming. J. Soil Water   Conserv. 58: 105–112.
  14. Keshavarzi, A., F. Sarmadian., A. Heidari, and M. Omid. 2010. Land Suitability Evaluation Using Fuzzy Continuous Classification (A Case Study: Ziaran Region). Modern Applied Science, 4(7). 72-81.
  15. Khiddir, S. M. 1986. A statistical approach in the use of parametric systems applied to the FAO framework for land evaluation. Ph. D. Thesis, State University of Ghent, Belgium.
  16. Kobayashi, K., and Salam, M. U. 2000. Comparing simulated and measured values using mean squared deviation and its components. Agron. J. 92, 345-352.
  17. Manna, P., A. Basil., A. Bonfante, V. De Mascellis, and F. Terribile. 2009. Comparative Land Evaluation Approaches: An itinerary from FAO framework to simulation modeling. Geoderma, 150:  367–378.
  18. Recatalá, L., and J. A. Zinck. 2008. Land-use planning in the Chaco Plain (Burruyacu, Argentina). Part 1: evaluating land-use options to support crop diversification in an agricultural frontier area using physical land evaluation. Environmental Management. 42 (6): 1043–1063.
  19. Rossiter, D. G., and A. R. Van Wambeke. 1997. Automated Land Evaluation System (ALES), Version 4.65 User's Manual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Department of Soil, Crop & Atmospheric Sciences. SCAS Teaching Series No. T93-2, Revision 6. 284pp.
  20. Rossiter, D. G. 1996. "A theoretical framework for land evaluation." Geoderma 72(3): 165-190.
  21. Shahbazi, F., A. A. Jafarzadeh, , F. Sarmadian, , M. R. Neyshaboury, , Sh. Oustan, , M. Anaya- Romero, and D. De la Rosa. 2009. Suitability of Wheat, Maize, Sugar beet and Potato, Using MicroLEIS DSS Software in Ahar Area, North-West of Iran. American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 5 (1): 45-52,
  22. Soil survey staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. Eleventh Edition. USDA. NRCS. 338pp.
  23. Sonneveld, M. P. W., M. J. D., Hack-ten Broeke. , C. A. van Diepen. , and H. L. Boogaard. 2010. Thirty years of systematic land evaluation in the Netherlands.  Geoderma, 156:  84–92.
  24. Storie, R. 1978. Storie index soil rating. Oakland: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Special Publication 3203.
  25. Sys, C.  E. Van Ranst, and J. Debaveye. 1993. Land evaluation, Part III. Crop requitements. General Administration for development cooperation, Brussels.
  26. Sys, C. E. Van Ranst, and J. Debaveye. 1991. Land evaluation, Part I and II. General Adminstration for development cooperation, Brussels.
  27. Tang, H. 1993. Land suitability classification based on fuzzy set theory and  modelling of land production potential of maize and winter wheat in different zones of China. Ph.D. thesis, University of Gent, Belgium, 241 pp.
  28. Tang, H. J, and E. Van Ranst. 1992. Testing of fuzzy set theory in land suitability assessment for rainfed grain maize production. Pedologie, 42:129-147.
  29. Van Niekerk. A. 2010. A comparison of land unit delineation techniques for land evaluation in the Western Cape, South Africa. Land Use Policy, 27: 937–945.
  30. Ziadat, Feras M. 2007. Land suitability classification using different sources of information: Soil maps and predicted soil attributes in Jordan. Geoderma 140: 73–80.
Iranian Journal of Soil Research
Volume 28, Issue 1
September 2019
Pages 127-141

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics