Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70203001

Relative prediction intervals reveal larger uncertainty in 3D approaches to predictive digital soil mapping of soil properties with legacy data

Abstract

Fine scale maps of soil properties enable efficient land management and inform earth system models. Recent efforts to create soil property maps from field observations tend to use similar tree-based machine learning interpolation approaches, but often deal with depth of predictions, validation, and uncertainty differently. One of the main differences in approaches is whether to model individual depths of interest separately as ‘2D’ models, or to create models that incorporate depth as a predictor variable creating a ‘3D’ model that can make pre-dictions for all depths. It is unclear how choice of 2D or 3D approach influences model accuracy and uncertainty due to lack of direct comparison and inconsistent presentation of results in past studies. This study compares 2D and 3D methods for mapping soil electrical conductivity (salinity), pH, sum of fine and very fine sands, and organic carbon at 30 m resolution for the upper 432,000 km 2 of the Colorado River Watershed of the United States of America. A new, simple, model-agnostic relative prediction interval (RPI) approach to report un-certainty is presented that scales prediction interval width to the 95% interquantile width of the original training sample distribution. The RPI approach enables direct comparison of uncertainty between properties and depths and is easily interpretable by end users. Results indicate that 3D mapping of soil properties with strong variation with depth can result in substantial areas with much higher uncertainty that coincide with unrealistic predictions relative to 2D models, even though 3D models had slightly better global cross-validation scores. Maps and global model summaries of RPI proved helpful in identifying these issues with 3D models. These results suggest that the use of RPI or similar approaches to evaluate models can identify accuracy problems not evident in global va-lidation diagnostics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Travis Nauman, Michael C. Duniway. 2019. Relative prediction intervals reveal larger uncertainty in 3D approaches to predictive digital soil mapping of soil properties with legacy data. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.03.037

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Season of grazing interacts with soil texture, selecting for associations of biocrust morphogroups

Livestock grazing, a widespread land use in semi-arid systems, is often placed in opposition to the perpetuation of biological soil crusts (“biocrusts”: lichens, mosses, and algal crusts including cyanobacteria) that live on the soil surface and provide ecosystem functions. The composition of biocrusts and vascular plants varies with climate, soils, and disturbance. In general, ruderal mosses and light algal crusts make up greater proportions of biocrusts in the presence of disturbance, although morphogroups of biocrusts respond differently to various disturbances. It is unknown if there are scenarios under which grazing can occur and ruderal components of biocrust could be maintained. We examine the hypothesis that soil surface texture-moisture interactions influence the ability of biocrusts to withstand trampling, reasoning that finer-textured soils are firmer (therefore serving as a better substrate for biocrusts) when dry and that coarser-textured are firmer when wet. We test these relationships within Birds of Prey, National Conservation Area (Boise, Idaho, USA). Results demonstrate two associations of biocrusts, dependent on season of grazing: one dominated by light algal crusts and lichens that frequently occurs with wet season grazing, and a second dominated by tall mosses and cup lichens that frequently occurs with dry season grazing. High cover of the invasive annual grass, Bromus tectorum (L.) was observed on sites with coarse-textured soils, and high sand content, that are grazed at relatively high intensities, creating unstable surfaces, and likely putting biocrusts at greater susceptibility to trampling. Results suggest that livestock management that accounts for soil texture and moisture could be used to maintain cover of ruderal biocrusts on fine-textured soils, that are grazed in the dry season, at low intensity. We discuss our findings in the context of managing for species of interest. Our findings are timely as varying the season of grazing is increasingly discussed as a means of favoring desirable native perennial grasses. Although ruderal morphogroups of biocrusts are not interpreted as having equivalent ecosystem functions compared to intact biocrusts, their contributions to soil stability, fertility, hydrology, and weed abatement could increase if they were more intentionally targeted by management.

Geoderma

Vertical movement of soluble carbon and nutrients from biocrusts to subsurface mineral soils

Dryland ecosystems can be constrained by low soil fertility. Within drylands, the soil nutrient and organic carbon (C) cycling that does occur is often mediated by soil surface communities known as biological soil crusts (biocrusts), which cycle C and nutrients in the top ca. 0–2 cm of soil. However, the degree to which biocrusts are influencing soil fertility and biogeochemical cycling in deeper, subsurface mineral soils is unclear. The movement of dissolved resources from biocrusts to deeper soil layers in leachate may be one of the main mechanisms through which biocrust fertility is transferred downward towards deeper microbial communities and plant roots occurring within mineral soil. Here we examined the role of biocrust leachate in contributing to subsurface nutrient and soluble C pools and subsurface microbial cycling. We collected biocrusts from three biocrust successional stages and explored resource pools in situ at multiple soil depths, while collecting leachate and measuring nutrient and organic C concentrations and metabolite composition from each successional stage in the laboratory. After four leachate collections, we conducted an incubation of mineral soil collected from below each biocrust successional stage to measure heterotrophic microbial CO 2 flux and biomass. Overall, our findings observed that the degree of nutrient and C connectivity between biocrusts and the sub-crust mineral soil depended on the biocrust successional stage and the element being considered, and the influence of biocrust successional stage on mineral soil CO 2 flux is likely related to long-term resource build up. Together, our results suggest that the influence of biocrust leachate on subsurface mineral soil is complex and context dependent, but, over longer time periods and at later successional stages, can have measurable effects on dryland soil biogeochemical cycling with feedbacks to resource availability and CO 2 flux.

Geoderma

Quantifying the influence of different biocrust community states and their responses to warming temperatures on soil biogeochemistry in field and mesocosm studies

Biocrusts influence soil biogeochemistry by fixing carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) and through leachate inputs to soils. Functional rates can vary among biocrust community states and in response to edaphic properties, heterotrophic microbial activity, and global change. Using soils and biocrusts from the Colorado Plateau, Utah, USA, we aimed to quantify the influence of early-successional (ES) and late-successional (LS) biocrust community states on soil biogeochemistry. In a field setting, we found soil was less “fertile” under ES than LS biocrust, but ES biocrust had a relative influence 1.3 times greater than LS biocrust on soil fertility. Leachate collected from LS biocrust had, on average, 6 times more organic C and 1.7 times more dissolved N than ES biocrust, but concentrations of phosphorus (P) and inorganic N did not differ among the two biocrust types. To disentangle influences of biocrusts and soil properties on biogeochemical pools, we constructed mesocosms from homogenized soil and left the surface bare or covered with ES or LS biocrust, before assignment to ambient or warmed (+5 °C) temperature treatments for 3 months. Multivariate biogeochemical properties differed among cover types, yet all exhibited losses of P, N, and organic C and nearly half of the biogeochemical variables considered did not differ among cover types. Mesocosms with LS biocrust retained more dissolved N, supported 8 additional, significant correlations among biogeochemical pools of the biocrust and mineral soil layer on average, and lost fewer of these correlations under warming. Overall, while soils under LS biocrusts were more fertile (i.e., had higher nutrient concentrations) than under ES, we did not find evidence implicating leachate as the primary driver of this difference. Biocrust influences on soil fertility were greater when mineral soil nutrients were in lower concentrations, highlighting the value of even incipient biocrusts for dryland functioning.

Arizona, Utah