Soil property and class maps of the conterminous United States at 100-meter spatial resolution

Soil Science Society of America Journal

Volumn 82, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 186-201

  Ramcharan, Amanda ^a   Hengl, Tomislav ^b   Nauman, Travis ^c   Brungard, Colby ^d   Waltman, Sharon ^e   Wills, Skye ^f   Thompson, James ^e  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ISRIC WORLD SOIL INFORMATION   (Netherlands)

^c U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^d NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f USDA NRCS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARBON; DECISION TREES; FORECASTING; IMAGE RESOLUTION; PARTICLE SIZE; SOIL SURVEYS;

CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY; COMPLETE COVERAGES; NATIONAL SOIL INFORMATION SYSTEMS; PREDICTION ACCURACY; PREDICTION PROBABILITIES; SPATIALLY EXPLICIT; SPATIALLY EXPLICIT MODELS; WEIGHT PERCENTAGES;

SOILS;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ALGORITHM; ASSESSMENT METHOD; DATA SET; DATABASE; NUMERICAL MODEL; SOIL DEPTH; SOIL PROPERTY; SOIL SURVEY; SPATIAL RESOLUTION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 85042134958     PISSN: 03615995     EISSN: 14350661     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2017.04.0122     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Arrouays, D., M.G. Grundy, A.E. Hartemink, J.W. Hempel, G.B.M. Heuvelink, Y. Hong, et al. 2014. GlobalSoilMap: Toward a fine-resolution global grid of soil properties. Adv. Agron. 125:93-134. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-800137-0.00003-0
2. Batjes, N.H. 2016. Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 269:61-68. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.034
3. Beaudette, D., and A.T. O'Geen. 2009. Soil-web: An online soil survey for California, Arizona, and Nevada. Comput. Geosci. 35:2119-2128. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2008.10.016
4. Bockheim, J.G., and A.E. Hartemink. 2013. Soils with fragipans in the USA. Catena 104:233-242. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2012.11.014
5. Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1):5-32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324
6. Brungard, C.W., J.L. Boettinger, M.C. Duniway, S.A. Wills, and T.C. Edwards. 2015. Machine learning for predicting soil classes in three semi-arid landscapes. Geoderma 239:68-83. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.09.019
7. Brus, D.J., B. Kempen, and G.B.M. Heuvelink. 2011. Sampling for validation of digital soil maps. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 62(3):394-407. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01364.x
8. Bui, E. 2003. A strategy to fill gaps in soil survey over large spatial extents: An example from the Murray-Darling basin of Australia. Geoderma 111(01/2003):21-44.
9. Caudle, D., H. Sanchez, J. DiBenedetto, C. Talbot, and M. Karl. 2013. Interagency ecological site handbook for rangelands. USDA-NRCS, USDA-FS, and Dep. of Interior-Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.
10. Chaney, N.W., E.F. Wood, A.B. McBratney, J.W. Hempel, T.W. Nauman, C.W. Brungard, et al. 2016. POLARIS: A 30-meter probabilistic soil series map of the contiguous United States. Geoderma 274:54-67. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.03.025
11. Chen, T., and C. Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. ArXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.02754 (accessed Mar. 2016).
12. Conrad, O, B. Bechtel, M. Bock, H. Dietrich, E. Fischer, L. Gerlitz, et al. 2015. System for automated geoscientific analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1. 4. Geosci. Model Dev. 8(7):1991-2007. doi:10.5194/gmd-8-1991-2015
13. Cutler, D, T.C. Edwards Jr, K.H. Beard, A. Cutler, K.T. Hess, J. Gibson, et al. 2007. Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88(11):2783-2792. doi:10.1890/07-0539.1
14. Daly, C., M. Halbleib, J.I. Smith, W.P. Gibson, M.K. Doggett, G.H. Taylor, et al. 2008. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int. J. Climatol. 28(15):2031-2064. doi:10.1002/joc.1688 de
15. Bruin, S., W.G. Wielemaker, and M. Molenaar. 1999. Formalisation of soillandscape knowledge through interactive hierarchical disaggregation. Geoderma 91(1):151-172. doi:10.1016/S0016-7061(99)00004-X
16. Duniway, M.C., B.T. Bestelmeyer, and A. Tugel. 2010. Soil processes and properties that distinguish ecological sites and states. Rangelands 32(6):9-15. doi:10.2111/Rangelands-D-10-00090.1
17. Duval, J.S., J.M. Carson, P.B. Holman, and A.G. Darnley. 2005. Terrestrial radioactivity and gamma-ray exposure in the United States and Canada. Tech. rept. Open-File Report 2005-1413. USGS, Reston, VA.
18. Fire Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research. 2000. Historical natural fire regimes, Version 2000. Rocky Mountain Research, Missoula, MT.
19. Flagg, C.B., J.C. Neff, R.L. Reynolds, and J. Belnap. 2014. Spatial and temporal patterns of dust emissions (2004-2012) in semi-arid landscapes, southeastern Utah, USA. Aeolian Res. 15:31-43. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2013.10.002
20. Fonnesbeck, B.B. 2015. Digital soil mapping using landscape stratification for arid rangelands in the Eastern Great Basin, Central Utah. Ph.D. diss., Utah State University, Logan.
21. Grossman, R.B., and F.J. Carlisle. 1969. Fragipan soils of the eastern United States. Adv. Agron. 21:237-279. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60099-1
22. Hansen, M.C., P.V. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S.A. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, et al. 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342(6160):850-853. doi:10.1126/science.1244693
23. Hastie, T.J., R.J. Tibshirani, and J.J.H. Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer-Verlag, New York. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7
24. Henderson, B.L., E.N. Bui, C.J. Moran, and D.A.p. Simon. 2004. Australia-wide predictions of soil properties using decision trees. Geoderma 124(3-4):383-398. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.06.007
25. Hengl T., J.M. de Jesus, R.A. MacMillan, N.H. Batjes, G.B. Heuvelink, E. Ribeiro, et al. 2014. SoilGrids1km: Global soil information based on automated mapping. PLoS One 9(8):e105992. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105992
26. Hengl T., J. Mendes de Jesus, G.B. Heuvelink, M. Ruiperez Gonzalez, M. Kilibarda, A. Blagotić, et al. 2017. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One 12(2):e0169748. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169748
27. Homer, C., J. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, et al. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States: Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 81(5):345-354.
28. Kheir, R.B., M.H. Greve, P.K. Bocher, M.B. Greve, R. Larsen, and K. McCloy. 2010. Predictive mapping of soil organic carbon in wet cultivated lands using classification-tree based models: The case study of Denmark. J. Environ. Manage. 91(5):1150-1160. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.01.001
29. Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States. USGS, Reston, VA.
30. Kuhn, M., and K. Johnson. 2013. Applied predictive modeling. Springer, New York. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6849-3
31. Lacoste, M., V.L. Mulder, A.C. Richer-de Forges, M.P. Martin, and D. Arrouays. 2016. Evaluating large-extent spatial modeling approaches: A case study for soil depth for France. Geoderma Regional 7(2):137-152. doi:10.1016/j.geodrs.2016.02.006
32. Latinne, P., O. Debeir, and C. Decaestecker. 2001. Limiting the number of trees in random forests. In: J. Kittler and F. Roli, editors, Multiple classifier systems. Springer, New York. p. 178-187.
33. Miller, M.E., M.A. Bowker, R.L. Reynolds, and H.L. Goldstein. 2012. Post-fire land treatments and wind erosion-lessons from the Milford Flat Fire, UT, USA. Aeolian Res. 7:29-44. doi:10.1016/j.aeolia.2012.04.001
34. Molstad, N.E. 2000. Landscapes, soil morphology and switchgrass management and productivity in the Chariton River Valley, Iowa. Ph.D. diss., Iowa State University, Ames.
35. Mulder, V.L., M. Lacoste, A.C. Richer-de Forges, M.P. Martin, and D. Arrouays. 2016. National versus global modelling the 3D distribution of soil organic carbon in mainland France. Geoderma 263:16-34. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.035
36. National Research Council. 2001. Grand challenges in environmental sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
37. Nauman, T.W., and M.C. Duniway. 2016. The automated reference toolset: A soilgeomorphic ecological potential matching algorithm. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80(5):1317-1328. doi:10.2136/sssaj2016.05.0151
38. Nauman, T.W., and J.A. Thompson. 2014. Semi-automated disaggregation of conventional soil maps using knowledge driven data mining and classification trees. Geoderma 213:385-399. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.024
39. Nauman, T.W., J.A. Thompson, and C. Rasmussen. 2014. Semi-automated disaggregation of a conventional soil map using knowledge driven data mining and random forests in the Sonoran Desert, USA. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sensing 80(4):353-366. doi:10.14358/PERS.80.4.353
40. Nauman, T.W., M.C. Duniway, M.L. Villarreal, and T.B. Poitras. 2017. Disturbance automated reference toolset (DART): Assessing patterns in ecological recovery from energy development on the Colorado Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 584:476-488. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.034
41. Odgers, N.P., Z. Libohova, and J.A. Thompson. 2012. Equal-area spline functions applied to a legacy soil database to create weighted-means maps of soil organic carbon at a continental scale. Geoderma 189:153-163. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.05.026
42. O'Donnel, M.S., and D.A. Ignizio. 2012. Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. USGS data series. USGS, Reston, VAS.
43. Oshiro, T.M., P.S. Perez, and J.A. Baranauskas. 2012. How many trees in a random forest? In: P. Perner, editor, Machine learning and data mining in pattern recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7376. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 154-168.
44. Pekel, J.-F., A. Cottam, N. Gorelick, and A.S. Belward. 2016. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540(7633):418-422. doi:10.1038/nature20584
45. Pontius, R.G., and M. Millones. 2011. Death to Kappa: Birth of quantity disagreement and allocation disagreement for accuracy assessment. Int. J. Remote Sens. 32(15):4407-4429. doi:10.1080/01431161.2011.552923
46. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
47. Rossiter, D.G., R. Zeng, and G.-L. Zhang. 2017. Accounting for taxonomic distance in accuracy assessment of soil class predictions. Geoderma 292:118-127. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.012
48. Roudier, P., A. Ritchie, C. Hedley, and D. Medyckyj-Scott. 2015. The rise of information science: A changing landscape for soil science. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 25. IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/25/1/012023
49. Schoeneberger, P.J. 2012. Field book for describing and sampling soils, Version 3.0. National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE.
50. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basis system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC.
51. Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy, 2010. US Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC
52. Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy, 2014. US Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
53. Soil Survey Staff. 2016. Rapid carbon assessment (RaCa): Methodology, sampling, and summary. USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC.
54. Soller, D.R., and M.C. Reheis. 2004. Surficial materials in the conterminous United States. Open-file Report 03-275. USGS, Reston, VA.
55. Strobl, C., A.-L. Boulesteix, A. Zeileis, and T. Hothorn. 2007. Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics 8(1):25. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-25
56. Stum, A.K., J.L. Boettinger, M.A. White, and R.D. Ramsey. 2010. Random forests applied as a soil spatial predictive model in arid Utah. In: J.L. Boettinger, D.W. Howell, A.C. Moore, A.E. Hartemink, and S. Kienast-Brown, editors, Digital soil mapping. Springer, New York. p. 179-190.
57. Szegedy, C., V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna. 2016. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. Proc. IEEE (6)2818-2826. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2016.308
58. Thompson, J.A., T. Prescott, A.C. Moore, J. Bell, D. Kautz, J. Hempel, S.W. Waltman, and C.H. Perry. 2010. Regional approach to soil property mapping using legacy data and spatial disaggregation techniques. In: R. Gilkes, editor, Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World. 1-6 Aug. 2010, Brisbane, Australia. p. 17-20.
59. Thompson, J.A., T.W. Nauman, N.P. Odgers, Z. Libohova, and J.W. Hempel. 2012. Harmonization of legacy soil maps in North America: Status, trends, and implications for digital soil mapping efforts. In: B. Minasny, B.P. Malone, and A.B. McBratney, editors, Digital soil assessments and beyond: Proceedings of the Fifth Global Workshop on Digital Soil Mapping. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 97-102. doi:10.1201/b12728-21
60. Vaysse, K., and P. Lagacherie. 2015. Evaluating digital soil mapping approaches for mapping GlobalSoilMap soil properties from legacy data in Languedoc- Roussillon (France). Geoderma Regional 4:20-30. doi:10.1016/j.geodrs.2014.11.003
61. Warmerdam, Frank. 2008. The geospatial data abstraction library. In: B. Hall and M.G. Leahy, editors, Open source approaches in spatial data handling. Springer, New York. p. 87-104.
62. Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York.
63. Wills, S., C. Seybold, J. Chiaretti, C. Sequeira, and L. West. 2013. Quantifying tacit knowledge about soil organic carbon stocks using soil taxa and official soil series descriptions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77(5):1711-1723. doi:10.2136/sssaj2012.0168
64. Wilson, A.M., and W. Jetz. 2016. Remotely sensed high-resolution global cloud dynamics for predicting ecosystem and biodiversity distributions. PLoS Biol. 14(3):e1002415. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002415
65. Wright, M.N., and A. Ziegler. 2017. Ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. J. Stat. Softw. 77(1):1-17. doi:10.18637/jss.v077.i01