2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.08.013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Supplemental sampling for digital soil mapping based on prediction uncertainty from both the feature domain and the spatial domain

Abstract: This paper presents an uncertainty-directed sampling method that can be used to design additional samples for soil mapping. The method is based on uncertainty from both the feature domain (the domain of relationships with environmental covariates) and the spatial domain (the domain of spatial autocorrelation). Existing soil samples are also taken into account. The method comprises three steps: 1) the selection of a ranked list of additional sample locations based on uncertainty from the feature domain using in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
(61 reference statements)
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, the spatial structure of the parameters is being observed. The geostatistical method of kriging is widely applied in the mapping of soil attributes in unsampled areas [50]. At the same time, this enables quantification of the main spatial characteristic of soil attributes and spatial interpolation methods considering only the neighbouring points of estimation data [51,52].…”
Section: Krigingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the spatial structure of the parameters is being observed. The geostatistical method of kriging is widely applied in the mapping of soil attributes in unsampled areas [50]. At the same time, this enables quantification of the main spatial characteristic of soil attributes and spatial interpolation methods considering only the neighbouring points of estimation data [51,52].…”
Section: Krigingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The same results were observed by Kidd et al (2015), suggesting that maps should be created with continuous improvements, from the input of newly collected data. Prediction uncertainty can help to choose supplemental sampling to improve the DSM (Li et al, 2016). Figure 6.…”
Section: -D Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The uncertainty computed based on the representativeness of a sample point to a prediction point as expressed in similarity between the geographic configuration of the sample and that of the prediction point is extremely useful not only in assessing the quality of the results from spatial prediction but also in allocating error reduction efforts (Zhang et al 2016;Li et al 2016). This uncertainty is different from the error variance of prediction from the Kriging family of models in that the Kriging family of methods report the error variance of prediction due to the spatial distribution of samples while the uncertainty computed based on the Third Law measures how well the various geographic configurations in the study area have been represented by the configurations already captured by the sample points.…”
Section: Differences From the First Law And The Second Law Of Geographymentioning
confidence: 99%