Comparing spatial and non-spatial approaches for predicting forest soil organic carbon at unsampled locations
Palavras-chave:
Forest soil carbon, Geostatistics, Regression, Co-kriging, New Jersey, Coastal PlainResumo
Prediction of soil organic carbon (SOC) at unsampled locations is central to statistical modeling of regional SOC stocks. This is often accomplished by applying geostatistical techniques to plot inventory data. However, in many cases inventory data is sparsely sampled (<0.1 plots/km^2) relative to the region of interest, and it is unknown if geostatistics provides any advantage. Our objective was to test whether modeling spatial autocorrelation, in multivariate and univariate predictive models, improved estimates of SOC at prediction locations based on sparsely-sampled inventory data. We conducted our study using a dataset sampled across all forested land in the Coastal Plain physiographic province of New Jersey, USA. We considered five models for predicting SOC, two linear regression models (intercept only and multiple regression with predictor variables), ordinary kriging (a univariate spatial approach), and two multivariate spatial methods (regression kriging and co-kriging). We conducted a simulation study in which we compared the predictive performance (in terms of root mean squared error) of all five models. Our results suggest that our sparsely-sampled SOC data exhibits no spatial structure (Moran’s I=0.05, p=0.39), though several of the covariates are spatially autocorrelated. Multiple linear regression had the best performance in the simulation study, while co-kriging performed the worst. Our results suggest that when inventory data is dispersed across the region of interest, modeling spatial autocorrelation does not provide significant advantage for predicting SOC at unsampled locations. However, it is unknown whether this autocorrelation does not exist at broad scales, or if sparse sampling strategies are unable to detect it. We conclude that in these situations, multiple regression provides a straightforward alternative to predicting SOC for mapping studies, but that more work on the spatial structure of soil carbon across multiple scales is needed.Referências
Banerjee, S., B. P. Carlin, and A. E. Gelfand. 2004. Hierarchical Modeling and Analysis for Spatial Data. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL. 472 p.
Barling, R., I. D. Moore, and R. B. Grayson. 1994. A quasi-dynamic wetness index for characterizing the spatial distribution of zones of surface saturation and soil water content. Water Resour. Res. 30:1029-1044.
Bernoux, M., D. Arrouays, C. E., P. Cerri, and C. C. Cerri. 2006. Regional organic carbon storage maps of the western Brazilian Amazon based on prior soil maps and geostatistical interpolation. Dev. Soil Sci. 31:497-506.
Birdsey, R. A. 1992. Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-59. 55 p.
Blake, G. R., and K. H. Hartge. 1986. Bulk Density. P.377-382 in Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, A. Klute (ed.). American Society of Agronomy, Inc.; Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison, WI, USA.
Cannell, M. G. R., R. C. Dewar, and J. H. M. Thornley. 1992. Carbon flux and storage in European forest. P. 256-271 in Responses of Forest Ecosystems to Environmental Changes, A. Teller, P. Mathy, and J. N. R. Jeffers (eds.). Elsevier, London.
Cerri, C. C., M. Bernoux, D. Arrouays, B. J. Feigl, and M. C. Piccolo. 2000. Carbon Stocks in Soils of the Brazilian Amazon. in Global climate change and tropical ecosystems, R. Lal, M. Kimble, and B. A. Stewart (eds.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Chapin, F. S., P. A. Matson, and H. A. Mooney. 2002. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer Science & Business Media Inc., New York, NY. 350 p.
Chen, F., D. E. Kissel, L. T. West, and W. Adkins. 2000a. Field-scale mapping of surface soil organic carbon using remotely sensed imagery. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:746-753.
Chen, W., J. Chen, J. Liu, and J. Cihlar. 2000b. Approaches for reducing uncertainties in regional forest carbon balance. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 14:827-838.
Chiles, J., and P. Delfiner. 1999. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty. Wiley, New York. 734 p.
De Vos, B., B. Vandecasteele, J. Deckers, and B. Muys. 2005. Capability of loss-on-ignition as a predictor of total organic carbon in non-calcaerous forest soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Analysis 36:2899-2921.
Edwards, D.P., B. Fisher, and E. Boyd. 2010. Protecting degraded rainforests: enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD+. Conserv. Letters 3:313-316.
Finley, A. O., S. Banerjee, and R. E. McRoberts. 2007. A Bayesian approach to multi-source forest area estimation. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 15:241-258.
Finley, A. O., S. Banerjee, and D. W. Macfarlane. 2011. A hierarchical model for quantifying forest variables over large heterogeneous landscapes with uncertain forest areas. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 106:31-48.
Fortin, M.J., P. Drapeau, and P. Legendre. 1989. Spatial autocorrelation and sampling design in plant ecology. Vegetatio. 83:209-222.
Garten J., C. T., S. Kang, D. J. Brice, C. W. Schadt, and J. Zhou. 2007. Variability in soil properties at different spatial scales (1m-1km) in a deciduous forest ecosystem. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39:2621-2627.
Gelfand, A. E., A. M. Schmidt, S. Banerjee, and C. F. Sirmans. 2004. Nonstationary Multivariate Process Modeling Through Spatially Varying Coregionalization. Test. 13:263-312.
Gonzalez, O. J., and D. R. Zak. 1994. Geostatistical analysis of soil properties in a secondary tropical dry forest, St. Lucia, West Indies. Plant and Soil. 163:45-54.
Goodale, C. L., M. J. Apps, R. A. Birdsey, C. B. Field, L. S. Heath, R. A. Houghton, J. C. Jenkins, et al. 2002. Forest Carbon Sinks in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecol. App. 12:891-899.
Goovaerts, P. 1997. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation. Oxford University Press, New York. 496 p.
Hasse, J. E., and R. G. Lathrop. 2010. Changing Landscapes in the Garden State: Urban Growth and Open Space Loss in NJ 1986 thru 2007. Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Hengl, T., G. Heuvelink, and A. Stein. 2003. Comparison of kriging with external drift and regression kriging. Technical Report, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede. 18 p.
Hengl, T., G. Heuvelink, and A. Stein. 2004. A generic framework for spatial prediction of soil variables based on regression-kriging. Geoderma 120:75-93.
Houghton, R. a. 2003. Why are estimates of the terrestrial carbon balance so different? Glob. Change Biol. 9:500-509.
Isaaks, E. H., and M. Srivastava. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 592 p.
Jones, R. J. A., R. Hiederer, E. Rusco, P. J. Loveland, and L. Montanarella. 2005. Estimating soil organic carbon in the soils of Europe for policy support. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 56:655-671.
Konen, M. E., P. M. Jacobs, C. L. Burras, B. J. Talaga, and J. A. Mason. 2002. Equations for predicting soil organic carbon using loss-on-ignition for North Central U.S. soils. Soil Sci. Am. J. 66:1878-1881.
Lal, R. 2008. Carbon sequestration. Philos. T. Roy. B. 363:815-30.
Lark, R. M. 2000. Regression analysis with spatially autocorrelated error: simulation studies and application to mapping of soil organic matter. J. Geogr. Info. Sci. 14:247-264.
Liski, J., and C. J. Westman. 1997. Carbon storage in forest soil of Finland. Biogeochemistry 36:261-274.
Liski, J., D. Perruchoud, and T. Karjalainen. 2002. Increasing carbon stocks in the forest soils of western Europe. Forest Ecol. Manag. 169:159-175.
Lister, A. J., P. P. Mou, R. H. Jones, and R. J. Mitchell. 2000. Spatial patterns of soil and vegetation in a 40-year-old slash pine (Pinus elliottii) forest in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina, U.S.A. Can. J. For. Res. 30:145-155.
Liu, D., Z. Wang, B. Zhang, K. Song, X. Li, J. Li, F. Li, and H. Duan. 2006. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and analysis of related factors in croplands of the black soil region, Northeast China. Agric., Ecosyst. Environ. 113:73-81.
Maniatis, D., and D. Mollicone. 2010. Options for sampling and stratification for national forest inventories to implement REDD+ under the UNFCC. Carbon Balance Manage. 5:9-16.
McGrath, D., and C. Zhang. 2003. Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon concentrations in grassland of Ireland. Appl. Geochem. 18:1629-1639.
Mishra, U., R. Lal, D. Liu, and M. Van Meirvenne. 2010. Predicting the Spatial Variation of the Soil Organic Carbon Pool at a Regional Scale. Soil Sci. Am. J. 74:906.
Moore, I. D., R. B. Grayson, and A. R. Ladson. 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrol. Process. 5:3-30.
Mueller, T. G., and F. J. Pierce. 2003. Soil Carbon Maps: Enhancing Spatial Estimates with Simple Terrain Attributes at Multiple Scales. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67:258-267.
Odeh, I., A. McBratney, and D. Chittleborough. 1994. Further results on prediction of soil properties from terrain attributes: heterotropic cokriging and regression-kriging. Geoderma. 63:197-214.
Pan, Y., R. A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. A. Houghton, P. E. Kauppi, W. A. Kurz, O. L. Phillips, et al. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science 333:988-993.
Pebesma, E. J. 2004. Multivariable geostatistics in S: the gstat package. Comput. Geosci. 30:683-691.
Ribeiro, P. J., and P. J. Diggle. 2001. geoR: a package for geostatistical analysis. R-NEWS. 1:15-18.
Robertson, G. P., J. R. Crum, and B. G. Ellis. 1993. The spatial variability of soil resources following long-term disturbance. Oecologia 96:451-456.
Shvidenko, A., D. Schepaschenko, I. McCallum, and S. Nilsson. 2010. Can the uncertainty of full carbon accounting of forest ecosystems be made acceptable to policymakers? Clim. Change 103:137-157.
Simbahan, G. C., A. Dobermann, P. Goovaerts, J. Ping, and M. L. Haddix. 2006. Fine-resolution mapping of soil organic carbon based on multivariate secondary data. Geoderma. 132:471-489.
Stein, M. 1999. Spatial Interpolation, Some Theory for Kriging. Spring-Verlag, New York. 249 p.
Tedrow, J. C. F. 1986. The Soils of New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station publication no. A-15134-1-82. 456 p.
Vasques, G. M., S. Grunwald, J. O. Sickman, and N. B. Comerford. 2010. Upscaling of Dynamic Soil Organic Carbon Pools in a North-Central Florida Watershed. Soil Sci. Am. J. 74:870.
Vasques, G. M., S. Grunwald, and D. B. Myers. 2012. Associations between soil carbon and ecological landscape variables at escalating spatial scales in Florida, USA. Landscape Ecol. 27:355-367.
Wackernagel, H. 1998. Multivariate Geostatistics: An Introduction With Applications, 2nd Ed. Springer, Berlin. 403 p.
Wang, H., C. S. Hall, J. D. Cornell, and M. P. H. Hall. 2002. Spatial dependence and the relationship of soil organic carbon and soil moisture in the Luquillo Experimental Forest, Puerto Rico. Landscape Ecol. 17:671-684.
Worsham, L., D. Markewitz, and N. Nibbelink. 2010. Incorporating spatial dependence into estimates of soil carbon contents under different land covers. Soil Sci. Am. J. 74:635-646.
Zhang, C., Y. Tang, X. Xu, and G. Kiely. 2011. Towards spatial geochemical modelling: Use of geographically weighted regression for mapping soil organic carbon contents in Ireland. Appl. Geochem. 26:1239-1248.
Zhang, W., K. Wang, H. Chen, X. He, and J. Zhang. 2012. Ancillary information improves kriging on soil organic carbon data for a typical karst peak cluster depression landscape. J. Sci. Food Agric. 92:1094-1102.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) following the publication by the journal, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
