the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Compositional balance should be considered in soil particle-size fractions mapping using hybrid interpolators
Mo Zhang
Wenjiao Shi
Abstract. Digital soil mapping of soil particle-size fractions (PSFs) using log-ratio methods has been widely used. As a hybrid interpolator, regression kriging (RK) is an alternative way to improve prediction accuracy. However, there is still a lack of systematic comparison and recommendation when RK was applied for compositional data. Whether performance based on different balances of isometric log-ratio (ILR) transformation is robust. Here, we systematically compared the generalized linear model (GLM), random forest (RF), and their hybrid pattern (RK) using different balances of ILR transformed data of soil PSFs with 29 environmental covariables for prediction of soil PSFs on the upper reaches of the Heihe River Basin. The results showed that RF had better performance with more accurate predictions, but GLM had a more unbiased prediction. For the hybrid interpolators, RK was recommended because it widened data ranges of the prediction results, and modified bias and accuracy for most models, especially for RF. The drawback, however, existed due to the data distributions and model algorithms. Moreover, prediction maps generated from RK demonstrated more details of soil sampling points. Three ILR transformed data based on sequential binary partitions (SBP) made different distributions, and it is not recommended to use the most abundant component of compositions as the first component of permutations. This study can reference spatial simulation of soil PSFs combined with environmental covariables and transformed data at a regional scale.
- Preprint
(2764 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1151 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Mo Zhang and Wenjiao Shi


-
RC1: 'Comments on the manuscript', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2020
-
AC1: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #1', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
-
AC1: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #1', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
-
RC2: 'Referee Report', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2020
-
AC2: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #2', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
-
AC2: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #2', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020


-
RC1: 'Comments on the manuscript', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2020
-
AC1: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #1', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
-
AC1: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #1', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
-
RC2: 'Referee Report', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Oct 2020
-
AC2: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #2', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
-
AC2: 'Response to the Anonymous Referee #2', Wenjiao Shi, 24 Nov 2020
Mo Zhang and Wenjiao Shi
Mo Zhang and Wenjiao Shi
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
556 | 191 | 21 | 768 | 111 | 20 | 21 |
- HTML: 556
- PDF: 191
- XML: 21
- Total: 768
- Supplement: 111
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1