the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Compositional balance should be considered in the mapping of soil particle-size fractions using hybrid interpolators
Abstract. Digital soil mapping of soil particle-size fractions (PSFs) using log-ratio methods is a widely used technique. As a hybrid interpolator, regression kriging (RK) provides a way to improve prediction accuracy. However, there have been few comparisons with other techniques when RK is applied for compositional data, and it is not known if its performance based on different balances of isometric log-ratio (ILR) transformation is robust. Here, we compared the generalized linear model (GLM), random forest (RF), and their hybrid patterns (RK) using different transformed data based on three ILR balances, with 29 environmental covariables (ECs) for the prediction of soil PSFs in the upper reaches of the Heihe River Basin (HRB), China. The results showed that the RF performed best, with more accurate predictions, but the GLM produced a more unbiased prediction. As a hybrid interpolator, RK was recommended because it widened the data ranges of the prediction values, and modified the bias and accuracy of most models, especially the RF. The prediction maps generated from RK revealed more details of the soil sampling points than the other models. Different data distributions were produced for the three ILR balances. Using the most abundant component of the compositional data as the first component of the permutations was not considered to be the right choice because it produced the worst performance. Based on the relative abundance of the components, we recommend that the focus should be on data distribution. This study provides a reference for the mapping of soil PSFs combined with transformed data at the regional scale.
- Preprint
(2122 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(679 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-86', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jun 2021
Dear authors please see the following comments: I think the major problem is the presentation of an extended uncertainty analysis.
1) why 29 ECs and not groups of categorical and continuous or mixture of them, a test is needed like PCA and others
2) Â It is not clear mathematically how you apply the proposed methodologies
3) For RK: you should provide more details about the RK process: regression type, variogram types, parameters, nugget, fitting method, suitability of data for geostatistical analysis e.t.c
4) Table 2 needs better explanation
5) It is not explained how the uncertainty has been calculated. A more clear and extended presentation and calculation of uncertainty is required.
6) Generally  different algorithms have been applied but it is unclear how the uncertainty propagation affects the final results
7) The mixture of categorical and continues data needs more explanation in terms of methods applications and uncertainty of the resultsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-86-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
Dear Referee,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Our manuscript has been reviewed. We appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Compositional balance should be considered in the mapping of soil particle-size fractions using hybrid interpolators” (ID: hess-2021-86). We have studied the referee’s comments carefully and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. Attached please find the revised version and the response to the referee, which we would like to resubmit for your kind consideration. We are looking forward to your response soon. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely,
Wenjiao Shi
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, 100101 Beijing, China Tel.: +86 10 64888890 E-mail address: shiwj@lreis.ac.cnÂ
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-86', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2021
General comments:
The topic of the paper is relevant, but the study has limitations and weaknesses that should be tackled.
Specific comments:
1) The literature review in the Introduction is wide, but not well organized and structured. I suggest reorganizing and rephrasing it to improve readability.
2) In the Introduction it is mentioned that “It has been proven in statistical science that different results are obtained using different choices of ILR balances”, but no references are provided to support this claim. Please, add references of works where the influence of the choice of ILR balances on the results is demonstrated.
3) In equations (7) and (8), are M_i and P_i (D-1)- vectors? If so, the expressions (7) and (8) should account for that. Otherwise, their meaning should be better explained.
4) Are the differences found in the indicators significant? The comparisons reported (for example in Sections 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2) should be based on statistical tests to verify the statistical significance of the differences observed in the indicators. The significance of the differences should also be taken into consideration in the grading of the three SBP at the end of Section 3.2, otherwise the results shown in Figure 5 may be misleading.
5) The authors should carefully check the English for grammar errors throughout the manuscript. A serious editing and proof-reading are required.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-86-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
Dear Referee,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Our manuscript has been reviewed. We appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Compositional balance should be considered in the mapping of soil particle-size fractions using hybrid interpolators” (ID: hess-2021-86). We have studied the referee’s comments carefully and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. Attached please find the revised version and the response to the referee, which we would like to resubmit for your kind consideration. We are looking forward to your response soon. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely,
Wenjiao Shi
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, 100101 Beijing, China Tel.: +86 10 64888890 E-mail address: shiwj@lreis.ac.cn
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-86', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Jun 2021
Dear authors please see the following comments: I think the major problem is the presentation of an extended uncertainty analysis.
1) why 29 ECs and not groups of categorical and continuous or mixture of them, a test is needed like PCA and others
2) Â It is not clear mathematically how you apply the proposed methodologies
3) For RK: you should provide more details about the RK process: regression type, variogram types, parameters, nugget, fitting method, suitability of data for geostatistical analysis e.t.c
4) Table 2 needs better explanation
5) It is not explained how the uncertainty has been calculated. A more clear and extended presentation and calculation of uncertainty is required.
6) Generally  different algorithms have been applied but it is unclear how the uncertainty propagation affects the final results
7) The mixture of categorical and continues data needs more explanation in terms of methods applications and uncertainty of the resultsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-86-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
Dear Referee,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Our manuscript has been reviewed. We appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Compositional balance should be considered in the mapping of soil particle-size fractions using hybrid interpolators” (ID: hess-2021-86). We have studied the referee’s comments carefully and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. Attached please find the revised version and the response to the referee, which we would like to resubmit for your kind consideration. We are looking forward to your response soon. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely,
Wenjiao Shi
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, 100101 Beijing, China Tel.: +86 10 64888890 E-mail address: shiwj@lreis.ac.cnÂ
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-86', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2021
General comments:
The topic of the paper is relevant, but the study has limitations and weaknesses that should be tackled.
Specific comments:
1) The literature review in the Introduction is wide, but not well organized and structured. I suggest reorganizing and rephrasing it to improve readability.
2) In the Introduction it is mentioned that “It has been proven in statistical science that different results are obtained using different choices of ILR balances”, but no references are provided to support this claim. Please, add references of works where the influence of the choice of ILR balances on the results is demonstrated.
3) In equations (7) and (8), are M_i and P_i (D-1)- vectors? If so, the expressions (7) and (8) should account for that. Otherwise, their meaning should be better explained.
4) Are the differences found in the indicators significant? The comparisons reported (for example in Sections 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2) should be based on statistical tests to verify the statistical significance of the differences observed in the indicators. The significance of the differences should also be taken into consideration in the grading of the three SBP at the end of Section 3.2, otherwise the results shown in Figure 5 may be misleading.
5) The authors should carefully check the English for grammar errors throughout the manuscript. A serious editing and proof-reading are required.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-86-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
Dear Referee,
On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. Our manuscript has been reviewed. We appreciate the editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Compositional balance should be considered in the mapping of soil particle-size fractions using hybrid interpolators” (ID: hess-2021-86). We have studied the referee’s comments carefully and we have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments and suggestions. Attached please find the revised version and the response to the referee, which we would like to resubmit for your kind consideration. We are looking forward to your response soon. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely,
Wenjiao Shi
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, 100101 Beijing, China Tel.: +86 10 64888890 E-mail address: shiwj@lreis.ac.cn
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Wenjiao Shi, 18 Aug 2021
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
713 | 279 | 51 | 1,043 | 121 | 34 | 59 |
- HTML: 713
- PDF: 279
- XML: 51
- Total: 1,043
- Supplement: 121
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 59
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1