IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i6p3270-d517877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Study on Spatial Digital Mapping Methods of Soil Nutrients Based on Different Geospatial Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Li Gao

    (College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China)

  • Mingjing Huang

    (Dryland Agriculture Research Center, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taiyuan 030031, China)

  • Wuping Zhang

    (College of Software, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China)

  • Lei Qiao

    (College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China)

  • Guofang Wang

    (College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China)

  • Xumeng Zhang

    (College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu 030801, China)

Abstract

Soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), available phosphorus (AP), and available potassium (AK) are important indicators of soil fertility when undertaking a quality evaluation. Obtaining a high-precision spatial distribution map of soil nutrients is of great significance for the differentiated management of nutrient resources and reducing non-point source pollution. However, the spatial heterogeneity of soil nutrients lead to uncertainty in the modeling process. To determine the best interpolation method, terrain, climate, and vegetation factors were used as auxiliary variables to participate in the investigation of soil nutrient spatial modeling in the present study. We used the mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and accuracy (Acc) of a dataset to comprehensively compare the performance of four different geospatial techniques: ordinary kriging (OK), regression kriging (RK), geographically weighted regression kriging (GWRK), and multiscale geographically weighted regression kriging (MGWRK). The results showed that the hybrid methods (RK, GWRK, and MGWRK) could improve the prediction accuracy to a certain extent when the residuals were spatially correlated; however, this improvement was not significant. The new MGWRK model has certain advantages in reducing the overall residual level, but it failed to achieve the desired accuracy. Considering the cost of modeling, the OK method still provides an interpolation method with a relatively simple analysis process and relatively reliable results. Therefore, it may be more beneficial to design soil sampling rationally and obtain higher-quality auxiliary variable data than to seek complex statistical methods to improve spatial prediction accuracy. This research provides a reference for the spatial mapping of soil nutrients at the farmland scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Gao & Mingjing Huang & Wuping Zhang & Lei Qiao & Guofang Wang & Xumeng Zhang, 2021. "Comparative Study on Spatial Digital Mapping Methods of Soil Nutrients Based on Different Geospatial Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3270-:d:517877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3270/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/6/3270/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Agostinelli, 2002. "Robust stepwise regression," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(6), pages 825-840.
    2. A. Stewart Fotheringham & Wenbai Yang & Wei Kang, 2017. "Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR)," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(6), pages 1247-1265, November.
    3. Daniel P. McMillen, 2004. "Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 554-556.
    4. Eric A. Davidson & Ivan A. Janssens, 2006. "Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 440(7081), pages 165-173, March.
    5. Daisuke Murakami & Binbin Lu & Paul Harris & Chris Brunsdon & Martin Charlton & Tomoki Nakaya & Daniel A. Griffith, 2019. "The Importance of Scale in Spatially Varying Coefficient Modeling," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(1), pages 50-70, January.
    6. Chang‐Lin Mei & Shu‐Yuan He & Kai‐Tai Fang, 2004. "A Note on the Mixed Geographically Weighted Regression Model," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 143-157, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guannan Cui & Yanfeng Liu & Pengfei Wang & Xinyu Bai & Haitao Wang & Yiming Xu & Meiqiong Yang & Liming Dong, 2022. "Distribution Characteristics and Risk Assessment of Agricultural Land Use Non-Point Source Pollution in Typical Biofuel Ethanol Planting Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Yujiao Chen & Zhengbo Luo, 2022. "Hedonic Pricing of Houses in Megacities Pre- and Post-COVID-19: A Case Study of Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Feng & Mei, Chang-Lin, 2021. "Scale-adaptive estimation of mixed geographically weighted regression models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 737-747.
    2. Paul Harris & Bruno Lanfranco & Binbin Lu & Alexis Comber, 2020. "Influence of Geographical Effects in Hedonic Pricing Models for Grass-Fed Cattle in Uruguay," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Rongjun Cheng & Wenbao Zeng & Xingjian Wu & Fuzhou Chen & Baobin Miao, 2024. "Exploring the Influence of the Built Environment on the Demand for Online Car-Hailing Services Using a Multi-Scale Geographically and Temporally Weighted Regression Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Burhan Can Karahasan & Mehmet Pinar, 2023. "Climate change and spatial agricultural development in Turkey," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 1699-1720, August.
    5. Pengyu Liu & Chao Wu & Miaomiao Chen & Xinyue Ye & Yunfei Peng & Sheng Li, 2020. "A Spatiotemporal Analysis of the Effects of Urbanization’s Socio-Economic Factors on Landscape Patterns Considering Operational Scales," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Cem Ertur & Julie Le Gallo, 2008. "Regional Growth and Convergence: Heterogenous reaction versus interaction in spatial econometric approaches," Working Papers hal-00463274, HAL.
    7. Chang-Lin Mei & Feng Chen & Wen-Tao Wang & Peng-Cheng Yang & Si-Lian Shen, 2021. "Efficient estimation of heteroscedastic mixed geographically weighted regression models," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 66(1), pages 185-206, February.
    8. Yanzhao Wang & Jianfei Cao, 2023. "Examining the Effects of Socioeconomic Development on Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in China’s Cities Based on Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis and MGWR Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-23, February.
    9. Liu, Yan & Wang, Siqin & Xie, Bin, 2019. "Evaluating the effects of public transport fare policy change together with built and non-built environment features on ridership: The case in South East Queensland, Australia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 78-89.
    10. Md. Zonayet & Alok Kumar Paul & Md. Faisal-E-Alam & Khalid Syfullah & Rui Alexandre Castanho & Daniel Meyer, 2023. "Impact of Biochar as a Soil Conditioner to Improve the Soil Properties of Saline Soil and Productivity of Tomato," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    11. Wang, Xiaoxi & Zhang, Yaojun & Yu, Danlin & Qi, Jinghan & Li, Shujing, 2022. "Investigating the spatiotemporal pattern of urban vibrancy and its determinants: Spatial big data analyses in Beijing, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Hengyu Gu & Hanchen Yu & Mehak Sachdeva & Ye Liu, 2021. "Analyzing the distribution of researchers in China: An approach using multiscale geographically weighted regression," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 443-459, March.
    13. S . K. Oni & F. Mieres & M. N. Futter & H. Laudon, 2017. "Soil temperature responses to climate change along a gradient of upland–riparian transect in boreal forest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 27-41, July.
    14. Elena A. Mikhailova & Garth R. Groshans & Christopher J. Post & Mark A. Schlautman & Gregory C. Post, 2019. "Valuation of Soil Organic Carbon Stocks in the Contiguous United States Based on the Avoided Social Cost of Carbon Emissions," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, August.
    15. Shichao Lu & Zhihua Zhang & M. James C. Crabbe & Prin Suntichaikul, 2024. "Effects of Urban Land-Use Planning on Housing Prices in Chiang Mai, Thailand," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-13, July.
    16. Jin, Peizhen & Mangla, Sachin Kumar & Song, Malin, 2021. "Moving towards a sustainable and innovative city: Internal urban traffic accessibility and high-level innovation based on platform monitoring data," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    17. Chunfang Zhao & Yingliang Wu & Yunfeng Chen & Guohua Chen, 2023. "Multiscale Effects of Hedonic Attributes on Airbnb Listing Prices Based on MGWR: A Case Study of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    18. Hongli Liu & Xiaoyu Yan & Jinhua Cheng & Jun Zhang & Yan Bu, 2021. "Driving Factors for the Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity in Technical Efficiency of China’s New Energy Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Zhenghu Zhou & Chengjie Ren & Chuankuan Wang & Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo & Yiqi Luo & Zhongkui Luo & Zhenggang Du & Biao Zhu & Yuanhe Yang & Shuo Jiao & Fazhu Zhao & Andong Cai & Gaihe Yang & Gehong We, 2024. "Global turnover of soil mineral-associated and particulate organic carbon," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Zeyang Zhao & Peng Dong & Bo Fu & Dan Wu & Zhizhong Zhao, 2024. "Labile Fraction of Organic Carbon in Soils from Natural and Plantation Forests of Tropical China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-12, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:6:p:3270-:d:517877. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.