Comparing three approaches of spatial disaggregation of legacy soil maps based on the Disaggregation and Harmonisation of Soil Map Units Through Resampled Classification Trees (DSMART) algorithm

• Main Authors: Y. Ellili-Bargaoui, B. P. Malone, D. Michot, B. Minasny, S. Vincent, C. Walter, B. Lemercier
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2020-08-01
• Series: SOIL
• Online Access: https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/6/371/2020/soil-6-371-2020.pdf

<p>Enhancing the spatial resolution of pedological information is a great challenge in the field of digital soil mapping (DSM). Several techniques have emerged to disaggregate conventional soil maps initially and are available at a coarser spatial resolution than required for solving environmental and agricultural issues. At the regional level, polygon maps represent soil cover as a tessellation of polygons defining soil map units (SMUs), where each SMU can include one or several soil type units (STUs) with given proportions derived from expert knowledge. Such polygon maps can be disaggregated at a finer spatial resolution by machine-learning algorithms, using the Disaggregation and Harmonisation of Soil Map Units Through Resampled Classification Trees (DSMART) algorithm. This study aimed to compare three approaches of the spatial disaggregation of legacy soil maps based on DSMART decision trees to test the hypothesis that the disaggregation of soil landscape distribution rules may improve the accuracy of the resulting soil maps. Overall, two modified DSMART algorithms (DSMART with extra soil profiles; DSMART with soil landscape relationships) and the original DSMART algorithm were tested. The quality of disaggregated soil maps at a 50&thinsp;m resolution was assessed over a large study area (6775&thinsp;km<span class="inline-formula">²</span>) using an external validation based on 135 independent soil profiles selected by probability sampling, 755 legacy soil profiles and existing detailed <span class="inline-formula">1:25 000</span> soil maps. Pairwise comparisons were also performed, using the Shannon entropy measure, to spatially locate the differences between disaggregated maps. The main results show that adding soil landscape relationships to the disaggregation process enhances the performance of the prediction of soil type distribution. Considering the three most probable STUs and using 135 independent soil profiles, the overall accuracy measures (the percentage of soil profiles where predictions meet observations) are 19.8&thinsp;% for DSMART with expert rules against 18.1&thinsp;% for the original DSMART and 16.9&thinsp;% for DSMART with extra soil profiles. These measures were almost 2 times higher when validated using <span class="inline-formula">3×3</span> windows. They achieved 28.5&thinsp;% for DSMART with soil landscape relationships and 25.3&thinsp;% and 21&thinsp;% for original DSMART and DSMART with extra soil observations, respectively. In general, adding soil landscape relationships and extra soil observations constraints allow the model to predict a specific STU that can occur in specific environmental conditions. Thus, including global soil landscape expert rules in the DSMART algorithm is crucial for obtaining consistent soil maps with a clear internal disaggregation of SMUs across the landscape.</p>