1 in situ characterization of soil clay content with ......2 22 in situ characterization of soil...
Post on 13-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
In Situ Characterization of Soil Clay Content with Visible Near-Infrared 1 Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy 2
3 Travis H. Waiser, Cristine L.S. Morgan*, David J. Brown, and C. Tom Hallmark 4
5
T.H. Waiser, C.L.S. Morgan, and C.T. Hallmark Dep. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas 6 A&M University, 2474 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2474. D. J. Brown, Dep. of 7 Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, PO Box 8 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120. Received 06 June 2006. *Corresponding author 9 (cmorgan@ag.tamu.edu). 10
KEYWORDS 11 Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy; in situ; VNIR; PLS regression; clay content; water 12 potential 13 14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 15
The authors would like to thank the Texas Water Resource Institute and Texas 16
Agricultural Experiment Station for their financial support. The extension agents from 17
Erath and Comanche County, Texas were instrumental in putting us in contact with 18
landowners of the study sites. We appreciate the work the Texas Agricultural 19
Experiment Station Soil Characterization Laboratory did in running some of the analyses 20
especially Dr. Richard Drees and Ms. Donna Prochaska. 21
2
In Situ Characterization of Soil Clay Content with Visible Near-Infrared 22
Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy 23
ABSTRACT 24
Visible and near-infrared (VNIR, 400-2500 nm) diffuse reflectance spectroscopy 25
(DRS) is a rapid, proximal-sensing method that has proven useful in quantifying 26
constituents of dried and ground soil samples. However, very little is known about how 27
DRS performs in a field setting on soils scanned in-situ. The overall goal of this research 28
was to evaluate the feasibility of VNIR-DRS for in situ quantification of clay content of 29
soil from a variety of parent materials. Seventy-two soil cores were obtained from six 30
fields in Erath and Comanche Counties, Texas. Each soil core was scanned with a visible 31
near-infrared spectrometer, with a spectral range of 350-2500 nm, at four different 32
combinations of moisture content and pre-treatment: field-moist in situ, air-dried in situ, 33
field-moist smeared in situ, and air-dried ground. The VNIR spectra were used to predict 34
total and fine clay content of the soil using partial least squares (PLS) regression. The 35
PLS model was validated with 30% of the original soil cores that were randomly selected 36
and not used in the calibration model. The validation clay predictions had a root mean 37
squared deviation (RMSD) of 61 g kg-1 and 41 g kg-1 dry soil for the field-moist and air-38
dried in situ cores, respectively. The RMSD of the air-dry ground samples was between 39
the two in situ RMSDs and comparable to values in the literature. Smearing the samples 40
increased the field-moist in situ RMSD to 74 g kg-1. Whole-field holdout validation 41
results showed that soils from all parent materials need to be represented in the 42
calibration samples for maximum predictability. In summary, DRS is an acceptable 43
3
technique for rapidly measuring soil clay content in situ at variable water contents and 44
parent materials. 45
46
Abbreviations: DRS, diffuse reflectance spectroscopy; N, the total number of samples in 47
the validation data; PLS, partial least squares; RMSD, root mean squared deviation; RPD, 48
ratio of standard deviation to RMSD; SD, standard deviation; VNIR, visible and near-49
infrared; Ypred, predicted values of the validation set using the PLS model; and Ymeas, 50
laboratory measurements of the validation set. 51
52
INTRODUCTION 53
The resolution of a 1:24,000 scale soil survey map is too coarse to capture soil 54
variability within soil mapping units and transitions between soil mapping units. 55
However, soil maps that capture soil variability at a 10-50-m scale are necessary for 56
resource management such as, precision agriculture, non-point source pollution 57
modeling, and resource use planning (Pachepsky et al., 2001; Ellert et al., 2002). 58
Researchers have used external landscape features such as terrain modeling, soil surface 59
reflectance, vegetative cover, and rapid surface sensing techniques like electromagnetic 60
devices to capture the spatial variability of soil properties across landscapes followed by 61
collecting soil cores and laboratory analyses of those cores for model calibration and 62
validation (Moore et al., 1993; Sudduth et al., 1997; Zhu et al., 1997, McBratney et al., 63
2003, Zhu et al., 2004). Each of these methods has the advantage of creating a high-64
resolution map of horizontal soil variability, but is limited in the ability to get high-65
resolution, vertical soil information. Soil profile (vertical) information is limited by the 66
4
capacity to collect and analyze soil cores. Model calibration and validation are currently 67
the weak points in digital soil mapping because collecting and analyzing soil cores to 68
capture vertical variability is time consuming and cost prohibitive. For example, current 69
laboratory soil analyses can take several weeks to months for each soil pedon and cost 70
upwards of $2,000. The lack of soil sensors that can rapidly quantify soil profile 71
information demonstrates the need to find new methods for soil mapping. 72
A proximal soil sensor that might be useful for rapidly quantifying soil profile 73
information in the field is visible and near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy 74
(VNIR-DRS). Recent research has shown the effectiveness of VNIR-DRS in providing a 75
non-destructive rapid prediction of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties of 76
air-dried ground soil samples in the laboratory (Shepherd and Walsh, 2002). In the VNIR 77
spectrum, absorptions by water bonds associated with clay content and other bonding 78
associated with clay type provide the opportunity to use VNIR for quantifying clay 79
information in soil. Previous research on air-dried, ground soil samples has shown VNIR 80
predictions of soil clay content with r2-values ranging from 0.56 to 0.91 and RMSD’s 81
ranging from 23 to 11 g kg-1 (Ben-Dor and Banin, 1995; Janik et al., 1998, Shepherd and 82
Walsh, 2002; Islam et al., 2003; Sorensen and Dalsgaard, 2005; Brown et al., 2006). Air-83
drying and grinding the soil sample prior to scanning is believed to improve prediction 84
accuracy of DRS-based models. Air-drying the sample reduces the intensity of bands that 85
are related to water so signals associated with other soil properties are not masked or 86
hidden. Additionally, particle size affects accuracy of the spectral scan. Smaller particles 87
increase reflectance scatter, which reduces the absorption peak height (Workman and 88
5
Shenk, 2004). Soil homogenization, accomplished while grinding, may also be beneficial 89
when scanning with VNIR-DRS. 90
The determination of clay content by VNIR measurements is possible in part due 91
to the distinctive spectral signatures of common clay minerals. The spectral signatures 92
include overtones and combination bands that occur from chemical bonds within soil 93
minerals (Hunt and Salisbury, 1970; Clark, 1999). For example, kaolinite, smectite, and 94
muscovite occur in the clay fraction of soils and have distinct spectral absorption 95
features. Kaolinite [Al2Si2O5(OH)4] is an aluminum silicate with two very strong 96
hydroxyl bands near 1400 nm, OH stretch, and 2200 nm, OH stretch Al-OH bend 97
combination (Hunt and Salisbury, 1970; Clark et al., 1990). Smectite (montmorillonite) 98
[M+0.3Al2.7Si3.3O10(0H)2; M=Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, etc.] has two very strong water bands around 99
1400 and 1900 nm from molecular water and another at 2200 nm (Hunt and Salisbury, 100
1970; Goetz et al., 2001). Muscovite [KAl3Si3O10 (OH)2] displays hydroxyl bands at 101
1400 nm and between 2200 to 2600 nm (Hunt and Salisbury, 1970). Brown et al. (2006) 102
built a VNIR calibration for clay minerals and was able to predict kaolinite and 103
montmorillonite within one ordinal unit from X-ray diffraction data 96% and 88% of the 104
time, respectively. Goetz et al. (2001) investigated using NIR spectroscopy to measure 105
smectite content in selected Colorado soils (r=0.83). Because the literature shows VNIR 106
absorbance associated with clay mineralogy, one may expect that the wavebands 107
significant to predicting soil clay content to be similar to mineralogy wavebands. 108
There have been few reported studies of in situ VNIR-DRS soil characterization. 109
Sudduth and Hummel (1993) tested a portable near-infrared (NIR) spectrometer to 110
measure soil properties in situ on the fly. Their research concluded that VNIR-DRS 111
6
could be used to accurately predict cation exchange capacity, soil organic matter, and 112
moisture content in the laboratory, but the technique was not sufficiently accurate at 113
quantifying soil organic matter in a furrow. The poor prediction with this in situ 114
technique was attributed to movement of the soil past the spectrometer. Hence low 115
prediction accuracy for in situ scanning may be avoided by holding the spectrometer 116
scanning device more stable, and by holding the soil stationary while scanning. 117
In the field, DRS measurements may not work as well as laboratory DRS 118
measurements because of potential problems that have not been addressed by research on 119
air-dried ground soils. The potential problems that may reduce the prediction accuracy of 120
in situ DRS analysis include, varying amounts of soil moisture, varying particle size and 121
aggregation, smearing of soil surfaces, small scale heterogeneity (mottles, accumulations, 122
and redox features), and geographic regionality of calibration models. Sudduth and 123
Hummel (1993) indicated that local buried residue and roughness of the soil surface 124
caused a reduction in their prediction accuracies. Smearing of the soil causes reflectance 125
properties to change, possibly altering prediction accuracies. Geographic regionality, 126
such as changes in soil parent material, may affect prediction accuracies when using 127
VNIR-DRS (Ben-Dor and Banin, 1995; Dalal and Henry, 1986; Sudduth and Hummel, 128
1996). 129
The overall goal of our study is to evaluate the feasibility of VNIR-DRS for in 130
situ quantification of clay content for soil profiles from a variety of parent materials. 131
Specifically, this research addresses the following objectives: 1) evaluate the precision of 132
350 to 2500 nm (VNIR region) soil reflectance measurements in quantifying soil clay 133
content of in situ soils at field-moist and air-dry water content; 2) quantify any change in 134
7
measurement error or prediction accuracy for in situ, field-moist soil with a smeared 135
surface; and 3) quantify any change in prediction accuracies with consideration to field-136
specific calibrations. 137
This research will help evaluate the feasibility of using a VNIR spectrometer in 138
the field as a proximal sensor to aid soil mapping activities. For VNIR-DRS to be 139
considered useful in the field, it must be an improvement on current field techniques. 140
The VNIR DRS methods should be reliable, meaning that the errors should be 141
comparable to current field techniques with similar data acquisition speeds, and VNIR-142
DRS should be rapid, meaning that it should quantify clay much faster than any current 143
techniques. Although time and money are required to calibrate the VNIR instrument, 144
once calibrated, VNIR-DRS can scan whole soil pedons more rapidly than hand texturing 145
in the field or laboratory particle-size methods (i.e. pipette and hydrometer), allowing for 146
more soil core information to be quantified in one day. Therefore VNIR-DRS is 147
considered adequate if VNIR-DRS can quantify clay content accurate enough for 148
precision management, watershed modeling needs, or other applications where soil 149
information is need. In general, most precision management strategies and watershed 150
models require a stronger emphasis on the change in soil texture in space (vertical and 151
horizontal) than on lab-quality soil data (Morgan et al., 2003). Quickly collecting higher 152
spatial resolution data is where VNIR-DRS has an advantage over current field 153
techniques. 154
155
MATERIALS AND METHODS 156
Soil Coring 157
8
Seventy-two soil cores were collected from six fields in Erath County (fields 1, 2, 158
3, and 6) and Comanche County (fields 4 and 5), Texas in May 2004 using a Giddings 159
hydraulic soil sampler (Windsor, CO) attached to a truck. Each soil core was collected to 160
a maximum depth of 105 cm or to the depth of a coring-restrictive horizon. The soil 161
cores were contained in a 6.0-cm diameter plastic sleeve that was capped on both ends. 162
The soil cores that were collected were chosen to represent the large variability in soil 163
properties over the two counties. For example, 21 soil series were mapped by the Natural 164
Resources Conservation Service in these fields (Table 1), and the parent material of these 165
soils included alluvium, sandstone, shale, and limestone. The large variability was 166
selected to ensure that the VNIR prediction models would not be mineralogy specific. 167
Additionally, though many cores represented the same soil series, variability within each 168
soil series because of 1) differences of morphology within a series, 2) inclusions of other 169
soils within each mapping unit, and 3) varying landscape positions all lead to 170
representation of high morphological variability within each mapped series. 171
VNIR-DRS Scanning 172
The soil cores were scanned using an ASD “FieldSpec® Pro FR” VNIR 173
spectroradiometer (Analytical Spectral Devices, Boulder, CO) with a spectral range of 174
350-2500 nm, 2-nm sampling resolution and spectral resolution of 3 nm at 700 nm and 175
10 nm at 1400 and 2100 nm. The spectroradiometer was equipped with a contact probe. 176
The contact probe has a viewing area defined by a 2-cm diameter circle and its own light 177
source. A Spectralon® panel with 99% reflectance was used to optimize the 178
spectrometer each day; the same panel was used as a white reference before scanning 179
each core. The 72 soil cores were prepared for the first, moist in situ, scan by slicing the 180
9
plastic sleeve lengthwise with a utility knife, and then halving the soil core lengthwise 181
(surface to subsoil) with a piano wire. One-half of the core was smeared using a stainless 182
steel spatula to simulate possible smearing by a soil probe and the other half was left 183
unsmeared. The smearing test was performed to quantify any reduction in accuracy that 184
might occur if a soil probe, pushed into the ground, smeared the sides of the hole. In this 185
laboratory exercise, smearing moist, high clay content soil required multiple passes with 186
the spatula. Therefore, this test was a worst-case scenario, as the soil was smeared to its 187
maximum capacity. A wire grid was used to identify two 3-cm wide columns and 3-cm 188
wide rows within each core half (Fig. 1). Each row within each column was scanned 189
twice with the FieldSpec® Pro FR with a 90º rotation of the contact probe between scans. 190
Both halves of each core, smeared and unsmeared, were scanned at field-moist water 191
content. 192
Water potential was measured at each soil horizon from each core, with a 193
maximum of six samples per core, using a SC-10 thermocouple psychrometer (Decagon, 194
Pullman, WA) (Rawlins and Campbell, 1986). The water potential samples were 195
collected immediately after scanning each core to minimize drying. Water potential 196
measurements were made to confirm variability of water content and to quantify the 197
range of soil moisture among the soils scanned. The cores were then placed in a drier at 198
44°C for two days for air-dried in situ scans. Before taking air-dried scans, the cores 199
were removed from the oven and left on the countertop in the laboratory to equilibrate to 200
room temperature. The soil core half that was scanned in unsmeared condition was then 201
rescanned, in situ, at air-dry moisture content. 202
10
Each row of the unsmeared soil core was ground and passed through a 2-mm 203
sieve, and re-scanned as air-dried, ground soil. The air-dried, ground soils were scanned 204
from below with an ASD mug lamp connected to the FieldSpec® Pro FR. A Spectralon® 205
99% reflectance panel was used to optimize and white reference the spectrometer. 206
Approximately 28 g of ground soil was placed into a Duraplan® borosilicate optical-207
glass Petri dish. Each sample was scanned twice with a 90º rotation between scans. 208
Pretreatment of Data 209
The reflectance spectra were spliced where the three detectors overlapped using 210
an empirical algorithm. Reflectance for the 0º and 90º scans were averaged (mean). 211
Scans on the same row, column 1 and 2, were also averaged, creating a mean of four 212
scans for each measured value of clay content. Smoothed reflectance and 1st and 2nd 213
derivatives were extracted on 10-nm intervals (360-2490 nm) from a weighted cubic 214
smoothing spline fit to the mean reflectance data using the R “smooth spline” function (R 215
Development Core Team, 2004), following the methods of Brown et al. (2006). 216
Laboratory Analysis 217
Although every 3 cm of the soil core was scanned, only selected rows were used 218
for laboratory particle size analysis. Only the VNIR scans from those rows were 219
subsequently used in the VNIR models. Whole rows of soil where combined for 220
laboratory analysis; hence, each row of soil had a total of four scans to represent its 221
spectral properties (Fig. 1). Rows were chosen to represent the primary horizons within a 222
soil core. The entire row from each half of the core was used for particle size analysis. 223
Particle size distribution was determined in the laboratory using the pipette method with 224
an error of ±1% clay (Steele and Bradfield, 1934; Kilmer and Alexander, 1949; Gee and 225
11
Or, 2002). Fine clays were measured using centrifugation, USDA NRCS method 3A1b 226
(USDA, 1996). Eighteen samples were selected for determination of clay mineralogy. 227
Clay mineralogy by X-ray diffraction was completed following techniques described in 228
Hallmark et al. (1986); no pretreatment was done. The mineralogy technique used was to 229
determine the absence or presence of clay minerals existing in quantities of greater than 5 230
% by volume of clay fraction. 231
232
Model Calibration and Validation 233
Four types of clay prediction models were built to help determine how in situ 234
scans and variable water content affect prediction accuracies for clay content. Air-dried 235
ground, air-dried in situ, field-moist in situ, and smeared field-moist in situ scans were 236
the four soil preparation types used in the models. The clay content models were 237
produced using 70% of the soil cores randomly chosen as the calibration samples. Scans 238
from an individual soil core were not split between validation and calibration datasets. 239
Entire cores were selected for validation or calibration to maintain independence between 240
the calibration and validation data (Brown et al., 2005). For each of the four pretreatment 241
scans (air-dried ground, air-dried in situ, field-moist in situ, and smeared field-moist in 242
situ), three prediction models for clay content were built using soil reflectance, 1st 243
derivative of reflectance and 2nd derivative of reflectance. The calibration models were 244
built using segmented cross validation PLS method in Unscrambler 9.0 (CAMO Tech, 245
Woodbridge, NJ). The segments for cross validation are randomly chosen and represent 246
four percent of the calibration dataset. The remaining 30% of the cores were used to 247
validate the models. 248
12
Model calibration and validation sets were also completed on whole-field 249
holdouts of moist in-situ scans, as a means to compare to the findings of Brown et al. 250
(2005). Whole-field holdouts were achieved by calibrating a model using PLS with five 251
of the six fields. The sixth field was held out as the validation samples. Six models were 252
created so all six fields were represented as a validation set. 253
The significant wavelengths in each model were plotted to help determine what 254
portions of the spectra were important for clay content predictions. Significant 255
wavelengths were chosen by Unscrambler 9.0 by comparing Student t-values of the PLS 256
regression coefficients to a p-value of 0.05. Negative clay content predictions were 257
changed to zero clay content before comparison of measured to predicted clay. 258
Measured versus predicted values of the validation samples were compared using 259
simple regression. The coefficient of determination (r2), root mean squared deviation 260
(RMSD), ratio of standard deviation (SD) to RMSD (RPD) and bias were calculated to 261
compare the accuracy of different PLS models. Statistical formulas to calculate RMSD 262
and bias follow Gauch et al. (2003), Brown et al. (2005) and RPD follows Chang et al. 263
(2005): 264
( )∑ −=n
2measpred N/YYRMSD , [1] 265
RPD = SD/RMSD, and [2] 266
( )∑ −=n
measpred ;N/YYBias [3] 267
where Ypred are predicted values of the validation set using the PLS model, and Ymeas are 268
laboratory measurements of the validation set, and N is the total number of samples in the 269
validation data. 270
13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 271
Sample Descriptions 272
From the 72 soil cores, 270 soil samples were analyzed for clay content and water 273
potential. Of these samples, 188 were used in the calibration model. The other 82 274
samples were used to validate the PLS model. Though selected randomly, the calibration 275
and validation data sets were similar (Table 2). Clay content range of the 270 soil 276
samples was 12 g kg-1 to 578 g kg-1 dry soil. The mean and median for the calibration 277
and validation data were similar, indicating that the samples were evenly split above and 278
below the mean, and that the prediction model produced should not be skewed. The 279
minimum water potential measured, -5.8 MPa, in the calibration samples was from a 280
tilled surface (0-3 cm) of a loamy-textured soil. The range of water potential confirms 281
that in situ moist scans involved a large range of water contents that may be found in 282
most field situations. The maximum water potential, 0 MPa, occurred in deep horizons in 283
several of the irrigated fields. The samples represented a range of clay mineralogy. The 284
minerals found in the clay fractions were: smectite, kaolinite, mica, quartz, calcite, and 285
feldspar (Table 3). The soils in field 1 were notably high in clay content and were dark 286
colored Vertisols; field 3 soils were low in clay content. 287
Field-moist vs. Air-dried Validation 288
The 1st derivative PLS model performed better than the reflectance and 2nd 289
derivative PLS models in the field-moist in situ scans. The r2 value for the 1st derivative 290
model was 0.83 compared to 0.71 and 0.58 for the reflectance and 2nd derivative models, 291
respectively. Because the 1st derivative PLS model performed the best for field-moist in 292
situ, and the 1st derivative worked the best in other VNIR work (Reeves et al., 1999; 293
14
Reeves and McCarty, 2001; Brown et al., 2006), the remaining PLS models reported in 294
this paper all use the 1st derivative of the VNIR spectra between 350 and 2500 nm. The 295
prediction accuracy of three of the four models used to predict clay content were very 296
similar, and the fourth, field-moist in situ smeared, had the largest prediction error and 297
scatter about the validation regression. Table 4 summarizes the prediction accuracies 298
between the four VNIR models. The r2 value of the dried-ground samples were similar to 299
the literature, while the RMSD value of this work was smaller than those cited (Ben-Dor 300
and Banin, 1995; Janik et al., 1998, Shepherd and Walsh, 2002; Islam et al., 2003; 301
Sorensen and Dalsgaard, 2005; Brown et al., 2006). The air-dried ground model was 302
expected to produce the most accurate prediction model because the sample was reduced 303
to a uniform size, moisture was uniform, and grinding homogenized the soil, but the air-304
dried in situ model did slightly better (Fig. 2). There are two possible explanations for 305
why the air-dried ground model did not perform as well as the air-dried in situ model. 306
One explanation could be random error. The second possible explanation is that in situ 307
soil has a higher bulk density than dried ground soil; and therefore, the in situ soil may 308
have a stronger reflectance signal. The air-dried ground and in situ moist models had a 309
similar number of wavelengths with significant (p-value ≤ 0.05) regression coefficients, 310
83 and 78 significant wavelengths, respectively (Fig. 3). 311
The air-dried ground prediction had the most bias (-16.3), compared to the other 312
predictions. The large bias associated with the air-dried ground prediction was attributed 313
to 60% of the samples being under predicted in clay content and large discrepancies 314
between measured and predicted clay content of soils greater than 450 g kg-1 clay. 315
Because the air-dried in situ model slightly outperformed the air-dried ground model 316
15
using the 1st derivative of VNIR reflectance spectra, we conclude natural soil 317
heterogeneity, as a result of clay films, translocations, redox features etc…, and 318
variability associated with aggregation had little effect on model predictions. Gaffey 319
(1986) found that aggregate size had little effect on prediction accuracy, but Gaffey was 320
looking at carbonate sizes. His results showed a difference in reflectance, but the number 321
of bands, band positions and width, and relative band intensities were unchanged. 322
Another significant finding was that the clay content model using the field-moist 323
in situ model had slightly less prediction accuracy than the air-dried in situ model. 324
However, the field-moist in situ model performed just as well when compared to the air-325
dried ground model (Fig. 2). These results indicate that the amount of water in the soil 326
sample did not change the prediction accuracy compared to air-dried laboratory 327
situations. These results show that soil water may reduce accuracy somewhat (increased 328
RMSD by 20 g kg-1), but this reduction in accuracy was no more than air-drying, 329
grinding, and scanning the soil through a borosilicate Petri dish (Fig. 2). Chang et al. 330
(2005) showed that r2-values decreased slightly from 0.79 to 0.76 from an air-dried soil to 331
a moist soil, respectively, which agrees with other findings. The field-moist in situ 332
models used 102 significant wavelengths in determining clay content (Fig. 3). Figure 3 333
shows the 32 significant wavelengths that were common in all three models. 334
The same set of VNIR models was created to predict fine clay. Fine clay models 335
have lower RMSD values than total clay models but the RPD values are similar to the 336
total clay models (Table 4). The similar RPD values indicate that the smaller RMSD 337
values for fine clay models were due to smaller standard deviations (smaller range); so 338
the total clay and fine clay models performed similarly. VNIR-DRS has proven 339
16
effective in identifying smectitic clays (Brown et al., 2006) and studies suggest that 340
Vertisol fine clays are comprised primarily of smectites (Anderson et al., 1972; Yerima 341
et al., 1989). Therefore, our ability to predict fine clay in this study might be due to the 342
mineral signature of this size fraction. 343
Field-moist Smeared Validation 344
Smearing of the field-moist in situ cores reduced the accuracy of the prediction 345
model (Fig. 2). The decrease in the prediction accuracy of the smeared cores was 346
probably due to the change in reflectance properties of the soil. Smearing causes the soil 347
surface to become shiny, which changes the reflectance from diffuse to diffuse specular 348
reflectance. Specular reflectance can mask diffuse absorptions and otherwise confuse the 349
analysis of reflectance spectra (Coates, 1998). When comparing the significant 350
wavelengths between the field-moist in situ and field-moist in situ smeared cores, a 351
number of wavelengths found in the visible portion of the spectra are absent from the 352
smeared core (Fig. 4). The smeared core model had 70 significant wavelengths and the 353
unsmeared core model had 102, with 50 of these wavelengths being common in both 354
models. The absence of these wavelengths may be the source of loss in prediction 355
accuracy. In a field situation, the loss of prediction accuracy due to smearing might be 356
less because it took multiple passes with the knife to smear many of the soil cores. 357
Whole-field Holdout Validation 358
As expected (Brown et al., 2005), whole-field cross-validation yielded degraded 359
predictions relative to random cross-validation. For all six fields, whole field validation 360
statistics (Table 5, RMSD and RPD) were worse than for the randomly selected cross-361
validation results (Table 4). The RPD statistics are particularly telling, with fields 1 and 362
17
3 having RPD values < 1 (no predictive value), fields 4-6 having RPD values < 1.5 (little 363
predictive value), and only field 2 yielding acceptable results (RPD = 1.92). 364
Both field 1 and 3 contained soil at the extremes for clay content. Field 1 365
consisted of high clay soils (median 46 % clay) that were dark in color through the entire 366
length of the soil core—high clay contents that were not represented in the calibration 367
soils. Not surprisingly, the prediction bias for this field was -128.1 g kg-1 (Table 5) 368
indicating a significant underprediction of these high clay contents. Conversely, field 3 369
contained relatively low clay soils (median 3 % clay) not found in the other five fields. 370
Regional clay calibrations will require a far larger and more diverse soil-spectral library 371
than that presented in this study. 372
DRS as a Proximal Sensor for Clay Content 373
Figure 5 illustrates the performance of VNIR-DRS used as a proximal soil sensor 374
for in-situ soils at field soil moisture. Three very different soil profiles are shown. The 375
first is a Vertisol from field 1. This soil is very high in clay and somewhat uniform in 376
clay content with depth. The VNIR-DRS prediction shows the same uniformity, with 10 377
% clay under prediction (Fig. 5a.). Nonetheless, the prediction does put the profile in the 378
correct clay texture category. The second soil, Fig. 5b., is an Alfisol, with a sandy 379
surface and an E horizon. In the case of the Alfisol, VNIR-DRS predictions show the 380
continuous change of clay content, the A, E, and Bt horizons are clearly seen. The third 381
soil is a Mollisol with secondary carbonate concentrations in the B horizon (Fig. 5c). The 382
VNIR-DRS prediction of this core was encouraging, because the secondary carbonates 383
did not appear add random scatter to the prediction. The concentrations may have biased 384
the clay content prediction toward the bottom of the profile. In summary, though the 385
18
VNIR-DRS predictions do no perfectly agree with the particle size analysis in these three 386
cores, the predictions do provide a rapid, continuous measurement of at least relative soil 387
clay content fluctuations with depth. 388
CONCLUSIONS 389
In this study of 72 soil cores from Central Texas, we found a strong relationship 390
between VNIR reflectance and clay content for air-dried in situ (RMSD = 41 g kg-1), 391
field-moist in situ (RMSD = 61 g kg-1), and air-dried ground (RMSD = 62 g kg-1) scans. 392
Visible near-infrared DRS was capable of predicting soil clay content in-situ at varying 393
water contents. There was a decrease in predictive accuracy for smeared field-moist in 394
situ (RMSD = 74 g kg-1) scans. However, we obtained worse results for ground and 395
sieved samples than for the non-smeared in situ scans—suggesting that soil aggregates 396
and natural heterogeneity did not degrade in situ predictions. Variable water contents did 397
reduce predictive accuracy as evidenced by a comparison of air-dried in situ and field-398
moist in situ results, but the field-moist in situ were still slightly better than those 399
obtained from scans of air-dried, ground-and-sieved samples. Validation RPD statistics 400
were similar for fine clay and total clay predictions. 401
These results indicate that VNIR-DRS may be useful as a proximal soil sensor in 402
field conditions. In particular, we envision a VNIR-DRS sensor placed in a soil probe for 403
in situ soil profile characterization. Such a probe would give soil scientists the ability to 404
acquire soil profile data (e.g. clay content) at greater spatial and vertical sampling 405
densities than is practical with conventional soil excavation, extraction and 406
characterization techniques. To make this vision a reality, continued research is needed 407
19
on in situ VNIR-DRS applications with greater soil diversity and a wider range of soil 408
properties. 409
410
REFERENCES 411
Anderson, J.U., K.E. Fadul, and G.A. O’Connor. 1972. Factors affecting the coefficient 412
of linear extensibility in vertisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:296-299. 413
Ben-Dor, E. and A. Banin. 1995. Near-infrared analysis as a rapid method to 414
simultaneously evaluate several soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:364-372. 415
Brown D.J., R.S. Bricklemeyer, and P.R. Miller. 2005. Validation requirements for 416
diffuse reflectance soil characterization models with a case study of VNIR soil C 417
prediction in Montana. Geoderma. 129:251-267. 418
Brown, D.J., K.D. Shepherd, M.G. Walsh, M.D. Mays, and T.G. Reinsch. 2006. Global 419
soil characterization with VNIR diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma. 420
132:273-290. 421
Chang, C.W., D.A. Laird, and C.R. Hurburgh, Jr. 2005. Influence of soil moisture on 422
near-infrared reflectance spectroscopic measurement of soil properties. Soil Sci. 423
70:244-255. 424
Clark, R.N. 1999. Spectroscopy of rocks and minerals, and principles of spectroscopy. 425
p. 3-52. In A.N. Rencz (ed.) Remote sensing for the earth sciences: Manual of 426
remote sensing. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 427
Clark, R.N., T.V.V. King, M. Klejwa, and G.A. Swaze. 1990. High spectral resolution 428
reflectance spectroscopy of minerals. J. Geophys. Res. 95:12653-12680. 429
20
Coates, J. 1998. A review of sampling methods for infrared spectroscopy. p. 49-91. In 430
J. Workman and A.W. Springsteen (ed.) Applied spectroscopy, a compact 431
reference for practioners. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 432
Dalal, R.C. and R.J. Henry. 1986. Simultaneous determinations of moisture, organic 433
carbon, and total nitrogen by near infrared reflectance spectrophotometry. Soil Sci. 434
Soc. Am. J. 50:120-123. 435
Ellert, B.H., H.H. Janzen, and T. Entz. 2002. Assessment of a method to measure 436
temporal change in soil carbon storage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1687-1695. 437
Gaffey, S.J. 1986. Spectral reflectance of calcite minerals in the visible and near 438
infrared (0.35-2.55 microns): Calcite, aragonite, and dolomite. Am. Mineral. 439
71:151-162. 440
Gauch, H.G., Jr., J.T.G. Hwang, and G.W. Fick. 2003. Model evaluation by comparison 441
of model-based predictions and measured values. Agron. J. 95:1442-1446. 442
Gee, G.W. and D. Or. 2002. Particle-size analysis. p. 255-293 In J.H. Dane and G.C. 443
Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 4. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison WI. 444
Goetz, A.F., S. Chabrillat, and Z. Lu. 2001. Field reflectance spectroscopy for detection 445
of swelling clays at construction sites. Field Anal. Chem. Technol. 5:143-155. 446
Hallmark, C.T., L.T. West, L.P. Wilding, and L.R. Drees. 1986. Characterization data 447
for selected Texas soils. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. College Station, 448
TX. 449
Hunt, G.R. and J.W. Salisbury. 1970. Visible and near-infrared spectra of minerals and 450
rocks: I. Silicate minerals. Modern Geol. 1:283-300. 451
21
Islam, K., B. Singh, and A. McBratney. 2003. Simultaneous estimation of several soil 452
properties by ultra-violet, visible, and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Aust. 453
J. Soil Res. 41:1101-1114. 454
Janik, L.J., R.H. Merry, and J.O. Skjemstad. 1998. Can mid infrared diffuse reflectance 455
analysis replace soil extractions? Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 38:681-696. 456
Kilmer, V.H., and L.Z. Alexander. 1949. Methods for making mechanical analyses of 457
soil. Soil Sci. 68:15-24. 458
McBratney, A.B., M.L.M. Santos, and B. Minasny. 2003. On digital soil mapping. 459
Geoderma. 117:3-52. 460
Moore, I.D., P.E. Gessler, G.A. Nielsen, and G.A. Peterson. 1993. Soil attribute 461
prediction using terrain analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:443-452. 462
Morgan, C.L.S., J.M. Norman, C.C. Molling, K. McSweeney, and B. Lowery. 2003. 463
Evaluating soil data from several sources using a landscape model. p. 243-260. In 464
Y. Pachepsky, D.E. Radcliffe, and H.M. Selim (ed.) Scaling methods in soil 465
physics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 466
Pachepsky, Ya.A., D.J. Timlin, and W.J. Rawls. 2001. Soil water retention as related to 467
topographic variables. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:1787-1795. 468
R Development Core Team, 2004. R: A language and environment for statistical 469
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (Avaliable on-470
line with updates at http://www.Rproject.org) (Verified 04 Oct. 2006) 471
Rawlins, S.L. and G.S. Campbell. 1986. Water potential: Thermocouple psychrometry. 472
p. 597-662. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part I. ASA, CSSA, and 473
SSSA Madison, WI. 474
22
Reeves III, J.B. and G.W. McCarty. 2001. Quantitative analysis of agricultural soils using 475
near infrared reflectance spectroscopy and a fibre-optic probe. J. Near Infrared 476
Spectrosc. 9:25-34. 477
Reeves III, J.B., G.W. McCarty, and J.J. Meisinger. 1999. Near infrared reflectance 478
spectroscopy for the analysis of agricultural soils. J. Near Infrared Spectrosc. 7:179-479
193. 480
Shepherd, K.D. and M.G. Walsh. 2002. Development of reflectance spectral libraries for 481
characterization of soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:988-998. 482
Sorensen, L.K. and S. Dalsgaard. 2005. Determination of clay and other soil properties 483
by near infrared spectroscopy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:159-167. 484
Steele, J.G. and R. Bradfield. 1934. The significance of size distribution in the clay 485
fraction. Report of the 14th annual meeting. Am. Soil Sci. Assn., Bull. 15, 88-93. 486
Sudduth, K.A. and J.W. Hummel. 1993. Soil organic matter, CEC and moisture sensing 487
with a portable NIR spectrophotometer. Trans. ASAE. 36:1571-1582. 488
Sudduth, K.A. and J.W. Hummel. 1996. Geographic operating range evaluation of a NIR 489
soil sensor. Trans. ASAE. 39:1599-1604. 490
Sudduth, K.A., J.W. Hummel, and S.J. Birrell. 1997. Sensors for site specific 491
management for agriculture. p. 183-210 In F. J. Pierce and E. J. Sadler (ed.) The 492
state of site specific management for agriculture. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison 493
WI. 494
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Soil survey of Erath County, Texas. Soil 495
Conservation Service. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC. 496
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977. Soil survey of Comanche County, Texas. Soil 497
23
Conservation Service. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC. 498
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Soil survey lab method manual. Soil Survey 499
Investigations report no.42. Version no. 3. USDA-NRCS, Washington D.C. 500
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Official soil series descriptions [Online]. 501
Available at http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html (Verified 502
04 Oct. 2006) 503
Workman, J., Jr. and J. Shenk. 2004. Understanding and using the near-infrared spectrum 504
as an analytical method. p. 3-10. In C.A. Roberts, J. Workman, Jr., and J.B. Reeves 505
III (ed.) Near-infrared spectroscopy in agriculture. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, 506
Madison, WI. 507
Yerima, B.P.K., L.P. Wilding, C.T. Hallmark, and F.G. Calhoun. 1989. Statistical 508
relationships among selected properties on Northern Cameroon vertisols and 509
associated alfisols. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:1758-1763. 510
Zhu, A.X., L. Band, R. Vertessy, and B. Dutton. 1997. Derivation of soil properties using 511
a soil land inference model (SoLIM). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:523-533. 512
Zhu, J., C.L.S. Morgan, J.M. Norman, W. Yue, B. Lowery. 2004. Combined mapping of 513
soil properties using a multi-scale spatial model. Geoderma. 118:321-334. 514
515
24
Fig. 1. Schematic of a vertically sliced soil core. Columns and rows indicate locations 516
scanned using the contact probe for in situ scans. Dried ground soil samples represent the 517
soil from one row, both columns. 518
519
Fig. 2. Predicted vs. measured clay content of the validation data set for (a) air-dried 520
ground (b) air-dried in situ (c) field-moist in situ (d) field-moist in situ smeared. Clay 521
content predictions were made from models built with partial least square regression 522
using the 1st derivative of visible near-infrared reflectance (VNIR) spectra (350-2500 523
nm). RMSD is root mean squared deviation. 524
525
Fig. 3. The wavelengths that contributed to significant regression coefficients (p-value ≤ 526
0.05) in the prediction of clay content are shown for field-moist and air-dry in situ and 527
air-dry ground models. The relative magnitude of each regression coefficient indicates 528
the strength of the correlation. The top plot shows the mean of the regression coefficients 529
common in all three models. All plots are on the same x-axis. Values of the y-axis are 530
not shown, but all y-axes are on the same scale. 531
532
Fig. 4. The wavelengths that contributed to significant regression coefficients (p-value ≤ 533
0.05) in the prediction of clay content are shown for field-moist, smeared and unsmeared, 534
in situ models. The relative magnitude of each regression coefficient indicates the 535
strength of the correlation. The top plot shows the mean of the regression coefficients 536
common in both models. All plots are on the same x-axis. Values of the y-axis are not 537
shown, but all y-axes are on the same scale. 538
25
539
Fig. 5. Laboratory measured (+) and visible near-infrared (VNIR) predicted (◊) clay 540
content for three soil cores, a) a dark-colored Vertisol, b) an Alfisol with distinct A, E, Bt 541
horizons, and c) a Mollisol with secondary calcium carbonate concentrations in the B 542
horizons. Laboratory measurements were taken to represent a row within a horizon, and 543
VNIR predictions were made every 3-cm. 544
545
26
Table 1. Series and family classification of the soils mapped by the Natural Resources 546
Conservation Service within the fields which were used for VNIR-DRS predictions 547
(USDA, 1973; USDA, 1977; USDA, 2005). 548
Soil series Family classification Field number Abilene Fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Pachic Argiustolls 4 Altoga Fine-silty, carbonatic, thermic Udic Haplustepts 6 Blanket Fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Pachic Argiustolls 6 Bolar Fine-loamy, carbonatic, thermic Udic Calciustolls 1,5,6 Bosque Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Cumulic
Haplustolls 5
Brackett Loamy, carbonatic, thermic, shallow Typic Haplustepts 5 Bunyan Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Typic
Ustifluvents 2
Chaney Fine, mixed, active, thermic Oxyaquic Paleustalfs 4 Cisco Fine-loamy, siliceous, superactive, thermic Typic
Haplustalfs 4
Denton Fine-silty, carbonatic, thermic Udic Calciustolls 1,6 Frio Fine, smectitic, thermic Cumulic Haplustolls 1,4,5 Houston Black Fine, smectitic, thermic Udic Haplusterts 1 Karnes Coarse-loamy, carbonatic, thermic Typic Calciustepts 5 Lewisville Fine-silty, mixed, active, thermic Udic Calciustolls 5,6 Maloterre Loamy, carbonatic, thermic Lithic Ustorthents 1 Nimrod Loamy, siliceous, active, thermic Aquic Arenic Paleustalfs 3,4 Pedernales Fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Typic Paleustalfs 4 Purves Clayey, smectitic, thermic Lithic Calciustolls 1,5,6 Selden Fine-loamy, siliceous, active, thermic Aquic Paleustalfs 3 Venus Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Udic Calciustolls 5 Windthorst Fine, mixed, active, thermic Udic Paleustalfs 2,3,6 549
27
Table 2. Clay content and water potential summary statistics for soil samples used in 550
calibration and validation datasets. 551
N Min. Max. Mean SD† Median Calibration samples
Total clay (g kg-1) 188 12 525 255 139 262 Fine clay (g kg-1) 188 3 380 138 85 140 Water potential (MPa) 188 -5.8 0.0 -0.49 0.60 -0.35
Validation samples Total clay (g kg-1) 82 28 578 271 144 247 Fine clay (g kg-1) 82 18 362 152 79 147 Water potential (MPa) 82 -2.2 0.0 -0.48 0.47 -0.38 † SD, standard deviation. 552
553
Table 3. Clay minerals present in soil cores from each field. Mineralogy is presented as 554
a summary by field and not all cores are represented. Cores selected for mineralogy were 555
chosen to represent clay minerals within a field. 556
Clay Minerals Field no. Vermiculite Smectite Kaolinite Mica Calcite Quartz Feldspar
1 XXX† X XX X 2 XX X X X 3 t X XX X X t 4 XX X X X 5 X X X X X 6 XX X t X X
† XXX, greater than 50% of mineral present; XX, 20-50% of mineral present; X, 5-20% 557
of mineral present; t, trace amounts of mineral present. 558
28
Table 4. Prediction accuracies used for total clay and fine clay content models using the 559
1st derivative of visible near-infrared reflectance spectra (350-2500 nm) and partial least 560
squares regression. Prediction accuracies were calculated by using entire soil cores (30 % 561
of the total data set) randomly held out of the calibration model. Also included are the 562
number of principal components (PCs) used in each partial least squares regression 563
model. 564
r2 RMSD† RPD† Bias PCs g kg-1 g kg-1
Total clay Air-dried ground 0.84 62 2.32 -16.3 9 Air-dried in situ 0.92 41 3.51 -2.0 10 Field-moist in situ 0.83 61 2.36 3.0 9 Field-moist smeared 0.75 74 1.95 7.4 6 Fine clay Air-dried ground 0.81 34 2.32 0.65 4 Air-dried in situ 0.85 31 2.55 4.2 4 Field-moist in situ 0.84 32 2.47 4.4 8 Field-moist smeared 0.75 41 1.93 11 4 † RMSD, root mean squared deviation; RPD, ratio of standard deviation of clay content to 565
RMSD. 566
Table 5. Prediction accuracies of clay content using whole-field holdouts of field-moist 567
in-situ scans. Models were created using partial least squares regression with five fields 568
and then validated using soil cores from the sixth field. Six separate models were 569
calibrated and validated. 570
Validation field RMSD† RPD‡ Bias ---------------------g kg-1--------------------- 1 143 0.72 -128.1 2 64 1.92 4.6 3 97 0.98 9.2 4 89 1.18 44.0 5 72 1.21 31.7 6 68 1.09 30.0
29
† RMSD, root mean squared deviation; RPD, ratio of standard deviation of clay content to 571
RMSD. 572
573
574
575
576
Inserted:
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
Ro
F
30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Lab clay (g kg-1)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
VN
IR c
lay
(g k
g-1)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600V
NIR
cla
y (g
kg-1
)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600Lab clay (g kg-1)
Fig. 2
(a)y= 0.72x + 60r2= 0.84
(b)y= 0.88x + 31r2= 0.92
(c)y= 0.76x + 69r2= 0.83
(d)y= 0.65x + 103r2= 0.75
RMSD= 62 g kg-1 RMSD= 41 g kg-1
RMSD= 61 g kg-1 RMSD= 74 g kg-1
1:1 lin
e
1:1 lin
e
1:1 lin
e
1:1 lin
e
577
31
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Wavelength (nm)
Sig
nific
ant r
egre
ssio
n co
effic
ient
(b)
Fig. 3
Similar wavelengths
Air-dried ground
Field-moist in situ
Air-dried in situ
578 579 580
32
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500Wavelength (nm)
Sig
nific
ant r
egre
ssio
n co
effic
ient
(b) Similar wavelengths
Smeared in situ
Field-moist in situ
Fig. 4581 582
583 584
0 150 300 450 600
80
60
40
20
0
dept
h (c
m)
0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450
clay content (g kg-1)
Fig. 5
" Measured% VNIR prediction
a) b) c)
585 586
top related