Soil & Water Res., 2020, 15(2):101-115 | DOI: 10.17221/41/2019-SWR

Harmonisation of a large-scale historical database with the actual Czech soil classification systemOriginal Paper

Tereza Zádorová*,1, Daniel Žížala2, Vít Penížek1, Aleš Vaněk1
1 Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
2 Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation, Prague, Czech Republic

The possibility of the adequate use of data and maps from historical soil surveys depends, to a large measure, on their harmonisation. Legacy data originating from a large-scale national mapping campaign, "Systematic soil survey of agricultural soils in Czechoslovakia (SSS, 1961-1971)", were harmonised and converted according to the actual system of soil classification and descriptions used in Czechia - the Czech taxonomic soil classification system (CTSCS). Applying the methods of taxonomic distance and quantitative analysis and reclassification of the selected soil properties, the conversion of two types of mapping soil units with different detailed soil information (General soil representative (GSR), and Basic soil representative (BSR)) to their counterparts in the CTSCS has been effectuated. The results proved the good potential of the used methods for the soil data harmonisation. The closeness of the concepts of the two classifications was shown when a number of soil classes had only one counterpart with a very low taxonomic distance. On the contrary, soils with variable soil properties were approximating several related units. The additional information on the soil skeleton content, texture, depth and parent material, available for the BSR units, showed the potential in the specification of some units, though the harmonisation of the soil texture turned out to problematic due to the different categorisation of soil particles. The validation of the results in the study region showed a good overall accuracy (75% for GSR, 76.1% for BSR) for both spatial soil units, when better performance has been observed in BSR. The conversion accuracy differed significantly in the individual soil units, and ranged from almost 100% in Fluvizems to 0% in Anthropozems. The extreme cases of a complete mis-classification can be attributed to inconsistencies originating in the historical database and maps. The study showed the potential of modern quantitative methods in the legacy data harmonisation and also the necessity of a critical approach to historical databases and maps.

Keywords: legacy data; soil classification; soil survey; soil mapping; taxonomic distance

Published: June 30, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Zádorová T, Žížala D, Penížek V, Vaněk A. Harmonisation of a large-scale historical database with the actual Czech soil classification system. CAAS Agricultural Journals. 2020;15(2):101-115. doi: 10.17221/41/2019-SWR.
Download citation

Supplementary files:

Download file41-2019 Zadorova_ESM.pdf

File size: 1.1 MB

References

  1. Arrouays D., Leenaars J.G B., Richer-de-Forges A.C. et al. (2017): Soil legacy data rescue via GlobalSoilMap and other international and national initiatives. GeoResJ, 14: 1-19. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Damaška J., Němeček J., Šimek J., Ryglevicz J., Mattauschová E., Haruda F. (1967): Survey of Agricultural Soils in Czechoslovakia. Vol. 2, Praha, MZVŽ. (in Czech)
  3. Fredlund M.D., Fredlund D.G., Wilson G.W. (2000): An equation to represent grain size distribution. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37: 817- 827. Go to original source...
  4. Hole F.D., Hironaka M. (1960): An experiment in ordination of some soil profiles. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, 24: 309-312. Go to original source...
  5. Hughes P., McBratney A.B., Huang J., Minasny B., Micheli E., Hempel J. (2017): Comparisons between USDA Soil Taxonomy and the Australian Soil Classification System I: Data harmonization, calculation of taxonomic distance and inter-taxa variation. Geoderma, 307: 198-209. Go to original source...
  6. Hughes P., McBratney A.B., Minasny B., Huang J., Micheli E., onomy and the Australian Soil Classification system II: Comparison of order, suborder and great group taxa. Geoderma, 322: 48-55.
  7. IUSS Working Group WRB (2006): World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006. Rome, FAO.
  8. Krasilnikov P., Ibanez-Martí J.-J., Arnold R.W. (2009): The theoretical bases of soil classifications. In: Krasilnikov P., Ibanez-Martí J.-J., Arnold R.W., Shoba S. (eds.): Handbook of Soil Terminology, Correlation and Classification. London, Earthscan: 5-43. Go to original source...
  9. Kozák J. (2010): Soil Atlas of the Czech Republic. 1st Ed. Praha, ČZU.
  10. Láng V., Fuchs M., Watner I., Michéli E. (2013): Soil taxonomic distance, a tool for correlation: as exemplified by the Hungarian brown forest soils and related WRB reference soil groups. Geoderma, 192: 269-276. Go to original source...
  11. Láng V., Fuchs M., Szegi T., Csorba A., Michéli E. (2016): Deriving World Reference Base Reference Soil Groups from the prospective Global Soil Map product - A case study on major soil types of Africa. Geoderma, 263: 226-233. Go to original source...
  12. Lunetta R.S., Lyon J.G.(2004): Remote Sensing and GIS Accuracy Assessment. Boca Raton, CRC Press. Go to original source...
  13. Michéli E., Láng V., Owens P.R., McBratney A., Hempel J. (2016): Testing the pedometric evaluation of taxonomic units on soil taxonomy - A step in advancing towards a universal soil classification system. Geoderma, 264: 340-349. Go to original source...
  14. Minasny B., McBratney A.B. (2007): Incorporating taxonomic distance into spatial prediction and digital mapping of soil classes. Geoderma, 142: 285-293. Go to original source...
  15. Minasny B., McBratney A.B., Hartemink A.E. (2009): Global pedodiversity, taxonomic distance, and the world reference base. Geoderma, 155: 132-139. Go to original source...
  16. Nemes A., Wosten J.H.M., Lilly A., Voshaar J.H.O. (1999): Evaluation of different procedures to interpolate particlesize distributions to achieve compatibility within soil databases. Geoderma, 90:187-202. Go to original source...
  17. Němeček J., Damaška J., Hraško J., Bedrna Z., Zuska V., Tomášek M., Kalenda M. (1967): Survey of agricultural soils in Czechoslovakia. Vol. 1, Praha, MZVŽ. (in Czech)
  18. Němeček J., Mühlhanselová M., Macků J., Vokoun J., Vavříček D., Novák P. (2011): Czech Taxonomic Soil Classification System. Praha, ČZU. (in Czech)
  19. R Core Team (2018): R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Availale at https://www.R-project.org/.
  20. Sirový V., Facek Z. (1967): Survey of Agricultural Soils in Czechoslovakia. Vol. 3, Praha, MZVŽ. (in Czech)
  21. Weibull W. (1951): A statistical distribution function of wide applicability. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 18: 293-297. Go to original source...
  22. Zádorová T., Penížek V. (2011): Problems in correlation of Czech national soil classification and World Reference Base 2006. Geoderma, 167-168: 54-60. Go to original source...
  23. Zádorová T., Žížala D., Penížek V. (2018): Harmonization of the Database of Complex Soil Survey with the CTSCS and WRB 2014. Praha, VÚMOP. (in Czech)

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.