当前位置: X-MOL 学术Water › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Evaluation of the Accuracy of Interpolation Methods in Crafting Maps of Physical and Hydro-Physical Soil Properties
Water ( IF 3.4 ) Pub Date : 2021-01-17 , DOI: 10.3390/w13020212
Dušan Igaz , Karol Šinka , Peter Varga , Gréta Vrbičanová , Elena Aydın , Andrej Tárník

The goal of this study was the spatial processing and showcasing selected soil properties (available water capacity, total organic carbon content and the content of clay fraction <0.001 mm) in the Nitra River Basin (Slovakia) via the usage and the subsequent evaluation of the quality of applied interpolation methods (Spline, inverse distance weighting (IDW), Topo to Raster). The results showed the possibilities of “conversion” of point information obtained by field research as well as research in the laboratory into a spatial expression, thus providing at least relevant estimation of the soil properties even in localities not directly covered by soil sampling. Based on the evaluation and mutual comparison of the accuracy of the used interpolation methods (by using the so-called cross-validation and trust criteria), the most favorable results were achieved by the Spline method in the GRASS GIS environment, and in the ArcGIS environment. When comparing the measured and estimated values of given soil properties at control points, the interpolated values classified as very accurate up to accurate prevailed in the verification dataset. Qualitatively less favorable (but still acceptable) were the results obtained with Topo to Raster (ArcGIS) interpolation method. On the contrary, the Spline method in the ArcGIS environment turned out to be the least accurate. We assume that this is most likely not only a consequence of insufficient density of points (resources), but also an inappropriate implementation of the method into the ArcGIS environment.

中文翻译:

物理和水物理性质的制图中插值方法精度的评估

这项研究的目的是对空间进行处理,并通过对尼特拉河盆地(斯洛伐克)的使用和随后的评估来展示选定的土壤性质(可用水容量,总有机碳含量和黏土含量<0.001 mm)。所应用插值方法(样条,反距离权重(IDW),从地形到栅格的质量)的质量。结果表明,通过田间研究和实验室研究获得的点信息“转化”为空间表达的可能性,因此即使在没有被土壤采样直接覆盖的地区,也至少可以对土壤特性进行相关估计。基于所使用插值方法的准确性的评估和相互比较(通过使用所谓的交叉验证和信任标准),在GRASS GIS环境和ArcGIS环境中,样条线方法获得了最有利的结果。当比较控制点上给定土壤特性的测量值和估计值时,内插值被分类为非常准确,直到在验证数据集中占优。从质量上讲不太令人满意(但仍然可以接受)是使用“地形到栅格”(ArcGIS)插值方法获得的结果。相反,事实证明,ArcGIS环境中的样条线方法最不准确。我们认为,这很可能不仅是点(资源)密度不足的结果,而且是该方法在ArcGIS环境中的不适当实现。当比较控制点上给定土壤特性的测量值和估计值时,内插值被分类为非常准确,直到在验证数据集中占优。从质量上讲不太令人满意(但仍然可以接受)是使用“地形到栅格”(ArcGIS)插值方法获得的结果。相反,事实证明,ArcGIS环境中的样条线方法最不准确。我们认为,这很可能不仅是点(资源)密度不足的结果,而且是该方法在ArcGIS环境中的不适当实现。当比较控制点上给定土壤特性的测量值和估计值时,内插值被分类为非常准确,直到在验证数据集中占优。从质量上讲不太令人满意(但仍然可以接受)是使用“地形到栅格”(ArcGIS)插值方法获得的结果。相反,事实证明,ArcGIS环境中的样条线方法最不准确。我们认为,这很可能不仅是点(资源)密度不足的结果,而且是该方法在ArcGIS环境中的不适当实现。从质量上讲不太令人满意(但仍然可以接受)是使用“地形到栅格”(ArcGIS)插值方法获得的结果。相反,ArcGIS环境中的样条线方法最不准确。我们认为,这很可能不仅是点(资源)密度不足的结果,而且是该方法在ArcGIS环境中的不适当实现。从质量上讲不太令人满意(但仍然可以接受)是“地形到栅格”(ArcGIS)插值方法获得的结果。相反,事实证明,ArcGIS环境中的样条线方法最不准确。我们认为,这很可能不仅是点(资源)密度不足的结果,而且是该方法在ArcGIS环境中的不适当实现。
更新日期:2021-01-18
down
wechat
bug