Hengl MSC Thesis F

IMPROVING SOIL SURVEY METHODOLOGY
USING ADVANCED MAPPING TECHNIQUES

AND GRID-BASED MODELLING
CASE STUDY – BARANJA, CROATIA
Tomislav Hengl,
February, 2000
Improving soil survey methodology using advanced
mapping techniques and grid-based modelling
case study – Baranja, Croatia
By
Tomislav Hengl
Thesis submitted to the International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geoinformation for Sustainable
Soil Resource Management.
Degree Assessment Board
Prof. Dr. J.A. Zinck (Chairman)

Dr. D.G. Rossiter (Supervisor)
Dr. M.A. Mulders (external examiner)
Mr. D.P. Shrestha, MSc
Dr. W. Siderius
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS
Acknowledgements
Although this thesis is carrying only my name, there are several persons and organisations that make
this really work (it that sense this is more a teamwork product). Without them, this could have been a
rather modest thesis.
First I would like to mention my first supervisor Dr. David G. Rossiter who objectively and patiently
controlled quality of my research. His advises and expertise has been crucial for success of my study,
actually – even before we met (he was the first person I have addressed on ITC before I came here). I also
thank other people inside the division, especially Dr. W. Siderius, who provided me with professional and
technical support.
Equally or even greater importance has a professional consulting from outside ITC Soil Science
division. In Croatia, there is already a good contact established with the Soil Science department on
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb. For this I thank Prof. Matko Bogunović and his assistant
Dr. Stjepan Husnjak, who have supplied me with the soil map and soil survey report and chemical and
physical analysis lab-data of soil profiles and personally participated in reconnaissance survey. Due to
their good will and enthusiasm, I was able to use all the soil data that I needed.
I am very much influenced by Dr. Oleg Antonić from the Croatian national institute “Ruđer
Bosković”. He has more than five-year experience with applied geo-ecological modelling and GIS based
decision making. He can be considered as my external co-supervisor and was especially crucial for
providing advises in domain of geo-ecological modelling and statistics. My BSc supervisor Dr. Vladimir
Kušan from Faculty of forestry, University of Zagreb has also important role in consulting and advising.
It is his merit that I was using a satellite image in this research. I also thank Dr. Martin Schneider-
Jacoby from Euronatur who freely and without doubt gave me this copy of satellite image. Thanks to my
friend and dear college Stephan Gruber from Giessen in Germany, I was able to use algorithm for CTI
calculation.
At my home institution, Faculty of Agriculture Osijek, I rely mostly on Dr. Mladen Jurišić, associate
professor and present head of the AGIS-centre. He took care about additional funding I needed, although
these are not the bast time that my Faculty was facing. A good contact with the GIS society of Croatia
and other local organisations that saw a perspective in this field of science also helped a lot. I also thank
Prof. Gordana Kralik, the University Rector who welcomed us so unsparingly during our fieldwork.
Without the professional help of geodesists from Geodetic Department Osijek (namely Mr. Ivica
Lijić and Vladimir Tribuljak), I would not have been able to understand the co-ordinate systems and the
logic of topo-maps and aerial photos in Croatia. I also thank my dear college Dario Mihin, student of
crop science at Faculty of Agriculture in Osijek, who helped me during the actual fieldwork in digging
activities.
On the end, I thank my mother and father for helping me during my fieldwork in organising and
establishing contacts, and my girlfriend Monija for being patient when she was second on the list and I
was too busy with ‘playing on PC’.
Abstract
Rationale Objectivity, detail and accuracy of soil properties and delineations (landform classes)
can be improved in a cost-effective way using advanced mapping techniques, soil
explanatory data and grid-based modelling.
Research questions Which method is more accurate for location of point samples: GPS or location of points
from aerial ortho-photos? Can automated classification of landform parameters (slope,
aspect CTI etc.) replace aerial photo-interpretation? Can a soil property be predicted
with better accuracy using cheap soil-related than in polygon-based SIS?
Research area Baranja (north part of Osijek-baranja County), Croatia, app. 115000 ha; Floodplain
between two meandering rivers (Danube and Drava) with one elongated ridge shaped
hill; elevations 80 – 250 m; continental mesic and semi-humid moderate climate.
Methods Different layers of information were calculated from DEM (slope, profile and tangent
curvature, CTI, relative irradiation), satellite image (NDVI, land use classes) and
climatic data (Prescott index). Photo-interpretation was done for 5 triplets (5% of total
area) using Geopedological approach to test accuracy of landform classification. During
the field work, 29 new mini pits were sampled and taken for lab analysis. They were
located using three positioning methods (GPS, DGPS and aerial photos). One hundred
and five (105) point samples from previous survey were used to test prediction power of
environmental regression analysis for organic matter content in the surface horizon.
The 29 new points were used to compare different methods of positioning and as a
control points to asses accuracy of prediction of environmental regression. Data was
integrated and processed using ILWIS 2.3, Excel, Surfer 6, and Minitab 12.
Results Average error of using only single GPS reading to DGPS method was 44.1 m. Average
error of positioning using lower quality ortho-photos was 48.7 m. Single fix DGPS had
average error of 8.5 m. Six soil explanatory bands (slope, profile and tangent curvature,
CTI, relative irradiation and depth to ground water) were used to classify landforms.
The percentage of correctly classified pixels was 68% (72% for hilland, 64% for plain).
The classified map showed more detail but less smoothness than manual delineations. A
non-linear regression model that explains distribution of OM was developed OM =
f[NDVI2, PI-1, log(DWB), log(PROFC+20)]. It accounted for 49% of the variation
(NDVI2 accounted for 70% and PI-1 for 24%). When tested in control points it showed
the same accuracy as the polygon-based approach and low correlation with the true
values (r=0.24), but more detail.
Conclusions Positioning using uncorrected GPS signal can give equal or better (with averaging)
results than location of points on 1:20 K scale ortho-corrected aerial photos. For
mapping in larger scales (1:25000), DGPS with averaging should be used. Automated
classification can in some parts improve or even replace aerial photo-interpretation if
the samples are well selected, accuracy of the DEM and DEM derivatives is satisfactory
and number of bands to explain the landforms is sufficient.
A grid-based model of soil information is superior to the soil mapping units in terms of
detail, future user’s needs and objectivity. However, lots of technical problems have to
be solved before it becomes a standard system.
Key words: Soil survey, DGPS, GPS mapping, grid-based GIS, digital elevation model,
environmental regression, landform parameterisation, accuracy assessment
Preface
Abbreviations are frequently used in this text to make it easier for writing and reading. Readers are
advised to use Glossary at the end of the thesis and appendices in general to visualise research area
and actual landforms and soils appearing and understand used data and meaning of specific terms.
The specific terms and abbreviations used in the text are explained in more details in the glossary. The
definitions are cited from literature, gained through education, or come from my personal logic.
Most of GIS operations was done using ILWIS 2.3 package under windows NT. Statistical analysis
in this thesis was done in Minitab12 statistical package (1998, Minitab Inc). To improve interpolation
of contour lines for DEM, Surfer for Windows version 6.xx was used. All processing was done under
PC 266 MHz, using 64 MB of RAM.
To validate specific improvement, specific measures of validation for comparison of different
methods were used. For example, to validate improvement of accuracy, MSE and correlation coefficient
was used. To validate accuracy of classification, percentage of correctly classified pixels was used.
Some improvements could not be easily validated quantitatively, like objectiveness and cost-
effectiveness, so they where just commented in chapter 5 and 6 and argued using some estimations and
assumptions (number of subjective processes, estimation of specific costs: equipment, working hours
etc.).
The thesis is mainly concentrated on the development of methodology rather than building soil data
that will be used in practice. Current methodologies used in soil mapping and interpretation
procedures are sometimes very subjective (delineation, description and classification, naming of the
map units and interpretation). Subjectively formed information is a priori biased and harder to
correlate. Development of GT and programming techniques seems to tackle these drawbacks very
successfully. The modern soil surveyor must aim at objective (automated) interpolation and
interpretation of the data.
Modern Soil Information System should aim to represent soil properties in continuous model, but
in-between the more discrete units (strata). Another issue in improving the soil information is to use the
format that can be easily interpreted by all land users. The current form – polygon map linked to the
SDB requires knowledge, equipment and support that limits the interpretation. Raster maps (or
images!) of single soil properties offer in that sense many more possibilities.
The future soil information will be more detailed, accurate and definitively digital. Important is to
foresee that the remote sensing based soil mapping and grid, GIS based soil organisation will become
dominant form and concepts of modern soil survey methodology. This work is contributing to this
trend.
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................... I
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................II
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................................... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... I
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ III
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................................................. V
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................1
1.1 MOTIVES FOR RESEARCH ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 Limitations of classical soil survey .................................................................................................1
1.1.2 Collecting and organizing the Soil data ..........................................................................................3
1.1.3 Trends in Natural Resource Management .......................................................................................5
1.2 SOIL RELATED DATA AND QUANTITATIVE MODELLING ................................................................................6
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES ..................................................................................................7
1.3.1 Main research objectives ................................................................................................................7
1.3.2 Objective-Question-Hypothesis-Test ...............................................................................................8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................9
2.1 GPS IN SOIL SURVEY ................................................................................................................................9
2.2 IMPROVING THE FORM AND ACCURACY OF SOIL INFORMATION .................................................................. 10
2.3 SOIL SURVEY AND SOIL SCIENCE IN CROATIA ........................................................................................... 11
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................. 13
3.1 GENERAL STATISTICS ............................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY ................................................................................. 14
3.3 CLIMATE ............................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 GENERAL ECONOMY (LU AND LAND USERS) ............................................................................................ 17
3.5 SOILS .................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.6 GROUND WATER REGIME ........................................................................................................................ 20
4 MATERIALS AND METHODS................................................................................................................ 21
4.1 COORDINATE SYSTEMS AND DATUMS ...................................................................................................... 21
4.2 DATA FIELD COLLECTION........................................................................................................................ 22
4.3 BUILDING THE GIS LAYERS .................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.1 DEM generation ........................................................................................................................... 23
4.3.2 Ortho-photo generation and GP interpretation ............................................................................. 24
4.3.3 DEM derived products.................................................................................................................. 25
4.3.3.1 Slope, ASPECT, Tangent and profile curvature....................................................................................26
4.3.3.2 CTI - wetness index.............................................................................................................................27
4.3.3.3 RElative irradiation and Prescott index ................................................................................................27
4.3.3.4 Mean potential GWD ..........................................................................................................................29
4.3.3.5 NDVI – green-mass index....................................................................................................................29
4.3.3.6 Distance to water bodies – DWB .........................................................................................................30
4.4 GPS MAPPING ........................................................................................................................................ 31
4.5 GIS MODELLING .................................................................................................................................... 32
4.5.1 Landform classification ................................................................................................................ 32
4.5.2 Interpolation of soil properties ..................................................................................................... 34
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................. 37
5.1 SCANNING AND GEOREFERENCING........................................................................................................... 37
5.2 ORTHO-PHOTO IN ILWIS........................................................................................................................ 37
5.3 DEM GENERATION ................................................................................................................................ 38
5.4 FIELD WORK .......................................................................................................................................... 39
5.5 GPS/DGPS MAPPING ............................................................................................................................ 40
5.6 LANDFORM CLASSIFICATION ................................................................................................................... 44
5.7 MODELLING OF SOIL PROPERTIES ............................................................................................................ 48
I
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 53
6.1 BACK TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS… ................................................................................................... 53
6.1.1 Accuracy of GPS, DGPS and location of points from ortho-photos............................................... 53
6.1.2 Automated classification of landforms .......................................................................................... 53
6.1.3 Soil quantitative modelling........................................................................................................... 54
6.1.4 Maps of single soil properties....................................................................................................... 55
6.2 OTHER RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 56
6.3 FUTURE RESEARCH................................................................................................................................. 57
7 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 59
8 APPENDICES............................................................................................................................................ 63
8.1 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................................. 63
8.2 CATALOGUE OF SOIL EXPLANATORY VARIABLES ...................................................................................... 66
8.2.1 Slope and aspect .......................................................................................................................... 66
8.2.2 Profile and tangent curvature....................................................................................................... 67
8.2.3 Ground water depth and distance to water bodies......................................................................... 68
8.2.4 Wetness index............................................................................................................................... 69
8.2.5 Prescott index .............................................................................................................................. 70
8.2.6 NDVI and Land use map............................................................................................................... 71
8.2.7 Final map - classification of landforms ........................................................................................ 73
8.3 ORIGINAL DATA SETS USED..................................................................................................................... 75
8.3.1 Example of an ASCII file produced by Garmin’s software ............................................................ 75
8.3.2 GPS data...................................................................................................................................... 76
8.3.3 Original lab data.......................................................................................................................... 77
8.4 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTIONS AND LAB DATA............................................................................................ 79
8.5 FIELD WORK PHOTOGRAPHS.................................................................................................................... 83
II
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vector and grid-based representation of a mapping unit. The grid form involves not only more
details but also downscaling of management. ..................................................................................3
Figure 2. Left: location of the Croatia in Europe. Right: research area Baranja and a sketch with the main
land cover/use groups and infrastructure.......................................................................................13
Figure 3. Main relief types as seen from DEM. Line indicates a cross section (see next figure)..............14
Figure 5. Climatic diagram (according to C. W. Thornthwaite) showing monthly rainfall and potential
evapo-transpiration for Osijek – period from 1901-1980...............................................................16
Figure 6. Soil map from 1975 with legend (Croatian classification system). ..........................................18
Figure 7. Seasonal variation of groundwater depths in lower degree of swamp formation area (Privredna
komora Slavonije i Baranje, 1985)................................................................................................20
Figure 8. From original topo-map (1), extracted segment and point maps (2) to interpolated DEM (3).
Features like small channels and ridges on topo-map and addition of contours and benchmarks can
be seen.........................................................................................................................................24
Figure 9. Filtering of the NDVI image. Left: histogram of the original image and right: histogram of the
NDVI image only for natural vegetation. ......................................................................................30
Figure 10. Measured location of points (B003, 8 and 4) using three methods – displayed over ortho-
photo. Grid lines spacing = 100 m. Symbols used: + for DGPS; ◊ for GPS; ο for AERO. .............31
Figure 11. Creating training samples for landform classification (left in hilland and right in plain).
Sampled pixels can be seen as contrasting dots. In the background is the false colour composite
(CTI, SLOPE and GWD maps)....................................................................................................33
Figure 12. Position of points user for fitting (105) and control (29).......................................................35
Figure 13. Ortho-photo produced in ILWIS and on screen digitised API boundaries. Left – with grid lines
showing the distortions, right – with API boundaries and down – draped over the DEM. ...............38
Figure 14. Slope derived from DEM calculated using linear interpolation (left) and minimum curvature
algorithm (right). Although the minimum curvature is not an exact interpolator, slope values show
less error (gradual change). ..........................................................................................................39
Figure 15. Distribution of error radius for single-fix DGPS and parameters used to evaluate accuracy of
positioning – average error and 95% probability radius.................................................................41
Figure 16. Comparison of three methods of field positioning. Results of DGPS method are used as a
referent value (assumed error is <5 m). Deviation of raw GPS, as well as outliers of 95% probability
radius can be seen. .......................................................................................................................42
Figure 17. Fluctuation of single DGPS fixes from the averaged/true value. ...........................................42
Figure 18. Error values of altitudes when compared with the DEM values. ...........................................44
Figure 19. GP map produced by guided classification and boundaries of GP polygon map extracted
manually through API. .................................................................................................................47
Figure 20. Graph plots showing individual correlation between OM and independent variables. Doted line
indicates probable relationship type. .............................................................................................49
Figure 21. Map of OM for Baranja. Left: polygon-based approach, right: from environmental regression
model. Areas of high OM content along the rivers (natural vegetation) can be seen........................51
Figure 22. Comparison of accuracy of prediction of polygon-based and grid-based method for 25
independent locations. ..................................................................................................................52
Figure 23. Comparison of level of detail of two different models of soil information – polygon (left) and
grid (right). Grid spacing = 1 km..................................................................................................52
III
List of Tables
Table 1. The classical soil survey processes and their general constraints................................................2
Table 2. Summarized comparison of the discrete and continuous models of soil information....................4
Table 3. Factors important for selection of the most suitable field resolution (Standard values used are:
total area ≈ 500.000 ha, average slope ≈ 5% and standard field area ≈ 10 ha). ................................5
Table 4. Key factors influencing pedogenesis and related potential explanatory variables. .......................6
Table 5. Steps in classical soil survey and improvements to be tested. In this thesis, especial focus will be
given on mapping and modelling techniques (bolded). .....................................................................7
Table 6. Structured list of research objectives, questions, hypotheses and statistical tests used. ...............8
Table 7. General statistics on temperature and rainfall per months for last 50 years. Source: (Privredna
komora Slavonije i Baranje, 1985). .............................................................................................. 16
Table 8. Co-ordinate systems used and their specifications. .................................................................. 21
Table 9. Data used for the research, their scale, year of collection and form.......................................... 22
Table 10. Soil properties measured in the lab and methodology used..................................................... 23
Table 11. Common GP legend and codes used...................................................................................... 25
Table 12. Basic DEM derivatives and formulas for their calculation..................................................... 26
Table 13. Original rainfall data used for interpolation (Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986).
................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 14. Data used to calculate potential water surface for whole Baranja (period from 1946-70). ...... 29
Table 15. Measured soil (dependent) variable and soil explanatory variables (independent) – regression
table (sample). ............................................................................................................................. 34
Table 16. Results of the georeferencing and related cartographic standards........................................... 37
Table 17. Statistical summary for results on GPS testing. N indicates number of repetitions. ................ 41
Table 18. Sigma or average error calculated by the software for different numbers of fixes and DOP.
Point A002 was not included in the regression model due to possible gross error effect.................. 43
Table 19. Summary of the least square regression model for predicting GPS sigma from N and DOP.... 43
Table 20. Soil explanatory bands, unit, minimum, maximum and relative distribution........................... 45
Table 21. Ratio of correctly classified pixels – efficiency of classification of landforms using 3 and 6
bands. N is number of pixels used as training sample per each of the classes................................. 46
Table 22. 95% probability range of values for different landform classes calculated from sampling pixels.
................................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 23. Pearson correlations table for testing independence of soil explanatory variables. Correlation
coefficient and statistical significance (<0.01 – significant)........................................................... 48
Table 24. Some individual correlations between OM and soil explanatory variables after visual
interpretation and transformation of original data. ........................................................................ 50
Table 25. Summary statistics of regression model for predicting OM content in first horizon for Baranja
(n=87). ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Table 26. Working scale and adjacent position system (maximum location accuracy = 0,2 mm on map).
................................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 27. Same points (mini-pits) located using three methods. Missing values are gross errors or
unsuccessfully processed DGPS data. .......................................................................................... 76
Table 28. Original lab data. Bolded are values used in thesis. ............................................................... 77
IV
List of Photographs
Photo A. Full pit taken in high terrace part of plain with main soil profile description and analytical data.
....................................................................................................................................................79
Photo B. Full pit taken in the hydro-meliorated part of the floodplain with main soil profile description
and analytical data. ......................................................................................................................81
Photo C. During the fieldwork, three main groups of features were documented for every profile: soil-
forming environment - landforms (1), specific soil properties (2) and soil profile (3)......................83
Photo D. Some specific landform features as seen on satellite image (1), on the field (2) and (4) and soil
features (3) and (5) appearing in the area......................................................................................85
V
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Motives for research
Many aspects of standard soil survey, are basically subjective processes. Among these are photo
interpretation, delineation of soil boundaries and soil description. In that sense, soil survey is often
considered partly an art and partly an empirical science. A good soil surveyor (or survey) is based on
field experience, number of pits sampled and described, aerial photos interpreted and landscape-soil-
land use relationships explained. In this context, the title of my research can be considered as
pretentious, when compared with my actual field experience. On the other hand, tools for more objective
and powerful soil mapping are recently increasingly in development. Although they require different
expertise than classical soil survey, it is the hypothesis of this thesis that these tools can be beneficial in
the production of soil surveys. Examples of these tools are Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers,
landform parameterisation, environmental regression and geostatistical interpolation or quantitative soil-
landscape modelling in general. These techniques can not replace knowledge and expertise of an
experienced surveyor, but may be able to improve it by making them more analytical and
objective. Therefore, this thesis presents possibilities of implementing various objective methods in
building Soil Geographic Databases (SDB). It mainly deals with the accuracy, detail and form of soil
information, in the spirit of improving and making current practice more objective and useful.
1.1.1 Limitations of classical soil survey

It should be first emphasised that this thesis deals primarily with semi-detailed and detailed soil
survey (scales >1:100 000) using the methodology described in Soil Survey manual and similar
documents (Soil survey Division staff, 1993), (Čirić, 1984). The following statements should be
considered within this context.
Soil, being a complex and dynamic material, is hard to sample, describe and map. A fundamental
problem with soil survey is that we can directly observe only a tiny fraction of the soil, and this
sampling (by auger or shovel) is destructive, i.e., once we have sampled a site we have destroyed its
original characteristics. Digging a pit gives a more complete view of a pedon, but at high costs, and this
also is destructive sampling. Other conceptual problems with soils mapping are high local variability of
some soil properties (especially chemical) and the generally dynamic and latent nature of soil that is
sometimes hard to understand and describe. Good examples of the latent nature of soil are fossil or
buried soils. Their appearance can’t be explained from the current soil-forming environment. The
problem of positioning the soil boundary on the map is inherently difficult, since the soil itself can not
be sampled to a sufficient density. Hence, aerial-photo interpretation (API) is almost universally used to
delineate soil bodies. The API, being a subjective process, leads to uncertainty of soil information.
Although quality norms control the error of the delineation, all soil boundaries on the map are assumed
to have the same sharpness and distribution of within-soil body variability is often not considered.
Experience proves that soil boundaries are rarely abrupt (Lagacherie et al., 1996). There are also lots of
other conceptual and technical limitations that challenge soil surveyors today. Some of them can be seen
in Table 1.
New concepts and technologies are rapidly developing today, offering many advances but increasing
the complexity of the job and putting emphasise on equipment rather than personnel (Ibanez et al.,
1993). One of this is especially GPS technology that is today well developed and widely used in many
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 1

environmental applications. Although there are some applications to soil survey already, there are
mainly for locating single observations or sample transects. Very often, accuracy or precision of
specific GPS method is unknown or misinterpreted. It seems likely that integration of GPS into routine
survey could make survey much more powerful and efficient.
There has been a lot of work done towards integration of land data into a map that predicts soil
distribution, although there is still no operational routine. The Jenny equation (soil property = f
{climate, organism, relief, parent material, time}) is usually used subjectively as a concept to guide
API, often with great success in the hands of a skilled photo-interpreter. Unfortunately, not all photo-
interpreters are equally skilled. Now when powerful desktop computers and GIS programs are becoming
widely available, it is possible to carry out research in soil survey methodology, oriented towards
developing algorithms and methods to predict soil landscapes from related geoinformation. Quantitative
modelling (multiple regression, geostatistics etc.) has in some cases proven to be powerful for predicting
the spatial variation of some soil properties, but the methods vary from application to application. They
also usually consider the dependent variables only partially (e.g. correlating a soil variable with only
slope). An advantage is that all predictions can be tested on the same data sets and evaluated for every
specific study.
Most authors agree that there are two main approaches to spatial prediction of soil properties. The
first is geostatistical and second, often called “clorp(t)” after Jenny’s equation, multiple or
environmental regression. The synthesis of these two approaches is especially interesting these days
(McKenzie and Ryan, 1999).
Table 1. The classical soil survey processes and their general constraints.
Process Remark
Photo interpretation Is a subjective process, although a well-trained soil survey expert can better
group and generalise the features than any current algorithm.
Designing the sampling The routine implementation of possibilities of geostatistical sampling
optimisation is still developing.
Profile description The general descriptive data are entered on the field in the forms and then re-
entered. Use of field computer can speed up the process.
Soil sampling Standards to use relatively cheap GPS for accurate mapping in the field are
developing more and more.
Inter- and extra-polation Point observations used to represent the delineations are selected subjectively.
Inter- and extra-polation of the data is also usually done subjectively.
Soil information The classical Soil information System (SIS) is a polygon-based map linked to a
organisation relational SDB. Soil spatial variation within the boundaries of mapping units is
generally neglected.
2 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

1.1.2 Collecting and organizing the Soil data

There are two main ways of representing the spatial distribution of soils and their properties in a
SIS (Rossiter, 1998). These follow the two contrasting conceptualisations of spatial variability
a) Discrete model – DMSV where the soils are presented by the polygons and the mapping is
carried out by API;
b) Continuous (or grid) model – CMSV where the mapping is carried out by sampling and
interpolation leading to a raster/grid map or by geo-ecological modelling;
A detailed comparison of these two models can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 1. Although the grid
model shows more advantages than the polygon one, Table 3 shows how is an increase of the detail
related to technical requirements of a grid-based map.
VECTOR FORM RASTER FORM

Averaged data - representative point d etailed m ap
LEGEND
MAPPING UNIT
MANAGEMENT
LEVEL
Field resolution
e.g. 30 x 30 m
Figure 1. Vector and grid-based representation of a mapping unit. The grid form involves not only more
details but also downscaling of management.

Table 2. Summarized comparison of the discrete and continuous models of soil information.
Discrete (Polygon) Issue Continuous (Grid)
Polygon map + database (tables); Raster map for every single property (it’s
Data
also possible to have a soil class grid-based
organization
map (de Gruijter et al., 1997));
Usually a range of values linked to a soil (Mean) predicted value per cell and
Information
class (attribute tables); standard error of the prediction;
form
Conventional soil survey shows Detail depends on grid resolution that
Detail
variations at length scales from app. 50 ranges from minimum legible delineation
to 500 m (McKenzie and Ryan, 1999); (0.1 or 0.25 mm) to 3 mm on map
Optimal legible area is 4 x the minimum suggested by (Valenzuela and
one or bigger: 1.0 to 1.6 cm2 on the map Baumgardner, 1990);
(Rossiter, 1998); Field resolution for modelling purposes
should not be coarser than 50 m;
Fine grain of detail across whole area;
Point observations are used to represent Mathematical and programming knowledge
Weaknesses
the areas; is required, specialised software is also
Within-delineation variability is usually needed (geostatistical methods);
not considered; Grid form of the data requires more
Soil related data are usually used only memory, computations are time consuming;
qualitatively; Some features/processes is much easier to
Needs more field samples to reach map using mental model rather than
required accuracy (cost-efficiency); explanatory variables (e.g. buried horizons,
The selection of the representative points fossil soils etc.);
is subjective;
More practical representation of soil More scientific approach;
Advantages
especially where the transitions are More realistic representation of nature
relatively abrupt; especially where the transition is more
Lower data volume; gradual;
Easy to build and use; Related data can be used quantitatively for
Can be very efficient if surveyor is statistical analysis (known precision of
skilled; prediction or probability);
Offers more details/precision;
Uses actual point observations;
Multipurpose soil survey for LUP; Mapping of single properties for specific
Application
purposes;
Modelling, geostatistical analysis;
Site-specific management, assessment of
soil pollution etc. with fine resolution;

Table 3. Factors important for selection of the most suitable field resolution (Standard values used are:
total area ≈ 500.000 ha, average slope ≈ 5% and standard field area ≈ 10 ha).
Field resolution (m) 5x5 25 x 25 100 x 100 1 x 1 km

Related map scale factor:
25,000 125,000 500,000 > 1M
MLA = 0.2 mm
Unit area (ha)
0.0025 0.0625 1 100
Approximate image size
14,000x14,000 2800x2800 700x700 70x70
Elevation error due to slope
± 0.125 ± 0.625 ± 2.5 ± 25
difference on the ends of the grid
(m)
Related positioning system
$10,000 DGPS $5,000 DGPS $500 GPS
RS compatibility Still not compatible

(aerial photography)
SPOT, LANDSAT
NOAA
Most suitable land data More variable soil properties
(regarding spatial variability) Soil properties
Vegetation indexes, Climatic data
Average climatic data
1.1.3 Trends in Natural Resource Management

The development of the remote sensing, GIS tools, geostatistics, mapping tools etc. in the beginning
of 90’s, have opened new possibilities of data collection, analysis and interpretation. A very important
hypothesis in natural resource management today is that the costs of preventing the land, water and air
degradation are much smaller than the posterior investments in remedation and amelioration. For
example, costs of soil erosion that is following an inappropriate segment of road construction can easily
cover the costs of soil survey and land use planning of thousand of hectares. For this reason it is
becoming important to plan management of natural resources not only in general but also to try to
predict their behaviour and response in detail. In other words, NRM is becoming a more information-
based rather than mechanics-based practice.
Precision management demands also higher detail and certainty of soil information. ‘Certainty’
refers both to location accuracy, because of the detailed spatial management, and thematic accuracy,
because of the precision of treatments by the farmer. In both cases, traditional soil surveys are often
deficient.
In a practical sense, precision agriculture and site specific forestry have emerged from the
application of geoinformation technologies (Speelman, 1997), (Committee on Assesing Crop Yield,
1997). The last decade was characterised by the testing of methodology or pure research, while today
precision management principles are already widely used in developed countries (USA, Canada,
Western Europe, Australia, Japan etc.). Most of soil data built for precision agriculture purposes are
often multifunctional, i.e. can be used for number of other applications especially water management
and environmental protection. Although some investigations have proven that this technologies are still
too expensive and uneconomical investment (Gripentrog and Isensee, 1998), others arguments such as
decrease of prices and importance of sound ecological basis tells that they are soon to become standard
and widely-used (Petersen et al., 1995).

1.2 Soil related data and quantitative modelling
During manual delineation of soil mapping units, soil surveyor often uses information on relief,
slope, shape, land use, vegetation type, drainage pattern, geology etc. that can be inferred from stereo
photo and field identification. This process is often time-consuming and requires substantial field
experience. One of main issues of current research in soil mapping is quantification of soil survey data,
not only for classification purposes but also for mathematical modelling and statistical analysis. For this
reason quantitative (and qualitative) parameters that can be used to predict and explain soil distribution
are becoming more and more important.
These parameters are often called “Soil related data” or, more precisely, “Soil environmental
explanatory variables” and main reasons for using them are to make soil mapping more scientific and
cost-effective. This term also corresponds to the term “cheap-to-measure attributes” (Burrough and
McDonnell, 1998) used to imply that reason to use them has scientific and economic basis. Some of
these variables are actually mathematical derivatives that do not have to be measured on the field at all.
For example slope gradient and form, wetness index or aspect, can be derived directly from DEM – so
called “Landform parameterisation” or “Landform morphometry” (Schmidt et al., 1998). Others,
such as solar irradiation, annual temperature or rainfall value, can be calculated using point data from
meteorological stations and topological modelling. These group of procedures is often called “Geo-
ecological modelling” (Antonić, 1996). In Table 4, main key factors and their explanatory variables are
listed. Each of explanatory variables has to have same georeference (field resolution), time period and
should be easier to obtain than soil variables. Otherwise, more intensive sampling strategies combined
with sampling are more cost-effective.
Table 4. Key factors influencing pedogenesis and related potential explanatory variables.
Pedogenetic factor Related soil properties Explanatory variables Units
Wetness gleying properties, horizon depths, CTI – Compound index

texture, Topographic Index index
Ground water depth cm
Radar images
Temperature regime nature and rate of weathering, biological Soil temperature °C
activity, OM content and nature Prescott Index index
Parent material mineralogy and texture Parent material classes classes
Vegetation horizon depths, OM content NDVI index
Land cover types classes
Relief horizon depths, texture, soil development, Elevation m
(erosion/deposition) OM content and nature Slope %
Aspect index
Curvature index
Human influence nutrient composition, horizon depths, Land use classes classes

1.3 Research objectives and hypotheses
1.3.1 Main research objectives
The main objective of the research is to develop and test techniques to improve the objectivity, detail
and accuracy of spatial soil information in a cost-effective way. In a practical sense, this means to
follow the steps in the soil survey procedure and try to implement and test advantages of GT and
different methods that are used for soil mapping, that is to say, the prediction of distribution of soil
properties in space (see Table 5). The following table shows the procedures that could be done in
different ways. The aim is to see which of these possible improvements is in fact beneficial and cost
effective. Some of the listed improvements are already implemented in classical soil survey procedure
(e.g. GPS mapping). Others like automated landform classification, soil classification guided through
algorithms etc. are more experimental. In the text, several factors controlling soil survey quality are
mentioned.
Table 5. Steps in classical soil survey and improvements to be tested. In this thesis, especial focus will be
given on mapping and modelling techniques (bolded).
Classical survey Possible improvement Alternative improvement

(control)
Photo interpretation (GP) Automated landform No map units only grid map
classification
Data input Vectorisation of scanned On screen digitalisation
photo-interpretation map
Designing the sampling Geostatistical optimisation Design using GIS procedures
procedure
Profile description Direct input of the data to Documenting profiles using
field computer Digital camera
Soil sample location DGPS mapping GPS mapping
Soil classification Automated soil classification No soil types only variables
Inter- and extra-polation Environmental regression Geostatistical algorithms
Soil information Hybrid model of soil Grid form of soil information
organization information

1.3.2 Objective-Question-Hypothesis-Test
More specific research questions and assumed answers (hypotheses) are listed bellow. Answers on
these are based on statistical analysis, and can be found the in Results and Discussion chapter.
Table 6. Structured list of research objectives, questions, hypotheses and statistical tests used.
O1 To apply inexpensive GPS methods in soil survey.

Q1 Which method is more accurate for location of point samples: GPS or location of points
from aerial ortho-photos and by compass and pacing?
H1 GPS is significantly more accurate for point location than AERO method.
T1 T-test for error vectors.
O2 To make soil mapping units more scientific and cost-effective.

Q2 Can automated classification of landform classes improve or even replace photo-
interpretation (GP approach)?
H2 Landform classes inside/outside training areas delineated manually do not differ significantly
from those calculated using guided classification using landform parameters.
T2 Confusion matrix
O3 To examine the correlation between different types of cheap soil-related data and spatial
variation of the soil properties and suggest the best algorithm for mapping soil properties.
Q3 Can a soil property be predicted with better accuracy using cheap soil-related data and
quantitative modelling rather than polygon-based SIS?
H3 Values predicted at control points using soil-related data and models (geostatistical
interpolation, environmental regression) are significantly more accurate that those predicted
using classical polygon-based SIS
T3 Fisher’s test for adjusted r2, MSE
O4 To improve the form, detail and accuracy of presented soil information.

Q4 Should maps of single soil properties replace polygon based mapping units?
H4 Grid-based SIS can replace classical SIS where enough soil related data is available without
any additional high investments.
T4 No test only argued comparison.
In this context, the research can be considered as a statistical comparison of different models of soil
information and algorithms for mapping, estimation and prediction: API versus automated landform
classification, GPS or DGPS versus use of ortho-photos, polygon-based SIS versus grid-based, soil
classification versus maps of single soil properties. There are also a number of other practical questions
that appeared such as: How can GPS be integrated into routine survey? What are limitations of use of
GPS for mapping purposes? Which soil-related data could significantly improve the accuracy of the soil
information and how can this be used for mapping? How can different models of the space and GIS
quantitative modelling methods be combined towards more accurate and detailed soil information? How
should grid-based SIS be organised? These are evaluated in more detail in the Conclusion.

LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER 2
2 Literature Review
Most of ideas for this research come from the course period of my MSc study and literature
reviews. Especially inspiring were the papers on landform parameterisation (Irvin et al., 1997), (Odeh et
al., 1994), (Odeh et al., 1995) and using quantitative modelling for prediction of distribution of soil
properties (McKenzie and Ryan, 1999) i.e. GEODERMA journal. Also very useful reference was
Burrough’s overview of main methods and applications in GIS substantiated with numerous (Burrough
and McDonnell, 1998). Most of the literature used was suggested by Dr. Rossiter and external
consultant Dr. Antonić. During last few months, I also became curious for “Pedometrics group” and
happenings around the Working Group on Pedometrics of the International Society of Soil Science
(1994).
Current research in survey and geoinformation science has led to several suggestions for the
improvement of the classical model of spatial (soil) information. The ideas differ from application to
application. The general aims (if they can be grouped) of soil survey researchers are today common also
for the other survey disciplines:
! to decrease the number of detailed observation by designing the sampling procedure and using
data of remote sensing;
! to operationalise the use of more advanced mapping tools (GPS), geostatistical algorithms, fuzzy
theory, neural networks, fractal theory etc.;
! to increase detail and accuracy by using all possible cheap-to-measure soil related data, such as
landform parameters, climatic data etc., in predicting the spatial distribution of the properties;
! to operationalise the use of multi- and hyper-spectral remote sensing data (especially radar
data) in direct mapping and modelling of soil properties;
2.1 GPS in soil survey
GPS is standardly being used for soil survey purposes from beginning of 90’s. In the last few years
number of application is increasing. There are two main groups of application of GPS in mapping soils:
A. for finding previously selected sites in the field (navigation);
B. mapping profiles, soil boundaries and soil related features;

Long et al. (Long et al., 1991) call this second group “field digitising”. They tested accuracy, cost
and efficiency of GPS compared to classical methods of navigation (compass plus topo-map – distance-
azimuth readings, aerial photos). Results have proven that GPS can be used to map sites to accuracy
within 5 m (differential GPS) and soil boundaries to within 30.5 m (100 feet – US national mapping
standard). Mapping rate using GPS can be increased to more than 40 ha/hour compared to manual
positioning that is usually about 20 ha/hour. They also mention that “ground positioning with the GPS
was faster, less difficult, and more accurate than conventional positioning”.
The type of receiver and GPS method that will be applied in soil survey depends primarily on the
accuracy wanted and funds available. August et al. have evaluated especially accuracy and precision of
GPS for environmental applications in general (August et al., 1994). They compared GPS measurement
with different methods for two known locations. As a measure of accuracy they used distance from
known to GPS-derived position – error vector. For each GPS method (raw GPS data, different number

of sequential fixes, differential GPS etc.), mean distance its standard deviation, 90th, 95th, and 99th
percentiles etc. were calculated. The value of error vector in normal GPS method is mostly controlled by
Selective Availability. The 95% probability radius for single-fix GPS is about 100 m. Results of this
research showed that using the averaging function, this radius can be decreased to up to 40 to 70 m
(average from 300 replicates). Eventually, if the number of replicates is big enough e.g 24 hours of
readings, average value could even get to accuracy of few meters. This period of measurement makes it
far from being cost-effective. Another important conclusion was that averaging fewer than 20 replicate
fixes can only slightly improve the accuracy. “Averages of more than 50 replicates improves both
accuracy and precision significantly” (August et al., 1994). For DGPS the 95% probability radius was
quite lower – from 10 m for a single fix measurement to less than 6 m (average from 300 replicates).
Similar research (Arnaud and Flori, 1998) shows that 95% probability or confidence radius can be
improved using only averaging without differential correction to about 30 m. To benefit fully from
averaging method, certain time lapse between two successive readings should be made to ensure that
they are independent. Arnaud and Flori estimated that this time lapse should be more than 4 minutes and
then the confidence radius will decrease to about 30 m (average from 20 replicates). However, “this
also means running the risk of waiting over an hour before being able to take a measurement”
(Arnaud and Flori, 1998).
2.2 Improving the form and accuracy of soil information
Lots of work has been done lately on parameterisation of landforms and implementation of this data
in soil mapping. Detailed enough DEM can be used to automatically classify landforms (or soil
mapping units). Irvin et al. used 6 parameters (elevation, slope, profile and tangent curvature, CTI and
solar insolation) derived from 10 m DEM to classify landforms. Results have shown that “automated
approach provides greater spatial detail” while generally coinciding with the classes delineated
manually (Irvin et al., 1997). Authors concluded that landform parameterisation can help soil surveyor
to:
a) reduce sampling requirements within homogenous areas,
b) delineate soil units (where there is a strong correspondence to landform elements) with higher
objectivity, and
c) extrapolate within un- or under- sampled areas.
However, there are some basic requirements for DEM that have to be met in landform
parameterisation depending on type of area. For example, Gessler found that in an erosional landscape,
grid cell resolution finer than 40 m is unnecessary (Gessler, 1996). McKenzie and Austin found good
predictive relation between soil properties and landform data even in extremely low relief (alluvial)
landscapes, but elevation data with vertical precision of 20 cm was needed (McKenzie and Austin,
1993). Irvin et al. also mentions relatively high resolution of DEM as a practical drawback. Mitas and
Mitasova mentions importance of interpolation method for building the DEM. The quality of DEM for
topographical modelling depends on how good is smoothness and tension described and how good are
streams and ridges modelled (Mitas and Mitasova, 1999). While Burrough thinks that “local simple
(linear) methods of interpolation are often better than the complex one, because they do not need to
make assumptions about the spatial interactions.” (Burrough and McDonnell, 1998).
There are many ideas for improvement of the general form of soil information. Lagacherie et al.
suggest using the fuzzy theory for mapping transition zones (boundaries) between adjacent polygons as
a way of improvement of the discrete model of the space (Lagacherie et al., 1996). Burrough et al.
suggest the use of continuous classification or fuzzy soil classes (Burrough et al., 1997). They mention
studies by Bie and Beckett that demonstrated that there is always a possibility of radically different

LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER 2
boundary placings by different surveyors and suggest automated boundary detection. De Gruijter et al.
succeeded to built a continuous soil map and even suggested how to display partial fuzzy membership
classes of different soil types at the same time (de Gruijter et al., 1997) – a true hybrid (discrete-
continuous) model of soil information.
In large-scale studies where the density of sampling is high, geostatistical analysis and interpolation
is used as a standard tool to produce a map. In semi-detailed scales, where soil pits are more distant
from each other, pre-assumptions for kriging procedures are unsatisfied – points fall into different strata
or there is a trend in data due to e.g. relief variation. In this situations, Burrough suggests combined
interpolation methods to be used (Burrough and McDonnell, 1998) (e.g. stratified kriging or co-kriging).
Approach that especially appeals to environmental researchers is the use of environmental regression
models as a part of the kriging procedure. Burrough also suggests that “regression models are
especially advisable in situations where the budget is limited and more exact methods can not be
used”. This combination of geostatistics and regression analysis is known as Universal kriging or KT
kriging – kriging with presence of external trend.
In some situations, it has been shown that advanced algorithms and combined
geostatistical/statistical methods can significantly improve accuracy while decreasing relative cost of
survey, e.g. using the external information and 50-point kriging results in more accurate prediction than
100 single observations (Heuvelink, 1994). The linking of geostatistics and GIS also opened a
possibility to easily analyse several different approaches to spatial prediction. The synthesis of
prediction of soil variables from other environmental variables and geostatistics is considered to be an
area for further research in pedometrics (McKenzie and Ryan, 1999). However there is still no universal
solution to soil data modelling. McKenzie and Ryan found that “…there are circumstances where soil
variation occurs without relation to readily observable environmental variables. In these cases,
detailed sampling is unavoidable”.
2.3 Soil survey and Soil science in Croatia
Soil science in Southeast Europe and in Croatia has a long tradition. The first books on pedology
and soils in Croatia are from the end of the 19th century – “Zemljoznanstvo” (“Pedology”) from 1877
written by M. Kišpatić (Škorić, 1977). At the beginning of the century, soil theory in Croatia was
primarily influenced by Russian pedogenetic school. After the Second World War, original
classification “Classification of Yugoslav soils”, adjusted to explain and classify most of the specific
processes in this regions, was developed. The latest issue is from 1985 (Škorić et al., 1985) when it,
under influence of American “Soil taxonomy”, accepted the analytical approach to soil classification,
but remained original names evolved from Russian system. It is mainly based on diagnostic horizon
types and sequence recognition, but diagnostic properties for these are also well defined. Though it uses
all principles and horizon types from FAO’s and ISSS’s international classification system, horizon
symbols are modified and specific horizons are added. Today the same classification is still in use in
Croatia and other former republics of Yugoslavia.
The most comprehensive review of soil processes and types in ex-Yugoslavia today can still be
found in Prof. M. Ćirić book “Pedologija” (“Pedology”) from 1984 (Čirić, 1984). A most detailed
reference on soils in region of Baranja can be found in “Soils of Slavonija and Baranja” written in 1977
as a direct result of mapping activities (Škorić, 1977). The book shows the main soil types, their
properties and distribution but also geological-meteorological-hydrological characteristics of the area,
relation of soils and land use and possibilities of development. Also very detail description of natural
resources of Baranja region can be found in monography of “Belje” – the biggest land user in Baranja
(Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986).

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA CHAPTER 3
3 Description of the Study Area
3.1 General statistics
Geographical Name: Baranja

General location: Northeast corner of Croatia, bounded by Hungary (N) and Yugoslavia (E);
nearest city Osijek
Bounding co-ordinates Easting: 18° 16’ – 18° 59’E
Northing: 45° 33’ – 45° 56’N
Area: 114 900 ha
Population (1991): 120 000
Topography: Floodplain between two meandering rivers (Danube and Drava) with one
elongated ridge shaped hill (“Bansko brdo”); elevations 80–250 m; big
swamp area that is protected as a ornithological reserve (“Kopački rit”)
Land use structure: Agricultural land 60%, forest land 25%, protected areas 15%
Y
AR
NG
HU
SR
o
b rd
J
o
nsk
Beli Ba
Manastir Agriculture
Danube
Forests
Drav
a
Swampy area
Kopacki
Rit Settlement
Croatia in Eastern Europe Osijek
Figure 2. Left: location of the Croatia in Europe. Right: research area Baranja and a sketch with the
main land cover/use groups and infrastructure.
The area was suitable for the pre-testing of methodology because there are lots of data, reports and
studies about natural resources of Baranja – these data, although bit outdated, are still very useful. It
was also suitable because it represents two contrasting landscape types – hilland and plain.

3.2 Physiography, Geology and geomorphology
Baranja is located in eastern Slavonia, in the triangle formed by the junction of the Danube and
Drava rivers. It is small part of the large Panonian plain, formed through eolian and fluvial processes.
Parent materials in the study area is mostly of sedimentary type from Pleistocene and Holocene ages
(Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986). Basically, there are two main landscape types present
in the area (see Figure 3):
a) A fluvial plain with temporary and permanent swamps and series of terraces. Some of the
higher terraces are also covered with 20-50 meters of Pleistocene loess, overlying older fluvial
sediments.
b) Baranja hill (“Bansko brdo”) – relatively eroded ridge mostly covered by loess sediments
(geological layer thick from few meters on summit to up to 30 m in bottom of glacis). In some
parts, gravely colluvial material eroded from original basalt-andesite rock can be found.
Relatively level topography is dominant in the area (80-85% of total area) covered with fluvial
sediments from action of two rivers. The ridge shaped hill is described (Department for the scientific
work Osijek, 1986) as “an asymmetrical horst type tectonic block” with lots of vale-shaped erosional
features. Soil parent material is derived through:
! Weathering and erosion of the Baranja hill – sandstone, basalt-andesite and limestone (in small
areas) rock types. Most of this, however, is blanketed by loess.
! Eolian erosion during the Pleistocene, deposited as loess sediments (37% of the total area) –
high terraces.
! Fluvial deposition from the Drava and Danube rivers – alluvial materials from gravel to clay,
but mostly of silty to silty-clay textures.
! Local erosion of Baranja hill loess, redeposited in the vales.
! Locally, swamps high in decayed vegetation.
Figure 3. Main relief types as seen from DEM. Line indicates a cross section (see next figure).

Coarse fluvial material
Heavier texture
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Sandy material
Weathered rock

Figure 4. Cross-section from north (left) to south boundary – main relief types as seen on aerial photos.
CHAPTER 3
15
3.3 Climate
Baranja has a relatively homogeneous continental moderate climate, due to the small relief
differences. The average monthly temperatures vary from 0 in January to 21 in August with overall
average of 11 °C (see Table 7). Annual precipitation varies from 630-750 mm and is one of the lowest
in the country (Privredna komora Slavonije i Baranje, 1985). Climate is in-between semi-arid and semi-
humid. Average daily irradiation varies from 75 to 550 cal per cm2 per day, while the total number of
sunny hours is about 1900 per year (or 23% of total time). Figure 5 shows annual balance of water for
hydro-meteorological climatic station Osijek. Total deficit of water is estimated to be around 150 mm
per year and reaches its maximum in the second half of August.
Table 7. General statistics on temperature and rainfall per months for last 50 years. Source: (Privredna
komora Slavonije i Baranje, 1985).
Osijek Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mean temp
-0.5 0.8 6.2 11.3 16.6 19.4 21.6 21 16.9 11.6 4.8 1.3 11.1
(° C)
Precipitation
43 36 47.8 53.6 66.2 83.7 49.3 60.1 58.3 48.1 60.9 52.5 660
(mm)
No. of sunny
61 84 135 168 233 232 263 273 217 148 56 53 1914
hours (h)
Figure 5. Climatic diagram (according to C. W. Thornthwaite) showing monthly

rainfall and potential evapo-transpiration for Osijek – period from 1901-1980.

3.4 General economy (LU and land users)
The inventory, monitoring and management of main natural resources in Croatia is today organised
on the government level. The main owner of the 85% of forests is government, so the management is
organised through a national firm. There are lots of other state enterprises that also manage some
natural resources such as “Croatian waters”, “Croatian Electro-economy” etc. In agricultural sector,
thus, there have been some major changes. The former agricultural industrial corporations (so called
“Kombinates”) are now being privatised. In other words, the farmers are slowly becoming the main
owners of the land.
In Baranja also, the main managers of natural resources are “Croatian forests”, “Croatian waters”,
and the “Ministry of planning and environmental protection”. The biggest business that manages over
80% of agricultural areas or 25000 ha is “Belje d.d.”. It consists of 10 agricultural and industrial
divisions for food technology that employs over 2000 people. It is essentially the privatised version of a
former Kombinate. This company is working non-commercially and privatisation is going slower than
expected. Much excellent farmland land is under- or improperly utilised. The County is one of the most
destroyed parts of Croatia in the recent war. A land development program is very important for
rebuilding and improving of quality of life. The overall efficiency of agricultural production is
estimated, through subjective interviews, to be 30% of potential.
3.5 Soils
In the beginning of 20th century, the first soil maps were produced in Croatia. But the real effort that
resulted in a national soil map that is still in the use was done after the Second World War. From 1964
the soils are being analysed and described in much more detail. In 70’s, begun a systematic inventory of
soils of Croatia – the project that will last for many years. Detailed sampling and description of soils of
Baranja was done in the period from 1974 to 76. This resulted in numerous reports and studies on soils
in Baranja.
In 1991 the Department of Soil science in Zagreb under guidance of Prof. M. Bogunović started
building GIS based SIS of Croatia. This project was financed by the Croatian government for the needs
of national land use planning activities. The maps were digitised inside AutoCAD and then organised
and polygonised under PC Arc/Info software. Physical and chemical properties have been then entered
into Access database and then linked to mapping units (Bogunović and Rapaić, 1993). This resulted in
1:300K SIS that is today being used in bigger national projects and for land evaluation purposes.
The methodology of mapping is common for that period – physiographic units were delineated using
API and then representative locations selected, sampled and analysed in laboratory. The results were
then statistically analysed and each mapping unit was presented with averaged soil properties. The basic
soil map of Croatia in scale 1:50K today does not of course satisfy international cartographic and soil
survey standards. Dr. D. G. Rossiter and I agreed, during our fieldwork in Baranja, that this soil survey
was not aimed directly at soil users. Most map units have several soils with different properties and the
map is too general and not useful for land use planning, taxation, or land reform. Effective scale of the
map in this sense is more likely to be 1:200K.

Figure 6. Soil map from 1975 with legend (Croatian classification system).
After detailed analysis of climatic conditions and general morphology/geology, it was concluded
that soil temperature regime is dominantly Mesic. Soil moisture regime is depending on the relative
position to rivers is from Ustic to Aquic (swamps). Main soil types according to Croatian classification
of soils were grouped in following order. Probable corresponding WRB soil groups are given in italics.
Sub-aquatic soils – in smaller parts of swampy areas where the groundwater depth is near or above
the surface. These are actually bottoms of small lakes and ponds that with high under-water life and
organic accumulation that have to be drained.
Hydromorphic soils – the dominant soil group in Baranja (75% of the area). These are soils that
are dominantly influenced by the water movement and stagnation. Depending on type and intensity of
water movement, these are subdivided into following subgroups:
! Undeveloped hydromorphic soils – Gleyic Fluvisols. These are young soils developed on
alluvial material recently brought by the rivers (from sand to loam); a buried A horizon and
textural discontinuity can be often found. These soils are poor with nutrients and mostly used
for white poplar plantations.
! Gleyic soils – Gleysols. These soils are subdivided depending on micro-relief position. In the
lower and convex parts of higher terraces where groundwater depth is bellow 1 m they can have
a thick chernic horizon with high organic matter content (Mollic Gleysols). Where groundwater
is close to the surface (floodplain) and gleying processes are dominant – a black mollic horizon
and intensive gleyic properties. In Croatian classification this gleysols with chernic horizon and
gleyic properties are called "Ritske crnice” or black soils of the swamps – Humogleys. If the
gleying is appearing at lower depths, we have possible Chernozems or even Histosols. The true
soils of the swamps are called “Eugleys” (“Hypogleys” – influenced by only groundwater or
“Amphigleys” – influenced by ground and overflow water). These soils are very fertile but
require melioration to achieve optimum production. Under drainage and lowering of water table,
Gleysols are becoming very suitable for intensive crop production.
! Gleyic properties can be found on higher, sloping terraces but at greater depths. These soils are
according to Croatian classification classified, if the source of water causing gleying is ground,
as “Semigleys” or “Pseudogleys” if the source of water is rainfall. According to WRB, these
are probably Gleyic Cambisols with gleyic properties at higher depths, higher organic matter

content (3-5%), higher clay content and very suitable for crop production without any special
melioration activities.
Automorphic soils – soils appearing in hilland and on high terraces (30%) where the influence of
the relief, geology and vegetation are dominant. For all these soils it is typical to have a loess parent
material and high content of carbonates. Depending on depth to parent material and organic matter
content, carbonates content etc., these soils are subdivided as follows:
! Pedogenetically shallow soils on summit of the hilland and more sloping parts of the vales –
Regosols. Although shallow, their real effective depth is very deep as they are developed on
silty material (loess). These are used for vineyards or left to natural vegetation on more sloping
parts.
! Brown-yellowish soils with mostly cambic or calcic and no mollic horizon. These are probably
either Cambisols or Calcisols depending on existence of secondary carbonates and correspond
to “Eutric brown soils” (soils with high Base saturation) in Croatian classification.
! On more flat parts of hilland and on the highest terraces, – Chernozems/Kastanozems are
dominant. In Croatian classification, the requirements for Chernozems are not that strict, so it is
used more often and actually it is considered to be one of the most abundant soil group. The
results of the field work have shown that mollic horizon probably doesn’t have chroma dark
enough to be classified as chernic horizon. Very often there are not enough requirements
satisfied to find a mollic horizon at all. Then these are Mollic Cambisols.

3.6 Ground water regime
According to long-term observations (Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986): the ground
water depth (GWD) generally follows the contour lines. On lower terrace, ground water is close to
surface (1-2 m) or even above it in floodplain. On higher holocenic terrace it is 4 – 5 m deep and on
older pleistocenic terrace is 6-9 m below surface. GWD on sloping glacis can be more than 12 m deep,
while on hill (Bansko brdo) even more than 30 m.
Figure 7. Seasonal variation of groundwater depths in lower

degree of swamp formation area (Privredna komora Slavonije i
Baranje, 1985).
The GWD varies also annually and seasonally. In Figure 7 it can be seen that it usually reaches
maximum in April and minimum in October. In-between years, GWD can change from 1 to 4 m. In that
sense, monthly variation is more regular than annual. During the high water months (spring), the water
brought by the Drava and Danube Rivers usually floods agricultural fields and sometimes settlement
areas. This is due to the uncontrolled and obsolete channel system and presents one of the main
management problems these days.

MATERIALS AND METHODS CHAPTER 4
4 Materials and methods
4.1 Coordinate systems and datums
It turned out to be difficult to completely define the co-ordinate systems actually used for mapping
in Baranja. Without exact definition of projection parameters, integration or transformation of data is
inadequate and could easily become source of error. Most of maps used for this research did not show a
complete list of projection parameters. It was also discovered that the base soil map of Croatia at scale
1:50 000 from 1975, has shifted/distorted co-ordinates (purposely?). In other words, the over-printed
grid did not match the same grid on modern maps. As distortion was not known, georeferencing of
scanned sheets was done using tie-points rather than grid line intersections. Another big problem was
transformation of GPS geographic co-ordinates to the Croatian grid used on topographic maps, since
the receiver did not have predefined projection for Croatia. To solve these problems, professional
geodetic help was needed. Table 8 shows the final (complete) list of co-ordinate systems used in this
research and their parameters.
Table 8. Co-ordinate systems used and their specifications.

Local co-ordinate Co-ordinate GPS co-ordinate
system system for whole system
Croatia
Description Gauss-Krüger Gauss- Lat/Long co-
co-ordinates for east Krüger system for ordinates from GPS
Croatia, zone 6 whole Croatia
Projection TM TM -
Ellipsoid Type Bessel 1841 Bessel 1841 WGS 84
a 6377483.865 6377483.865 6378137
1/f 299.257223563 299.257223563 298.257223563
Datum ∆X 682 -302 0
∆Y -199 -14.6 0
∆Z 480 285.1 0
Central Meridian 18° E 16° 30’’ E 0° E
Central Parallel 0° N 0° N 0° N
Scale at central 0.9999 0.9997 -
meridian
False X 6500000 2500000 -
origin Y 0 0 -
Min X 6521800 2243217 0° N
Y 5044550 4668355 90° N
Max X 6575500 2731970 0° N
Y 5086250 5155774 180° N

4.2 Data field collection
Before the actual fieldwork, the research area was visited in a pre-fieldwork reconnaissance. The
purpose was to collect all existing related data, to do a reconnaissance survey and to interview some of
the land users and land use experts. The collected data can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9. Data used for the research, their scale, year of collection and form.
TYPE SCALE YEAR FORM
/resolution data collection
Soil map
Shows the soil type class according to Croatian detailed
50 000 1975/76 4 A2 size maps
soil classification and structure of mapping unit, slope
class, drainage class, parent material, texture etc.;
Soil survey report

With the physical and chemical lab data for ~ 100
1975/76 Paper sheets
georeferenced profiles;
Aerial photos
With a reference map of location of flight lines;
≈ 20 000 1998, June 21 1:1 photo-copies
23x23 cm
Satellite image
Landsat TM corrected but not georeferenced;
30x30 m 1992, August 25 MB file
Topographic map
With roads, settlement, general land use/cover, contour
50 000 1981/83 10 A3 size
lines; color copies
During the actual fieldwork, the following observation were done:

a) 2 detailed profile descriptions (see Photo A and Photo B) done together with one of the authors of
the existing soil map from the 1970’s, namely Prof. Bogunović and the thesis supervisor. This was
done to be able to understand how the soil map was built and how Croatian soil classes can be
correlated with the WRB.
b) 29 mini-pits with description of only selected properties that are important for research hypothesis.
Most of the descriptive data was selected to be appropriate to determine the WRB diagnostic
horizon. Data measured/described on the field are:
" Sample ID
" Authors
" Date/Time
" Easting/Northing (Single fix GPS)
" For each horizon: Horizon ID
" Upper limit (cm)
" Lower limit (cm)
" Hue/Value/Chroma (when moist and dry)
" Texture class (under fingers)
" Carbonates on field (using 10% HCl suspension)
" Depth to ground water (cm)
For every sample, a sketch was made with general remarks related to structure, parent material,
relative position related to landform etc. Also an image of every profile was taken with digital camera
for documentation. The Casio’s QV-7000SX digital camera was used with 8MB Compact flash card,
focus range from 25 (10) cm to ∞ and back screen LCD. It can take 20 to 50 images per day for free.
This was fully used during the field work activities. Photos taken were utilised during the in-the-office
classification and organising of soil samples.

Samples of approximately 250 g were taken from every horizon for lab analysis. Total number of
samples was 87. Properties measured for every sample can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10. Soil properties measured in the lab and methodology used.
Soil property Method Unit

pH in KCl pH meter Index
CaCO3 content Using calcimeter (Scheibler) %
OM content Bichromatic method (Alten-Wandrowski) %
2 – 0,2 mm (%) texture fraction %
0,2 – 0,05 mm texture fraction %
0,05 – 0,02 mm texture fraction Pipette method (Na-pyrophosphate) %
0,02 – 0,002 mm texture fraction %
<0,002 mm texture fraction %
Methods used for lab analysis are totally coherent with those done in the last soil survey. This
enabled integration of lab data from 25 years ago with recent one, but should be taken into account
during interpretation of results. Lab analysis has been done in local soil lab that belongs to Faculty of
Agriculture in Osijek. OM content was used directly for modelling purposes. Other described and
measured soil properties were used to determine WRB diagnostic horizons and soil type. These data will
be used for future research.
4.3 Building the GIS layers
4.3.1 DEM generation
Four main data sources/maps were digitised on-screen processed (resampled). Special care was
taken to produce cartographicaly correct layers. The smallest detail (pixel) on a raster map should
correlate to map accuracy standards. The maximum location accuracy selected for this research was 0.2
mm on the map (>90% of well-defined points on the map are located and plotted within ± 0.2 mm).
From this value, scanning resolution may be selected. In this case a bit higher resolution was selected to
have a “degree of freedom”, i.e. to be sure that the required accuracy could be resolved. The resolution
selected was 166 DPI (1 pixel = 0.16 mm). During on screen georeferencing of the scanned topo-maps,
a calculated grid placed (on-screen) over the scanned image was used to validate accuracy.
The Digital Elevation model was built from topo-map using on-screen digitalisation in ILWIS. 10
A3 map sheets of the 1:50 K topo-map were scanned with AGFA A3 Duoscan T2000 XL scanner at a
spatial resolution of 166 pixels per inch (1 pix = 0.16 mm on map or 8 m on the ground) and a colour
resolution of 8 bits RGB. A total of 10 TIFF type images from 8 A3 paper sheets (app. 60 MB) were
produced. The images were imported into ILWIS, separately georeferenced using grid intersections in
local coordinates shown on the map, and resampled to the 10 m resolution. Features important for
constructions of DEM – contour lines (segment file) and bench marks (point map) – were then extracted
from this georeferenced and resampled image.
However, the results of the first interpolation of contour lines to a grid DEM didn’t satisfy
completely, especially where the area was generally flat. The problem was that, although the topo-map
showed only 2-5 m differences in elevation by numbered contours, contours (or bench marks) that
should describe channels or small hilltops were missing (see Figure 8). This problem was solved by
using additional contours or points – Burrough also mentions the problem with distortions and errors in

DEM due to low density of contour lines and missing of all ridges, peaks and canals (Burrough and
McDonnell, 1998).
1. Extraction of the relief from topo-map (on 2. Extracted segment and point map
screen digitalisation)
3. 30x30 m ground resolution DEM
Figure 8. From original topo-map (1), extracted segment and point maps (2) to interpolated DEM (3).
Features like small channels and ridges on topo-map and addition of contours and benchmarks can be
seen.
4.3.2 Ortho-photo generation and GP interpretation
Aerial photos used for photo-interpretation (API) were used to set up sampling points and to be able
to compare two methods of delineating mapping units. Four sampling areas – A, B, C and D of
approximately 4x4 km were set up as the middle photos from photo triplets. These areas were selected
to provide a representative sample of major soil-scapes after visual interpretation of DEM and
topographic map and study of literature on the geology and geomorphology of the study area. One area
was located in hilland part, while others cover high and low terraces and floodplain (main relief types).
The common GP legend produced can be seen in Table 11 and final map of all delineations in appendix
8.2.7. It basically corresponds to the existing geological/geomorphologic map done in 70’s although
different terms were used (Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986). The photos were scanned
and imported in ILWIS and then georeferenced using the ortho-photo module. Geo-registration of the
overlays was done by means of identified tie-points (5-8) marked on the overlay and on the topographic
map. This step was especially important for the integration of data.

Table 11. Common GP legend and codes used.

Landscape Relief Lithology Landform Code
Hilland Dissected ridge typical loess over basalt- Summit Hi111
(horst type) andesite block
deluvial loess Shoulder/backslope Hi112
Backslope/footslope Hi113
Escarpment deluvial loess Scarp Hi211
Colluvium Hi212
Vales deluvial loess Slope Hi311
Accumulations Bottom Hi312
Glacis deluvial loess Slope Hi411
Alluvial Plain Recent floodplain medium textured fluvial Floodplain area Pl111
sediments Levee Pl112
Abandoned point bar com. Pl113
Overflow basin Pl114
Cut off channel Pl115
coarser sediments (sand, Point bar com. Pl121
gravel) Active ch. Banks Pl122
Low terrace medium textured fluvial Tread Pl211
sediments Overflow channel Pl212
Elevation Pl213
coarser sediments (sand) Abandoned point bar com. Pl221
Abandoned river bed Pl222
Higher terrace loess over fluvial Tread Pl311
sediments Abandoned channel Pl312
Elevation Pl313
Older floodplain fluvial sediments Floodplain area Pl411
Delineations done using GP approach were used to design a stratified sampling scheme. Actual
point locations were selected inside specific landform units (one to three pits per unit) subjectively.
Reasons for selecting pit-locations subjectively and not randomly were accessibility problem and
possible mine fields. The sample points were selected to represent sample plots with size compatible to
grid resolution of the soil explanatory variables (purposive sampling). Such a sampling strategy is often
used in landscape-based soil surveys, especially when the number of samples is small in comparison
with terrain complexity (Webster and Olivier, 1990). The micro-relief was not considered in modelling
process on this scale and it is assumed that it could cause problems during fitting. In that sense, soil
samples were taken to represent relatively homogeneous areas of 30x30 m.
4.3.3 DEM derived products
The DEM is a base layer of this GIS. It was used, directly or as a component, in calculating
following layers for landscape modelling. Some of the parameters (temperature, rainfall, irradiation and
GWD) needed additional information from meteorological and hydrological stations. It is important to
emphasise that all this ecological variables calculated here are only estimates and can differ in detail and
accuracy from the real values that could be measured on the field. Still, they were used because they are
cheap-to-measure and their relative distribution is more important than actual value – the goal is to
model soil properties and not to map soil explanatory variables. A catalogue of all maps used can be
seen in appendix 8.2.
4.3.3.1 SLOPE, ASPECT, TANGENT AND PROFILE CURVATURE
Slope, aspect and tangent and profile curvature were calculated directly from DEM by using filter
functions in ILWIS and Zevenbegren and Thorne’s method (Zevenbergen and Thorne, 1987). The
overview of formulas used can be seen in Table 12.
Table 12. Basic DEM derivatives and formulas for their calculation.
Z1 Z2 Z3 DEM derivatives are extracted from original raster map

of elevations by using specific filters. They basically
Z4 Z5 Z6
explain changes of elevation around central pixel – Z5.
Z7 Z8 Z9
Derivative Formula (one neighbouring pixel 3x3 filter) 5x5 Filter matrix Gain
First derivative in x- df Z 6 − Z 4 0 0 0 0 0 1/12
direction – df/dx = …….. G 0 0 0 0 0
dx 2⋅d 1 -8 0 8 -1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
First derivative in y- df Z 2 − Z 8 0 0 1 0 0 1/12
direction – df/dy = …….. H 0 0 -8 0 0
dy 2⋅d 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 0 0
0 0 -1 0 0
Second derivative in  Z4 + Z6  0 0 0 0 0 1/24
x-direction – d2f/dx2 2  − Z 5 0 0 0 0 0
d f  2  ……. D
2
= 2
-1 16 -30 16 -1
dx d 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Second derivative in  Z 2 + Z8  0 0 -1 0 0 1/24
y-direction – d2f/dy2 2  − Z 5 0 0 16 0 0
d f  2  ……. E
2
= 2
0 0 -30 0 0
dx d 0 0 16 0 0
0 0 -1 0 0
Second derivative in d2 f Z 3 + Z 7 − Z1 − Z 9 -1 8 0 -8 1 1/144
both diagonal = ……. F 8 -64 0 64 -8
directions – d2f/dxdy
dxdy 4⋅d2 0 0 0 0 0
-8 64 0 -64 8
1 -8 0 8 -1
After calculation of these basic DEM derivatives, the landform morphometric parameters were
calculated using following equations:
Slope SLOPE = G 2 + H 2
H 
Aspect ASPECT = arctan  
G
 D ⋅G2 + E ⋅ H 2 + F ⋅G ⋅ H 
Plan curvature TANGC = 2 ⋅  
 G2 + H 2 
 D ⋅ H 2 + E ⋅G2 + F ⋅G ⋅ H 
Profile curvature PROFC = −2 ⋅  
 G2 + H 2 

Explanation: Parameter slope shows how much is elevation changing in x- and y-direction
expressed in radians. Aspect gives azimuth angle of the sloping surface i.e. orientation of central pixel.
If profile or plan curvature are positive, we have convex and if negative concave curvature. Positive
profile curvature indicates acceleration and negative deceleration of surface flow. Positive tangent or
plan curvature indicates concentration and negative divergence of flow (Zevenbergen and Thorne,
1987).
4.3.3.2 CTI - WETNESS INDEX
Compound Topographic Index (CTI) or wetness index was calculated by algorithm developed for
ILWIS by Stephan Gruber and based on instructions given by Quinn and Beven (Quinn et al., 1991). It
is based on flow accumulation number – Af (cumulative number of pixels draining through a pixel) and
slope in that pixel – β. The CTI is then calculated as ln(Af/tanβ). This index reflects the tendency of
water to accumulate at any point in the catchment and is often called Wetness index and represents
tendency of water accumulation. Due to the hardware and software constraints, CTI was calculated
using only 25 iterations (i.e. 25 neighbouring pixels). The iterations should be applied until the change
of the Af is insignificant – n+1 vs n number of iterations. Ideally, we need as many iterations as the
maximum slope that we have in the area is long. Since the research area was of less relief variation
estimated sufficient number of iterations was 50. Gruber founds that 200 iterations produced by far
sufficient results in area of high relief differences (Gruber, 2000). For practical reason, CTI value in
plain region was not used for the landform classification purposes (slopes are extremely long but
inaccurate). It was not clear what would be sufficient number of iterations and higher probability of
error in CTI computations was expected. Produced map can be seen in appendix 8.2.4.
4.3.3.3 RELATIVE IRRADIATION AND PRESCOTT INDEX

The Prescott Index (PI), used to describe variations of local climate (a cheap estimate of relative
wetness), was calculated following the procedure described by McKenzie and Ryan (McKenzie and
Ryan, 1999):
0.445 ⋅ P
PI =
E 0.75
Where P is mean monthly (annual/12) rainfall (mm) and E is mean monthly potential evaporation
(mm) that is estimated using Priestly-Taylor empirical model:
Estimated evaporation – E = (0.01768 + 0.0007585 ⋅ T − 0.00000605 ⋅ T 2 ) ⋅ Rn
Where T is mean annual temperature (°C) and Rn mean daily net solar radiation (J day-1 m-2). Net
solar radiation or irradiation was calculated using a simplified procedure developed by Marki and
Antonić (Antonic et al., 1999), (Marki and Antonic, 1999) in ARC/info package – an approximate
topographic solar irradiation.
Yielded annual total irradiation at the horizontal surface was calculated for Osijek city, as the sum
-
of monthly mean values estimated by the model of Nikolov-Zeller (1992), to be 1280 J cm-2 day 1 or
148,1 W m-2. Hypothetical spatial variability of the annual total irradiation at the horizontal surface
influenced by the local climate variations is neglected, i.e. the value yielded for Osijek is assumed as
valid for the entire Baranja region.
Mean annual solar elevation at noon was calculated as average of the noon solar elevations of each
date 15th of each month, using the following expression (Klein, 1977):
sin α = cosφ ⋅ cos δ ⋅ cosϖ + sin φ ⋅ sin δ (1)

 360 ⋅ ( 284 + J ) 
δ = 23.45 ⋅   (2)
 365 
Where α is the solar elevation angle, φ is the latitude (45.4° N), δ is the solar declination angle
estimated using (2), J is Julian day number and ω is the hour angle in degrees (equal to zero at noon).
Yielded mean annual solar elevation (44.565°) at noon was used for the calculation of the
approximate topographic effect on the spatial distribution of the incoming solar irradiation. At first,
estimated annual total of solar radiation at the horizontal surface was recalculated to the surface placed
normally to the sun flux using division by the sin α. Then, the angle between surface placed normally to
Sun's rays and terrain slope (solar illumination angle) was determined from:
cos i = cos β ⋅ sin α + sin β ⋅ cosα ⋅ cos( S − A) (3)
Where β is terrain slope, A is terrain aspect, S is solar azimuth (equal to 180° at noon) and i is solar
illumination angle for given surface (defined by S and A) and for given Sun position on the sky (defined
by α and β). The cosine of the solar illumination angle (function 'hill-shade’ in some software packages)
determines the relative distribution of the incoming direct solar flux over the given surface. Finally,
obtained values of cos i are multiplied by the above mentioned annual total of solar irradiation at the
surface placed normally to the sun flux.
The total annual rainfall and mean annual temperature maps were calculated using following
procedures. Values used are mainly acquired from Croatian Hydro-meteorological department’s
database or found in literature (Škorić, 1977), (Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986).
Spatial distribution of rainfall depends mainly on two factors: distance from sea and altitude – it
decreases with the increase of distance from sea and increases with the increase of altitude. For whole
region of Slavonia (Eastern Croatia), it’s been estimated (Škorić, 1977) that the annual rainfall
decreases for 2 mm per 1 km of distance from sea and increases for 75 mm per 100 m of altitude. The
first rate is neglected for practical reasons so the final equation used to calculate the rainfall map is:
Ri = R0 + 0,75 ⋅ ( H i − H 0 )
Where Ri is rainfall at a point i, R0 is rainfall in referent plane, Hi is altitude of a point and H0
referent altitude. Long-term rainfall data from a number of rainfall stations (Table 13) were first
corrected for known patterns (height influence). These values were then interpolated using a Trend
surface operation as described in ILWIS. After the interpolation, the known rate was again added to the
final map.
Table 13. Original rainfall data used for interpolation (Department for
the scientific work Osijek, 1986).
Station Period of Annual Altitude Corrected value

measurement rainfall – R0
Osijek 1956-80 680 88 680.0
Kneževo 1928-80 645 100 636.0
Darda 1932-80 734 90 732.5
Zmajevac 1928-80 637 89 636.3
Brestovac 1925-80 644 91 641.8
Draz 1928-80 650 90 648.5
Bolman 1928-80 688 90 686.5
Apatin 1928-80 605 86 606.5
The map of mean annual temperatures was estimated using a simple empirical equation developed
for the whole region (Škorić, 1977):

Ti = T0 − 0,00506 ⋅ H i
Where Ti is mean annual temperature in a point i, T0 referent temperature (in this case 11.78 °C)
and Hi is altitude.
4.3.3.4 MEAN POTENTIAL GWD
Mean potential Ground Water Depth (GWD) or depth to water table, was estimated from
hydrological data from four stations (Donji Miholjac, Osijek, Bezdan and Apatin) – two for each river.
Mean long-term water level in this four points was used to interpolate (trend surface algorithm) the
potential water surface for whole area. Mean potential GWD was then calculated as a difference
between the DEM and water surface. Of course this is only estimate not a real GWD. The discrepancy
is especially big in hilland part of area and does not coincide with empirical data (see 3.6).
Table 14. Data used to calculate potential water surface for whole Baranja (period from 1946-70).
Station “0” height (m) Mean reading (cm) Mean water level (m)
Donji Miholjac 88.8 97 89.8
Osijek 81.5 126 82.8
Bezdan 80.6 252 83.1
Apatin 78.8 311 81.9
4.3.3.5 NDVI – GREEN-MASS INDEX

The Normal Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) or green-mass index was calculated from TM
landsat image from August 1992. It was assumed that NDVI map of the area when the NDVI is at it’s
maximum will best correlate with soil properties (especially organic matter content and thickness of A
horizon). The original TM 6-bands-image was first georeferenced and then resampled to 30x30 m
ground resolution. The NDVI was then calculated as – (TM4-TM3)/(TM4+TM3). The same image was
used also to classify major land use types appearing in the area.
The NDVI ratio is strongly correlated with green biomass or organic matter production. However,
NDVI image of agricultural areas differs from areas under natural vegetation. Single NDVI image of an
agricultural area does not have to give a real picture of organic matter production. In this sense we are
more interested for the long-term NDVI image rather than a temporary one. Due to human influence, a
field can be just planted or just harvested and average maximum NDVI can differ drastically. In areas
of natural vegetation where the human influence is minor, green biomass has a more regular cycle. So
even a single summer NDVI image can explain variation in OM. NDVI images of agricultural areas
also show abrupt patterns rather then the gradual one, so if it is used in modelling procedure the same
filed-like pattern will appear. For this reason NDVI image was corrected for agricultural crops and bare
soil areas (harvested fields) i.e. true value was replaced with the common, averaged one (0.25) based on
the Land use/cover map (see appendix 8.2.6). This map was produced for only four different classes
(agriculture, natural vegetation, bare soil and water) that were easily detected on the colour composite.
The satellite image was then classified using maximum likelihood method.

Original NDVI image Corrected NDVI image
Figure 9. Filtering of the NDVI image. Left: histogram of the original image and right: histogram of the
NDVI image only for natural vegetation.
4.3.3.6 DISTANCE TO WATER BODIES – DWB

This variable is often used to model soil properties in fluvial landscapes. The map was calculated
by using LU map from classification of satellite image. Since only the influence of the main sources of
flooding was considered, only the two main rivers were involved into calculation and not the small
streams, ponds or lakes. Simple distance calculation in ILWIS was used to produce buffer map. In areas
where the flooding was not expected (>5% of slope – Hilland), the DBW was corrected using following
map calculation:
DWBc = iff(landscape="plain",DWB,(map max (DWB)+GWD 2 ))
In other words, in the hilland region, a pixel will get a value of maximum DWB summed with the
square of GWD. This is just an idea how to practically deal with quantitative variable that belongs to
two different strata.

4.4 GPS mapping
A practical purpose of working with GPS was not only to map sample points, but also to get
acquainted with using, processing and transforming the GPS data. For GPS measurements, Garmin’s
(GARMIN co.) system of two independent receivers has been used (GPS 100 SRVY II). The system
belongs to the middle-cost receiver group (market value of app. 1500 USD). One receiver weighs app.
300 g and has a time of initialisation of app. 2 minutes. Prior to the fieldwork in Croatia, this receiver
was tested using two known geodetic points near ITC institute. The calculated error for 3 minutes of
measurement was 7 m. Which was a little worse than the prescribed accuracy in Garmin’s manual (1–5
m for 3–5 min of measurement). Twenty-nine points (at soil mini-pit locations) were located using three
methods:
A. AERO method – points are located on the aerial photos (1:20 K) on the field and then on-screen
digitised on the ortho-photo;
B. GPS method – ‘raw’ or Single-fix GPS reading on the field;
C. DGPS method – averaged DGPS (N = 180, 1 s interval) done by post-processing.

To achieve DGPS measurement, one receiver, called “BASE”, was stabilised on the top of a house.
This point was determined to an accuracy of app. 0.5 m using a trigonometric point 4 km away from the
“BASE” point and taking a long measurement (N = 1500 or 25 min). This receiver has to be turned on
during time on filed and collects app. 1,5 MB of pseudo-range information per 8 hours. The other
receiver, called “FIELD”, was turned on only during field measurements. After the fieldwork, data from
FIELD and BASE were downloaded to PC and post-processed using Garmin’s PC100S2 Version 2.02
software. Result of post-processing is an ASCII that can be then imported into some table calculator.
An example of the file can be seen in appendix 8.3.1.
Figure 10. Measured location of points (B003, 8

and 4) using three methods – displayed over
ortho-photo. Grid lines spacing = 100 m.
Symbols used: + for DGPS; ◊ for GPS; ο for
AERO.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CHAPTER 5
Since the receiver did not have co-ordinate system parameters for Croatia predefined in memory,
geographic co-ordinates relative to WGS84 datum were used for testing. To be able to compare the
results with those from using ortho-photo in local co-ordinate system, transformation from local to
WGS84 had to be done with the points on the photos. The seven-parameter transformation has been
used according to Trimble’s transformation parameters local to WGS84 for whole Croatia. The
transformation was calculated by Geodetic department in Osijek with a maximum accuracy of few
centimetres. Later on, Dr. J. Hendrikse of the ILWIS development group estimated the datum shift that
does not require all parameters of transformation. This was done using three geodetic points with known
geographic (WGS84) and local co-ordinates and Molodensky approach. The calculated shift can be now
used to directly transform co-ordinates in ILWIS with acceptable accuracy (<1 m error).
The comparison of different methods of positioning was done using mean-square error vectors, as
well as scatter-plots of the individual deviations, taking the DGPS value as a reference:
d ( DGPS − GPS ) = ( X GPS − X DGPS )2 + (YGPS − YDGPS ) 2
d ( DGPS − AERO ) = ( X AERO − X DGPS )2 + (YAERO − YDGPS )2
4.5 GIS modelling
4.5.1 Landform classification

API maps for five representative sample areas (central photos from five triplets) were made using
the GP approach. The idea was to cover all landforms occurring in the research area to be able to
extrapolate landforms by classifying the soil related bands. Using guided classification of bands module
in ILWIS, different landform types were automatically classified. The ‘bands’ or soil related data layers
selected and codes used were:
1. Slope (%) SLOPE
2. Profile curvature (index) PROFC
3. Tangent curvature (index) TANGC
4. CTI – compound topographic index (index) CTI
5. Relative irradiation (index) IRRAD
6. Potential mean annual ground water depth (cm) GWD
7. Distance to water bodies (m) DWB
The training samples were selected by using the polygon GP API map overlaid over false colour
composite (bands especially good for creating false colour composite used were CTI, SLOPE and GWD
or relative elevation). Approximately 100 pixels inside each mapping unit were randomly selected (see
Figure 11). To calculate final classification map, minimum distance to cluster mean classifier algorithm
was used.

Hilland Plain
Figure 11. Creating training samples for landform classification (left in hilland and right in plain).
Sampled pixels can be seen as contrasting dots. In the background is the false colour composite (CTI,
SLOPE and GWD maps).
Comparison of automated and manual classification was done using confusion matrix i.e. crossing
of sample pixels and classified map and then calculating the percentage of correctly classified pixels.
First was compared classification of landform using only three selected layers (SLOPE, CTI and GWD)
and then the same procedure was done using all selected bands. Prior to classification, raster maps of
soil related data had to be linearly stretched to transform value domain of maps to an image domain (0-
255). This is a usual input format for classification purposes required by most of the image processing
software. The cross-checking was done for all sample pixels but also for a new area (extrapolation) that
was not used for training the algorithm. In each of the points, landform class delineated by GP photo-
interpretation and calculated using guided classification was compared.

4.5.2 Interpolation of soil properties
For this type of survey where inspection density was 105 points on 115,000 ha or about 1 per 1 km2
(national land inventory – regional LUP), it was known that soil mapping units are general and
compound. It was also assumed that a simple geostatistical interpolation (kriging) is not advisable as the
points fall within the different strata and sample density is low. Because of this, method of
environmental regression using the same soil related bands used for landform classification with
addition of NDVI and PI values was selected. In simple words, soil variable is correlated with different
soil explanatory data and then using this regression model map of soil property calculated for whole
area (see Table 15).
Table 15. Measured soil (dependent) variable and soil explanatory variables (independent) – regression
table (sample).
OBS Y X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8
Point ID OM in A (%) HAS SLOPE PROFC TANGC PI GWD NDVI DWB
1 2.7 107.2 0.5 0 0 8.87 21.78 0.21 15624
2 2.6 109.9 0.06 0 0 8.92 24.89 0.35 13707
3 2.7 90.0 0.38 -0.02 -0.03 8.59 5.41 0.26 11924
4 2.9 93.0 0.43 0 -0.01 8.95 7.71 0.05 15089
5 - 92.7 0.74 -0.01 0.02 9.03 6.87 0.38 16466
6 3.4 85.0 0.06 0 0 8.68 2.47 0.26 2230
7 1.5 84.8 0.22 -0.01 -0.01 8.91 0.88 0.33 6122
8 3.2 84.9 0.02 0 0 8.54 1.15 0.38 8032
9 2.2 94.5 0.25 -0.01 0.03 9.37 9.34 0.27 13295
… … … … … … … … … …
In other words, we make an assumption that some single soil property can be calculated from a
regression model:
Y = f ( X 1 , X 2 ,... X n ) = a + b ⋅ X 1 + c ⋅ X 2 + ... + α ⋅ X n + ε
Where Y is value of soil property, X1 - Xn are independent soil explanatory variables, a - α

regression coefficients and ε is a random error (noise). This is also called “a general linear regression
model”. The non-linear model can be achieved by simply making new transformed variables from
existing ones – like X2, log(X) and others. These variables are again fitted using least square method as
linear components. During the regression analysis, following procedures have been used as suggested by
Draper and Smith (Draper and Smith, 1981):
1. Examination of individual correlation;

2. Building of the correlation matrix;
3. Addition of non-linear components (transformations of original independent variables);
4. Stepwise regression (elimination insignificant predictors);
5. Validation of regression significance;
After stepwise regression, model is used in interpolation procedure. During the evaluation of the
goodness of fitting, model requirements suggested by Draper and Smith were followed. They suggested
that before one model is actually used, it should satisfy following criteria:

a) it should explain most of the variance in the sample i.e. >50% of variance or show high
correlation coefficient (R2>0.5)
b) regression should be significant (probability of Fisher test <0.05)
c) all estimated coefficients in the model should be statistically significant (probability of Fisher’s
test <0.05)
d) there should be no discernible pattern in the residuals
In this phase of the research only prediction of the Organic Mater content in first horizon was
evaluated and presented. For modelling purposes, analytical data from previous soil survey – 105 points
was used to build models, e.g. to calibrate regressions. Soil samples from 29 new points were used for
validation and assessment of the accuracy of interpolation (see Figure 12). The modelling of the data
was done using two main statistical concepts: linear and non-linear regression. The result of these where
then subtracted from the true values in the control points. The value of each soil related data for points
of interpolation was computed using the Cross-maps function in ILWIS. Accuracy of prediction using
environmental regression was then compared with the polygon-based prediction.
Figure 12. Position of points user for fitting (105) and control (29).

5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Scanning and georeferencing
In this research, all digitising i.e. data input was done by scanning the source and then
georeferencing it on screen. In the case of topo-maps, validation of georeference was done by overlaying
the grid lines generated by the georeference on the scanned map. The grid was generated by ILWIS from
the co-ordinate system definition, and the mapped grid was visible on the scanned map. In other cases,
accuracy was validated by calculated sigma (Table 16). When it was possible to accurately validate
accuracy of georeferencing (as with topo-maps), a higher number of control points and a higher-order
transformation were used. Achieved error was always less than one pixel and the calculated grid
perfectly fitted the original. The work with scanned maps gave surprisingly positive results and
completely replaced the need for digitiser. It also opened possibility of visual and mathematical
integration of different types of data.
Table 16. Results of the georeferencing and related cartographic standards.
Original map Scale MLA Georeference Resampling Effective

/ source 0.2 mm No. of tie- Transformation Sigma resolution Scale
points (per 1 (pix)
(quantity) M pixels)
Topo-map (10) Full second
50 K 10 m 6 – 10 0.2–0.8 10 m 50 K
order
Aerial photo Ortho-photo
20 K 4m 5–8 1–5 50 K
(5)
Satellite image Affine
- 30 m 6 1.0 30 m 100 K
(1)
Soil map (8) Affine
50 K 10 m 6 0.5–2 30 m 100 K
5.2 Ortho-photo in ILWIS
API maps are usually transformed to a geometrically correct map by digitising the API layer
(usually a mylar overlay) and manually correcting/adjusting distortions locally, on a correct topographic
base, using reference features such as roads. Relief displacements that exist on an aerial photo are
commonly neglected, and radial displacements may be difficult to correct in areas with sparse reference
features. Software that can be used to correct this displacements are very often expensive and require
expertise. In this research, ILWIS’s new ortho-photo module was tested to built a geometrically correct
map within a medium cost GIS software. The main purpose was to be able to accurately integrate
results of API with other GIS layers. The resulted geometrically corrected aerial photo and API map
can be seen in Figure 13. The grid lines are clearly corrected (reverse distortion), showing that the
photo is now adjusted to the topographic base map.

Figure 13. Ortho-photo produced in ILWIS and on screen digitised API boundaries. Left – with grid lines
showing the distortions, right – with API boundaries and down – draped over the DEM.
So in this case, relatively quick and inexpensive method proved to be able to produce polygon map
of high cartographic validity. Without this, data integration within fine ground resolution, as mentioned
in other chapters, could have given higher inaccuracies.
5.3 DEM generation
Although the DEM interpolated using only existing contour lines and the simplest interpolator did
not show any obvious errors or distortions, these errors were in fact seen on DEM derived products (see
Figure 14). To solve the problem several possibilities were tested. Optimal result was gained by using
following procedures:
! for interpolation was used finer resolution (10x10 m) and then resampled to final resolution
(30x30 m);
! precision of elevation information was increased to 0.01 m vertical resolution to avoid flat
terrace effect;
! additional points and segments were added (visually interpreted features on topo-map); for
example – ditches or canals (small streams) were interpreted as a 1 m lower contour and
hilltops were added according to sign on a closed contour line (see Figure 8);
! more appropriate (smooth) interpolation algorithm (minimum curvature) was used;
So after the additional points and segment were added, this layer was first transformed to a point
map (point on every 30 m), exported from ILWIS as an ASCII file and then imported into Surfer as a
table. The table had approximately 150 000 points, but the interpolation was surprisingly fast and took

only about 20 minutes. Then Surfer’s grid file was imported back to ILWIS and georeferenced. The
improvement of the derived DEM products can be seen in Figure 14.
Linear interpolation Minimum curvature
Figure 14. Slope derived from DEM calculated using linear interpolation (left) and minimum curvature
algorithm (right). Although the minimum curvature is not an exact interpolator, slope values show less
error (gradual change).
5.4 Field work
After the actual fieldwork, which took about ten days, it was possible to correct API landform units
and judge about soil patterns and the accuracy of delineations on the existing soil map. Most of the
boundaries delineated using GP approach in the office, prior to fieldwork, did correspond to the
situation discovered on the field, and only relatively minor corrections had to be made.
Another positive experience was use of the GPS receiver for navigation in the field and use of
digital camera for documenting survey. Most of the photos in this thesis were actually taken with digital
camera. It also prove to be very cost-effective solution for documenting profiles, soil material and the
environment where the soil is being formed (see appendix 8.5 – soil environment, soil profile and soil
material). Disadvantages discovered were that it needs external power source (alkaline batteries) that
can usually last for only approximately 1.5 hours and the downloading of fine resolution images (>1M
pixels) from camera to a PC can be time consuming (approximately 45 minutes per 8MB). It also gave
a bit lower photo quality than analogue photography so it would be advisable to better purchase such
equipment from primary photo equipment producers (Kodak, Cannon etc.).
After all field and lab data were incorporated, it was possible to classify the soils and understand
their distribution in the area. A detailed soil profile description (full pits) with lab data can be seen in
appendix 8.4. These are just reference pits to try to correlate Croatian methodology with the one taught
at ITC. It can be seen that Croatian and the World Reference Base for Soil Classification (WRB) show
significant differences. WRB names proved to be much more powerful in the description of soil types,
especially the use of multiple second-level designations as permitted by WRB.

5.5 GPS/DGPS Mapping
Results on GPS should be considered from two aspects. One is empirical i.e. experiences with
handling GPS and other scientific – results of statistical analysis related to accuracy and precision of
GPS. The practical experiences are related to time management, handling problems and limitations of
receivers and could be also interesting result for a future GPS user. Empirical results can be grouped as
follows:
Handling the receiver: The Garmin GPS receiver does not require any professional knowledge,
although misuse can easily result in a gross error and misinterpretation.
Time management: The time of initialisation was from 2 to 4 minutes. Additional time (app. 1½
hours per day) was spent on downloading the data to PC and processing it. With 1-second interval,
pseudorange data in “BASE” receiver required up to 3MB storage. Downloading of “BASE” receiver’s
data can be time consuming (although there is no need to supervise it). According to the user’s manual,
time of measurement (averaging) should be from 3 to 5 minutes to achieve accuracy from 1 to 5 m. The
results have shown that only 60% of pseudo-range data was actually appropriate for processing (see
below). The recommended 3 to 5 minutes should be increased to a minimum of 6 minutes to prevent
unwanted rejection of points.
Limitations: The accuracy predefined in the manual can be only achieved in open spaces. In the
case of dense canopy (e.g. 100 years old oak forest), the signal is weak, values can deviate more than
100 m from true location and very often it is not even possible to do a measurement. During the
processing of the data, 3 points (10%) had to be excluded from statistical analysis because they didn’t
satisfy post-processing requirements and had an error of probably more than 5 m. This is generally the
main limitations of post-processing DGPS method – points are located but with unknown accuracy.
Most often problems with post-processing were insufficient coverage (no pseudo-range pairs) and too
high GDOP (>8).
The results from three methods of positioning were compared (see original data set in appendix
8.3.2) where the DGPS values averaged from 180 seconds of measurement were used as the reference
value. Horizontal positioning (XY – co-ordinates) and measured altitudes were compared separately.
After graphical examination of the histogram of error values, I concluded that error vector for each of
positioning methods has a log-normal distribution (see Figure 15). So, to calculate average value and
95% probability radius, the data was first log-transformed – log(d+10). The 95% radius was then
calculated as x + 1.645 ⋅ s x (one way 95% normal probability). Comparison test showed that there is no
statistically significant difference between GPS and AERO method (two-sided t-test, P0.05=0.77). The
calculated 95% radius of the single-fix GPS method was surprisingly bigger than 100 m. I still did not
find in the literature how is the actual accuracy of GPS assessed and why is nobody mentioning type of
probability distribution or formula to calculate error vector. It can be assumed that if the averaging
method was used, GPS method could give significantly better results than AERO one. Differential
correction on the other hand can improve the accuracy significantly – average error of single fix DGPS
value was about 10 m, while when averaged (N >180) was usually less than 6 m (see SIGMA in Table
18).

Table 17. Statistical summary for results on GPS testing. N indicates number of repetitions.
Error vector N Average Sx standard Minimum Maximum 95% probability

(m) deviation (m) (m) (m) radius
DGPS(n=300)-TRUE* 20 2.5 2.0 0 6.0 5.0

DGPS(single-fix)-TRUE 100 8.5 5.2 0.7 23.9 19.1
GPS(single-fix)-DGPS 25 44.1 48.3 9 167 144
AERO-DGPS 26 48.7 57.9 6 213 191.4
*Taken from (August et al., 1994).
Figure 15. Distribution of error radius for single-fix DGPS and

parameters used to evaluate accuracy of positioning – average error and
95% probability radius.

Deviation from average value - comparison of methods

of positioning
200
DGPS reference
GPS 150
AERO
100
50
Horizontal Y error
0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200
-50
-100
-150
-200
Horizontal X error
Figure 16. Comparison of three methods of field positioning. Results of

DGPS method are used as a referent value (assumed error is <5 m).
Deviation of raw GPS, as well as outliers of 95% probability radius can
be seen.
Fluctuation of DGPS values from true value

N = 100
30 m
6535980
95 %
probability
30 m radius
Northing (m)
6535950
DGPS values
Point
6535920
5066550 5066580 5066610
Easting (m)
Figure 17. Fluctuation of single DGPS fixes from the averaged/true value.

It was also found out that two most controlling factors of accuracy during one GPS survey are
average DOP (controlled by satellite constellation and vegetation cover) and number of sequential fixes
used N (controlled by the user). During this survey, following sigma calculated by post-processing
software for different values of N and DOP. Empirically it was known that the sigma would decrease as
the N increases and increase parabolicaly as the DOP increases. The statistical analysis gave a
regression equation (coefficients are valid only for this receiver):
1
SIGMA = 1.94 + 135 ⋅ + 0.282 ⋅ DOP 2
N
Table 18. Sigma or average error calculated by the software for different numbers of fixes and DOP.
Point A002 was not included in the regression model due to possible gross error effect.
Point N DOP SIGMA Point N DOP SIGMA

A001 181 2.7 4.44 B008 579 3.3 5.41
A002 7 2.2 2.04 C001 667 2.7 3.74
A003 173 2.8 6.81 C002 428 1.8 3.13
A004 307 3.4 3.77 C003 677 2.2 4.13
A005 482 3.1 5.08 C004 358 5.5 10.43
A006 57 2.3 2.92 C005 762 2.4 3.62
A007 312 2.4 6.87 C006 357 3.7 7.11
A008 71 2.6 4.83 C007 1036 2.6 2.77
B001 195 2.3 4.23 C008 832 3.3 4.68
B002 952 2.4 5.11 D001 642 3.0 3.53
B003 339 2.2 3.25 D002 56 3.8 11.58
B004 173 3.2 4.86 D003 739 2.2 3.28
B005 452 2.3 5.08 D004 464 3.3 4.07
B006 552 1.7 3.31 D005 191 2.9 5.08
B007 642 2.3 3.16
This regression model prove to be significant with R-Sq(adj) = 58.4% and all predictors being
significant on 95% probability level.
Table 19. Summary of the least square regression model for predicting GPS sigma from N and DOP.
PREDICTOR COEF STDEV T P
CONSTANT 1.9397 0.5300 3.66 0.001
1/N 135.22 56.24 2.40 0.024
PDOP2 0.28204 0.04988 5.66 0.000
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 2 72.928 36.464 19.95 0.000
Residual Error 25 45.688 1.828
Total 27 118.615
In other words, if we plan to do a survey in an area and we know the accuracy we need and we
assume the influence of canopy on DOP increase, it is possible then to calculate optimal N for this
specific survey. E.g. lets say that the average DOP which is usually 3 – 6 will be 4 and sigma needed is
10 m (1 sigma) then the minimum number of sequential fixes will be about 40. This number should be
increased for approximately 70% because insufficient coverage and inaccurate measurements can be
expected, so the number of fixes for this survey should be planned to be at least 70 or 1.2 minutes. To
achieve sigma of only 5 m with same conditions (DOP = 4) is not possible to predict using this model.

However if the DOP would decrease to 3, to achieve sigma of 5 m, N should be planned to be at least
430 or 7 minutes.
135
N=
SIGMA − 1.94 − 0.282 ⋅ DOP 2
The altitude errors were as expected typically about 1.5 times the horizontal error, but for DGPS
method still in-between ± 15 m. The accuracy was assessed by crossing the point data and DEM data.
Altitudes measured by DGPS method - error

20
15
10
Altitude (m)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
-5
-10
-15
Figure 18. Error values of altitudes when compared with the DEM values.
5.6 Landform classification
No special transformation or pre-classification of original data was done, such as principal

component transformation, stretching or optimal band selection. The bands usually did not have a
normal distribution (see Table 20) due to existence of two different landscape types. It is questionable if
the original layer should have been transformed to achieve some kind of normal distribution or separated
into hilland and plain part. These possibilities should be investigated in more detail. The final results of
the automated classification of landforms can bee seen in appendix 8.2.7. Efficiency of prediction of
landforms can be seen in Table 21. It should be taken into account that most simple classification
procedure was used. So it can be assumed that the results could be much better if the data were pre-
transformed, if the sample was larger and more appropriate classification algorithm was used
(maximum likelihood).

Table 20. Soil explanatory bands, unit, minimum, maximum and relative distribution.
Soil explanatory band Unit Min Max Histogram
1. Slope (%) 0 77.71
2. Profile curvature (index) -12.31 11.67
3. Tangent curvature (index) -9.44 9.58
4. CTI – compound topographic index (index) 3.9 16.8
5. Relative irradiation (%) 48 128
6. Potential mean annual GWD (cm) -3.2 158.3
7. Distance to water bodies DWB (m) 0 18389
A first classification was done using only three bands (SLOPE, CTI and GWD), while in the second
time six bands were used (+ TANGC, PROFC and IRRAD). DWB turned to be irrelevant for the
classification so it was eliminated from the map list. As expected, with the increase of landform bands,
the percentage of correctly classified pixels have increased from 62 to 68 %. It can also bee seen that
some landform classes that did not appear different when working with only three bands, showed
difference when the other three bands were included. It can also bee seen that this number is slightly
higher for hilland than for plain (72% – hilland vs 64% – plain).

Table 21. Ratio of correctly classified pixels – efficiency of classification of landforms using 3 and 6
bands. N is number of pixels used as training sample per each of the classes.
Class 3 BANDS N 6 BANDS N

Hi111 0.93 190 0.98 80
Hi112 0.54 78 0.50 101
Hi211 0.60 131 0.66 82
Hi212 0.75 77 0.81 62
Hi311 0.00 208 0.64 181
Hi312 0.77 96 0.71 94
Hi411 0.99 124 0.88 92
Pl111 0.74 180 0.61 98
Pl113 - - 0.92 72
Pl121 - - 0.29 86
Pl211 0.80 203 0.75 138
Pl212 0.67 112 0.65 98
Pl311 0.86 106 0.67 102
Pl312 0.08 91 0.50 58
Pl411 0.44 133 0.65 74
Overall 0.62 1729 0.68 1344
How the classes were really separated can be seen in Table 22 where the 95% probability range of
values is given for each of the classes. So, for example, class Hi111 that is summit of the hilland has
slopes from 0 to 14 %, a more convex profile curvature, a lower wetness index, and collects more solar
irradiation. It also occurs at higher elevations than other classes. Vale slope (Hi311) and bottom
(Hi312) differ in slopes and wetness index mostly. In the plain, different terrace levels are distinguished
by the last band – GWD. Channels in the low terrace also show more concave profile curvature and a
bit higher slope (0–4 %).
In the test area that was not used to select training samples, about 57% of the pixels randomly
sampled (n=40) coincided with the classes calculated through guided classification. However,
coincidence of the boundaries was much clearer as it can be seen in Figure 19. A result of the automated
classification gives more mosaic like pattern, while units produced manually through API are already
generalised and smooth. Incongruous boundaries can be explained with DEM inaccuracies. It should be
emphasised that the DEM was produced from data collected in 1985 and the aerial photos were
relatively new. The accuracy of classification also depends on algorithms used to calculate DEM
derivatives. In the areas of less relief, it was hard to draw boundaries on AP’s so in this case it is
possible that the guided classification gave even better results.

Table 22. 95% probability range of values for different landform classes calculated from sampling pixels.
SLOPE PROFC TANGC CTI IRRAD GWD

Hi111 0 – 14 -1.8 – 0.9 -0.6 – 1.3 5.1 – 8.2 89 – 108 92 – 152
Hi112 4 – 22 -1.8 – 1.3 -1.0 – 1.5 5.1 – 8.8 82 – 120 19 – 124
Hi211 18 – 49 -3.3 – 2.8 -2.3 – 3.2 4.7 – 7.2 70 – 94 -2 – 95
Hi212 13 – 34 -2.4 – 3.8 -1.4 – 1.7 5.6 – 8.6 74 – 104 4 – 47
Hi311 9 – 43 -4.3 – 4.6 -3.9 – 3.2 3.8 – 9.2 68 – 120 47 – 129
Hi312 0 – 20 -1.8 – 3.6 -2.0 – 1.7 5.6 – 12.8 92 – 106 8 – 70
Hi411 0–7 -0.3 – 0.4 -0.2 – 0.3 7.6 – 10.7 99 – 104 36 – 61
Pl111 0–1 -0.1 – 0.1 -0.1 – 0.1 99 -1.7 – 3
Pl113 1–3 -0.3 – 0.4 0 – 0.6 99 2–3
Pl121 0–2 -0.3 – 0.3 -0.1 – 0.2 99 -0.6 – 2.1
Pl211 0–2 -0.2 – 0.2 -0.1 – 0.1 99 – 100 1.5 – 5.3
Pl212 0–4 -0.3 – 0.7 -0.5 – 0.3 99 -0.1 – 3.6
Pl311 0–2 -0.2 – 0.2 -0.1 – 0.2 98 – 101 3.7 – 8.0
Pl312 0–2 -0.2 – 0.2 -0.2 – 0.2 99 4.3 – 5.8
Figure 19. GP map produced by guided classification and boundaries of GP

polygon map extracted manually through API.

5.7 Modelling of soil properties
The main idea in this part of the research is to try apply, test and standardise methodology of
environmental regression for interpolation of soil properties measured in specific point locations. It was
presumed based on results given by similar research that this methodology would give more accurate,
detail and physically more sound model of soil information without a need to do additional investments
in data or mapping activities. Although it seems that this is a conceptually smooth model to represent
physical soil-landscape relation, abrupt transitions were also gained.
Before actual fitting it was interesting to test the independence of soil explanatory variables and
how redundant are independent variables actually. This was done using Pearson correlations (linear) in-
between each pair of variables. The results can be seen in Table 23. Very high correlation, except in-
between HAS and GWD (expected), was also find between TANGC and PROFC, SLOPE and HAS,
GWD and SLOPE and DWB and HAS or GWD. On the other hand, PI and NDVI prove to be truly
independent from all other variables listed. This leads to conclusion that for practical reasons, some of
correlating variables should be replaced or excluded from the regression model. For example, GWD and
DWB could be replaced with common variable:
GWD ∪ DWB = GWD ⋅ DWB −2
Table 23. Pearson correlations table for testing independence of soil explanatory variables. Correlation
coefficient and statistical significance (<0.01 – significant).
HAS SLOPE PROF TANG CTI PI GWD NDVI

SLOPE 0.640
0.000
PROF -0.292 -0.088
0.002 0.371
TANG 0.477 0.533 -0.621
0.000 0.000 0.000
CTI -0.520 -0.517 0.307 -0.405
0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000
PI 0.311 -0.062 -0.070 -0.041 -0.203
0.001 0.529 0.476 0.674 0.046
GWD 0.998 0.638 -0.303 0.480 -0.518 0.273
0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.005
NDVI -0.214 -0.155 0.044 -0.221 0.114 -0.186 -0.201
0.029 0.114 0.653 0.023 0.268 0.058 0.040
DWB 0.670 0.410 -0.195 0.336 -0.367 0.162 0.655 -0.422
0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.000 0.000
Second step in pre-processing of data was to examine individual correlations between OM and each
of the independent variables. This examinations was done visually just to asses type and strength of
relation. In Figure 20, graphs showing individual relationship can be seen. In some cases (HAS,
SLOPE, PROFC, TANGC, GWD), OM shows different pattern depending if the point falls into plain
or hilland region. Other cases show no difference but weak (CTI, PI) or bit stronger relationship
(NDVI, DWB). It can also be seen that in some cases it would be more advisable to use non-linear
transformation. Results of correlating OM with most probable non-linear transformation can be seen in
Table 24.

OM OM
HAS PI
SLOPE GWD
PROFC NDVI
TANGC DWB
CTI
Figure 20. Graph plots showing individual correlation between OM and independent variables.
Doted line indicates probable relationship type.

Table 24. Some individual correlations between OM and soil explanatory variables after visual
interpretation and transformation of original data.
Dependent Non-linear Regression model Significance

variable – Y transformation – X (n)
log(SLOPE) P=0.001 (92)
NDVI2 P=0.000 (89)

OM
log(DWB) P=0.000 (90)
1/PI P=0.000 (90)
When this visually selected soil explanatory variables are put into regression adjustment, they gave
a following equation:
OM = −11.3 + 11.1 ⋅ NDVI 2 + 162 ⋅ PI −1 + 0.177 ⋅ log(SLOPE ) − 1.13 ⋅ log( DWB )

Although the model accounts for 49% of the variation and regression is significant, not all soil
explanatory variables had same importance: NDVI accounted for 70% of variation and PI for 24%. It
can also be seen that log(SLOPE) has insignificant influence on regression model. Finally, using the
stepwise regression procedure in MiniTab, the most significant variables were selected by the program
and then fitted using least square method. That gave the following equation that was used as a final
model:
OM = −210 + 10.9 ⋅ NDVI 2 + 130 ⋅ PI −1 − 1.38 ⋅ log( DWB ) + 156 ⋅ log( PROFC + 20)
This model explains 50.2% of the variance (Fisher’s test P=0.000). Again, most of the variation
was explained by the NDVI variable. It can be seen that all coefficients in model are significant,
although some are on the border of significance. The residuals show normal distribution. The summary
of the least squares regression model can be seen in Table 25.

Table 25. Summary statistics of regression model for predicting OM content in first horizon for Baranja
(n=87).
Predictor Sum of Coefficient t-value P(t) Histogram of residuals
squares
Costant -210.2 -2.16 0.034
NDVI2 203.3 10.9 4.66 0.000
PI-1 51.5 130.0 3.75 0.000
log(DWB) 21.1 -1.38 -2.50 0.014
log(PROFC) 13.9 156.4 7.91 0.040
Residuals 262.3
Unfortunately, the number of samples in the hilland region was insufficient (<10) for fitting. So
variables like SLOPE and GWD were excluded from the model, and variable PI that explains the
greatest amount of the variation was not equally represented in both landscape types. Another big
constraint is that only the new points were located inside grid resolution (30x30 m), while pits from
1975 were located manually on aerial photos and could deviate significantly from used co-ordinates
(50–150 m). For these reasons, only the prediction accuracy in the plain was compared with the
polygon-based approach.
A standard method of prediction using the polygon-based SIS is to calculate the average from all
locations that belong to a single delineation or to use representative profiles to present each mapping
unit (PBS). Here an average for per mapping unit (soil map from 1975) from representative profiles
was calculated. The profiles used are the same as the one used to fit the regression model (REG). A
statistical comparison was done for 25 new points were the actual OM content was measured in the lab.
However, points belonging to the hilland were excluded due to previously mentioned reasons. Maps of
OM content in first horizon calculated using these two approaches (PBS and REG) can be seen in
Figure 21.
OM – averaged for each mapping unit OM = −210 + 10.9 ⋅ NDVI 2 + 130 ⋅ PI −1 − 1.38 ⋅ log(DWB ) + 156 ⋅ log(PROFC + 20)
Figure 21. Map of OM for Baranja. Left: polygon-based approach, right: from environmental regression
model. Areas of high OM content along the rivers (natural vegetation) can be seen.
The results of the test showed that using the regression model and mapping units to predict value of
OM in independent points does not differ significantly (P(t)=0.779). The average error of prediction for
both methods was very similar – 1.6% for PBS vs 1.7% for REG. The correlation coefficient in-
between REG and PBS is significant (r=0.48, P=0.02), while correlation between true and REG and
PBS are low and insignificant for both cases (r=0.24 for REG and r=0.26 for PBS). This implies that
both methods are averaging and thus neglecting the local, large-scale variability. Again, results of this
test should be considered in-between the conditions and constraints experienced. The data used are

maybe outdated and point locations are estimated subjectively on aerial photos. Prediction accuracy
comparison can be seen in Figure 22. The most striking difference of these two maps is that REG map
shows high correlation with the Land use/cover type (compare with the LU map in appendix 8.2.6). It is
logical to expect higher OM content in thinner A horizon under natural vegetation. The PBS soil map
does not have this units included.
8.0
6.0
Error of prediction (%)
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
PBS-TRUE
-6.0 REG-TRUE
Figure 22. Comparison of accuracy of prediction of polygon-based and grid-based

method for 25 independent locations.
Although the accuracy of the grid method in predicting value of OM is equal or even lower then for
the PBS, in Figure 23 can be seen that it gives a higher level of detail. It can also be seen how a high
correlation of NDVI under natural vegetation gives a distinct unit (in right upper corner). Which proves
that a grid map can express both the abrupt and gradual change of property while the polygon is limited
to show only abrupt changes.
Figure 23. Comparison of level of detail of two different models of soil information – polygon (left) and
grid (right). Grid spacing = 1 km.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 6
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Back to the research questions…
6.1.1 Accuracy of GPS, DGPS and location of points from ortho-photos

(Q1) Positioning using uncorrected GPS signal can give equal or even better (with averaging)
results than location of points on 1:20 K scale ortho-corrected aerial photos. Where average error
of only few meters is needed, static DGPS methods should be used.
Results of this research show that the GPS mapping can be effectively implemented in soil mapping
and in environmental applications in general. It is important to emphasise that selection of GPS method
has to be based on cartographical needs of user. To objectively evaluate use of different methods of
positioning, following moments should be especially considered:
" What is the working scale of application?
" What is 95% probability radius of specific positioning method (or MLA)?
" How reliable are the values and how can they be validated?
" Which method is most cost-effective?
Three main groups of user can be separated in that sense: users that need high accuracy for its
application, users that need only general idea where they are and users in-between (see Table 26).
Table 26. Working scale and adjacent position system (maximum location accuracy = 0,2 mm on map).
Working scale MLA Appropriate positioning Area of application in soil mapping and
method management
High order precision agriculture; detail soil
1:5000 <1 m Highly accurate methods
maps; pollution studies;
Navigation in field and in vehicles; precision
1:25000 – 5 m to 10 m DGPS (single fix) and averaged
agriculture; mapping soil boundaries and pits;
1:50000
making of management plans etc.
General navigation; mapping profiles and
<1:100000 >20 m GPS (single fix)
specific features;
It is also important to see that buying a expensive GPS receiver system is not a guarantee of
successful use. A sound knowledge on cartographic and GIS elements and operations like co-
ordinate system definition, transformation, overlaying operations etc. is also necessary.
6.1.2 Automated classification of landforms
Normally it would take about 250 of 1:20,000 aerial photos to cover whole region of Baranja. Here,
it has been used only 15 or 5 triplets. These 5 triplets have covered approximately 6000 ha or only 5%
of the whole area. The classification of landforms was done using these and six landform parameters
(slope, profile and tangent curvature, relative irradiation, potential GWD and wetness index). The
results showed that 62% pixels used to train the algorithm were classified to same class. This number
increased to 68%as the number of the landform bands doubled. In areas of less relief, accuracy of

classification (6 bands) was in both cases smaller (72% in hilland and 64% in plain). When testing the
accuracy outside the training area (extrapolation), only 57% of the pixels randomly sampled (n=40)
coincided with the classes calculated using guided classification. Therefore, it can be concluded that:
(Q2) Automated classification of landforms improves delineation of soil units and potentially
could replace it depending on number and quality of landform bands.
However, when visually examined, coincidence of the boundaries was significant although the
classified image showed higher detail, but also a need to generalise and exclude cartographically too
small areas. In some parts, classification gave conceptually wrong classes (extrapolation). For example,
the bottom of the vale was recognised outside the area where it could normally appear (bottom of
glacis). These problems can be avoided by increasing – number of aerial photos, resolution of the DEM
and DEM derivatives and number of pixels for training.
6.1.3 Soil quantitative modelling

Regression model developed by fitting soil property (in this case – organic matter content in first
horizon) with soil explanatory variables, did not give higher accuracy of prediction than the polygon-
based SIS when tested in 29 points. Both methods have low correlation with the true values in control
points and average error of prediction was approximately the same (1.6 %) for both methods
(C.V.=44%). Here the final conclusion is made that in this case:
(Q3) A soil property can not be predicted with better accuracy using cheap soil-related data
and quantitative modelling rather than polygon-based SIS.
Why was this correlation so low? During the development of model for prediction of OM content in
first horizon, a number of constraints have been faced:
! The points were unequally distributed (90 in plain and 10 in hilland);
! The points were located manually from aerial photos with error of approximately 50-150 m;
! The list of soil explanatory variables from the Jenny equation is incomplete (parent material and
land use were not included);
! DEM and DEM derivatives show inaccuracies due to hardware and software constraints and
relatively low relief;
! Values calculated by the REG model are presenting an average per 30x30 m grids while OM in
control points is taken as a point samples (the real average per grid is unknown);
! The values from the lab analysis of 1975 are still current but local changes especially in the
area of possible flooding probably occurred;
! The number of control points is relatively low;
When all these problems are taken into account, the accuracy of the regression modelling becomes
understandable. However, a significant correlation between the OM and some soil explanatory
variables like NDVI, PI, SLOPE, DWB and PROFC was discovered. The non-linear regression
model:
OM = −210 + 10.9 ⋅ NDVI 2 + 130 ⋅ PI −1 − 1.38 ⋅ log( DWB ) + 156 ⋅ log( PROFC + 20)
gave significant correlation explaining 49% of sample variance but only in-between the range of
data fitted. In hilland region, due to small number of samples, calculated values showed high
inaccuracies and could not be used (extrapolation). When visually compared with polygon-based
attribute map, the grid map shows higher level of detail and physically more understandable
distribution (areas of natural vegetation and convex channels show higher OM content).

6.1.4 Maps of single soil properties
In the polygon-based SIS, mapping units are linked with attribute tables of number of descriptive
and analytical properties. In this case we speak about a single polygon soil map showing the distribution
of soil types. In the grid-based SIS, we concentrate on building the maps for every single property first
and we can classify and organise them according to the application and user needs.
There are four main advantages of the grid form of data that should be especially emphasised:
a) it uses the actual point observations to make the soil map;
b) the data can be (geo-)statistically analysed and integrated/modelled with other related data;
c) it offers an objective measure of uncertainty for spatial prediction;
d) grid-based organization of the soil information is conceptually more universal i.e. it can have
both the gradual and abrupt change of the variable value.
It should be also emphasised that interpolating soil properties using analytical modelling methods,
results not only with a map of predicted values but also calculation of certainty of prediction (error
map), which is usually not the case for polygon-based map. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that:
(Q4) A grid-based model is conceptually superior to the polygon-based if technical
requirements are achieved (mapping tools, software and hardware).
However, there are number of technical problems that should be previously solved. Soil properties
usually have three dimensions of spatial variation. How to present this type of data in XY space? Some
authors use cumulative values for some relevant standard depth (e.g. total carbon content for the upper
50 cm). The same variable can be also presented per specific horizon (e.g. OM in epipedon) or per
specific depths (e.g. OM in 20, 40 and 60 cm from surface). When a property is predicted per specific
depths, number of maps that has to be produced increases significantly. In general, the biggest
disadvantage of grid-based SIS will be a number of maps to produce. If we produce a map per every
single property and some properties consist of several sub-maps (different depth), system requirements
are becoming high. In this case it is maybe easier to use some kind of hybrid SIS with mapping units for
less relevant and more abruptly distributed properties and grid maps for more important ones. As
Burrough also found that neither discrete nor continuous models are actually appropriate to describe the
soil variation. Thus “…the degree of success of dealing with soil variation thus depends on the type of
variation (abrupt vs gradual) and the tools used to describe that variation” (Burrough, 1993).
Soil being a dynamic medium, changes its properties also over time, even seasonally within a year.
Especially variable are chemical and hydrological properties that usually change value seasonally, e.g.
water balance. Other properties like texture or soil depth are more permanent but the logic of their
distribution can also be interrupted/disturbed due to human influence, erosion, flooding or former
climatic conditions. To explain this type of variation, sometimes is hard to do by building soil
explanatory maps rather than using classical subjective but empirical methods (API, soil classification).
To map a property that varies seasonally, it may be more appropriate to use upper and lower limit maps
(95% probability range) than estimated averages. If we produce a map of a Xi soil variable presented
only by fitted results (and without error map), precision and accuracy can be misinterpreted. A user can
go on field and expect pH of 7,6 although error of prediction in this point can be 1,5. Another argument
for using upper/lower limit maps is that SIS-user more often requires minimum and maximum values
(limiting factors) for Land evaluation and Land use planing purposes.
Another problem in modelling of soil properties is sampling density or number of point samples
required for fitting of specific soil variable using explanatory variables. To be able to ‘cover’ most of
Jenny’s factors influencing distribution of soil property, a large number of samples is needed. As a
general rule, Draper and Smith (Draper and Smith, 1981) suggest at least 10 complete sets of

observations for each potential variable to be included. This means that, for example, to fit 10 variables
using multiple regression, minimum sample number of measured dependent variable should be 10x10 or
100. A real minimum number of observation mathematically is defined as 2 N + 20, where N is number
of predictors (Ott, 1993).
To overcome some of these problems, the following assumption should be made:
It is more appropriate to use long term annual averages of climatic or hydrological variables
because influence of climatic rather than temporary weather conditions is expected to have more
influence on static soil properties, i.e. those which are mapped in ‘non-temporal’ soil survey. The
intention is to produce a map that doesn’t have to be updated annually.
To overcome the problem of sample number due to high number of soil explanatory variables, it
is advisable to use integral indices. Such as CTI for describing water flow and accumulation, Prescott
index for water balance and microclimatic conditions or NDVI for explaining vegetation factor rather
than single variables which number can be more than 15 or 20 requiring large number of samples.
Some explanatory variables can be complex and expensive to measure and map in sufficient
density over the spatial field (e.g. net solar irradiation, GWD). In that moment, estimates (relative
proportion is more important than absolute results) can be used (e.g. potential GWD).
6.2 Other results and conclusions
Apart from the conclusions that are addressing previously stated research questions, this research
produced a number of interesting conclusions that should be also mentioned here. :
I. Georeferencing of scanned maps in ILWIS using more control points, higher order
transformation and overlaid grid lines for interactive validation can give higher accuracy of
georeferencing than is possible to achieve using digitiser.
II. Adding visually interpreted ridges, contours, peaks and canals that were not existing in the
original topo-map, and using more smooth algorithms gives more realistic and, for modelling
purposes, more appropriate DEM derivatives than when using most simple procedure.
III. Use of the ortho-photo module in ILWIS can improve data integration and give a high
cartographical quality of soil information from interpreted airphotos.

6.3 Future research
Although the aim of this research was to answer specific questions, it also opened a lot of new ones.
However, the results gave reasonable optimism for future investigations. There is a high technical and
empirical potential today to develop a grid-based system that is probably more wanted and more
objective than the existing polygon based one. In future research with some of these questions should be
dealt in more detail:
! What type of soil information does users need and how detail should it be?
! How should be specific properties predicted (regression model, mapping units or geostatistical
interpolation) and presented (layers of maps or cumulative values)?
! Which soil explanatory data should be used and which give optimal results?
! How can be geostatistical (kriging) and statistical GIS (regression) operations integrated?
! How should be grid-based SIS organised and distributed?

It can be seen that data used to calculate landform and climatic parameters is generally simple and
does not need to be measured and mapped by doing field measurements. Even the climatic data is
nowadays easily accessible and usually very cheap or even given for free. Experiences in Croatia show
that meteorological data are well measured and archived and soon will be accessible via internet. In this
moment the DEM for whole Croatia from 1:5000 maps is being built and should be accessible in about
two years. The contour lines for whole Croatia from 1:25000 topo-map already exist in digital form.
The biggest advantage of this approach is that most of the input data used in this research were actually
free. Therefore, the main hypothesis of future research will be:
1st How can be existing soil survey data and Basic soil map of Croatia improved using results
of this research without re-doing expensive soil sampling and lab data analysis? Or what is the
optimal methodology to be applied in improving the SIS of Croatia?
2nd How to organise a grid-based SIS for Croatia to satisfy: a) international requirements and
standards and b) local users needs?
3rd When the grid-based SIS is built, how can it be applied in land planning (development
projects) and management in more detail scales (>1:50K)?

REFERENCES CHAPTER 7
7 References
Antonić, O., 1996. Application of spatial modelling in the Karst bioclimatology. Croatian
meteorological Journal, 31: 95-102
Antonić, O., Marki, A. and Križan, J., 1999. A global model for monthly mean hourly direct solar
radiation. Ecological Modelling, (in press)
Arnaud, M. and Flori, A., 1998. Bias and Precision of Different Sampling Methods for GPS Positions.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 6(June): 597-600
August, P., Michaud, J. and et al., 1994. GPS for environmental applications: accuracy and precision of
locational data. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 60(1): 41-45
Bogunović, M. and Rapaić, M., 1993. Digitalisation of basic soil map of Republic of Croatia. Bilt.
Dalj. Istr. Fotoint., 12: 65-76 (in Croatian).
Burrough, P.A., 1993. The technologic paradox in soil survey: new methods and techniques of data
capture and handling. ITC Journal(No): 15-22
Burrough, P.A., Gaans, P.F.M. and van Hootsmans, R., 1997. Continuous classification in soil survey:
spatial correlation, confusion and boundaries. Geoderma, 77: 115-135
Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R.A., 1998. Principles of geographical information systems. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 327 pp
Čirić, M., 1984. Pedology. Svjetlost, Sarajevo, 365 pp (in Serbo-croatian).
Committee on Assesing Crop Yield, 1997. Precision agriculture in 21st century. National Academy
Press, Washington, 142 pp
de Gruijter, J.J., 1994. Developments in spatial statistics for soil science. In: J.J. de Gruijter, R.
Webster and D.E. Myers (Editors), Pedometrics-92. Geoderma, Wageningen, pp. 326 pp,
de Gruijter, J.J., Walvoort, D.J.J. and et al., 1997. Continuous soil maps - a fuzzy set approach to
bridge the gap between aggregation levels of process and distribution models. Geoderma, 77:
169-195
Department for the scientific work Osijek, 1986. Three centuries of "BELJE", Osijek monography (in
Croatian).
Draper, N. and Smith, H., 1981. Applied regression analysis, second edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
701 pp
Easton, V.J. and McColl, J.H., 1997. Statistics glossary. http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/
index.html.
FAO (Editor), 1998. World reference base for soil resources. World soil resources reports. FAO,
ISRIC, ISSS, Rome, 87 pp
Forbes, T., Rossiter, D. and van Wambeke, A., 1981. Guidelines for evaluating adequacy of soil
resource inventories. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 50 pp
Garmin Co., 1998. GPS glossary. , http://www.garmin.com/gpsGlossary.html.
Gessler, P.E., 1996. Statistical soil-landscape modelling for environmental management, Australian
National University
Gripentrog, H.W. and Isensee, E., 1998. DGPS in der Landwirtschaft (Möglichkeiten, Kosten und
Grenzen). In: R.-K.f.L. (RKL) (Editor), pp. 925-945
Gruber, S., 2000. Parametrisation of Hill Slope Water Accumulation. MSc thesis Thesis, University of
Giessen, in print

Heuvelink, G.B.M., 1994. Error propagation in quantitative spatial modelling. PhD thesis Thesis,
University of Utrecht, Utrecht, 103-115 pp
Ibanez, J.J., Zinck, J.A. and Jimenez Ballesta, R., 1993. Soil survey: old and new challenges. ITC
Journal(No): 7-14
Irvin, B.J., Ventura, S.J. and Slater, B.K., 1997. Fuzzy and isodata classification of landform elements
from digital terrain data in Pleasant Valley, Winsconsin. Geoderma, 77: 137-154
Klein, S.A., 1977. Calculation of monthly average insolation on tilted surface. Solar Energy, 19: 325-
329
Lagacherie, P., Andrieux, P. and et al., 1996. Fuzziness and uncertainty of soil boundaries: from reality
to coding in GIS. Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. In: B.P.A.a.F.A. U.
(Editor), Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London, pp.
275-286
Long, D.S., DeGloria, S.D. and Galbraith, J.M., 1991. Use of the global positioning system in soil
survey. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46(4): 292-297
Marki, A. and Antonic, O., 1999. Annual models of monthly mean hourly direct, diffuse and global
solar radiation at ground. Meteorol. Zeitschrift, 8: 91-95
McKenzie, N.J. and Austin, M.P., 1993. A quantitative Australian approach to medium and small scale
surveys based on soil stratigraphy and environmental correlation. Geoderma, 57: 329-355
McKenzie, N.J. and Ryan, P.J., 1999. Spatial predection of soil properties using environmental
correlation. Geoderma, 89: 67-94
Mitas, L. and Mitasova, H., 1999. Spatial interpolation. Geographical Information Systems, 1: 481-495
Odeh, I.O.A., McBratney, A.B. and Chittleborough, D.J., 1994. Spatial prediction of soil properties
from landform attributes derived from a digital elevation model. Geoderma, 63(3-4): 197-214
Odeh, I.O.A., McBratney, A.B. and Chittleborough, D.J., 1995. Further results on prediction of soil
properties from terrain attributes: heterotopic cokriging and regression-kriging. Geoderma,
67(3/4): 215-226
Ott, R.L., 1993. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. Duxbury press, Belmont,
1051 pp
Patterson, B. and Gittings, B., 1996. GIS dictionary. The University of Edinburgh and Association for
Geographic Information, http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/agidict/.
Petersen, G.W., Bell, J.C. and et al., 1995. Geographic information systems in agronomy. Advances in
Agronomy, 55: 67-111
Privredna komora Slavonije i Baranje, 1985. Slavonija 85. Tisak, Osijek, 370 pp (in Croatian).
Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P. and Planchon, O., 1991. The prediction of hillslope flow paths for
distributed hydrological modelling using digital terrain models. Hydrological processes, 5: 59-
79
Rossiter, D.G., 1998. Methodology for soil resource inventories. ITC, Enschede, 110 pp Lecture notes.
Schmidt, J., Hennrich, K. and Dikau, R., 1998. Scales and similarities in runoff processes with respect
to geomorphometry. Department of Geography, University of Bonn, Germany,
http://strabo.geog.port.ac.uk/geocomp/geo98/02/gc_02.htm.
Škorić, A. (Editor), 1977. Soils of Slavonija and Baranja, 1. Izdavački zavod Jugoslavenske akademije,
Zagreb, 235 pp (in Croatian).
Škorić, A., Filipovski, G. and Čirić, M., 1985. Classification of yugoslav soils. Academy of Sciences
and Arts of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Sarajevo, 71 pp

REFERENCES CHAPTER 7
Soil Science Society of America, 1996. Glossary of Soil Science Terms. Soil Science Society of
America, Inc., Wisconsin, 138 pp
Soil survey Division staff, 1993. Soil survey manual. United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, 411 pp
Speelman, B., 1997. Precision Agriculture. Landtechnik, 3: 158-160
Valenzuela, C.R. and Baumgardner, M.F., 1990. Selection of appropriate cell sizes for thematic maps.
ITC Journal, 1990-3: 219-224
Webster, R. and Olivier, M.A., 1990. Statistical Methods in Soil and Land Resource Survey. Oxford
Uni. Press, Oxford
Zevenbergen, L.W. and Thorne, C.R., 1987. Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth
Surface Processes Landforms, 12: 47-56

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY
8 Appendices
8.1 Glossary
Accuracy – measure of how close (how exact) is some estimate to the actual or true value and
includes bias, random and gross error; it is calculated as difference between the given values and
true values (Rossiter, 1998).
AP’s – Aerial photos
API – Aerial photo-interpretation
Automated classification – classification guided by some algorithm, i.e. person is not (or is only
partially) participating in the process; e.g. classification of landforms, classification of satellite
images.
Classical soil survey – or conventional soil survey; general soil survey methodology that is in use in
most of the developed countries; polygon-based SIS with relational database structure (in this thesis,
classical soil survey includes the GP approach of ITC, USDA methodology and Croatian
methodology).
CMSV – Continuous model of spatial variation
Data – a collection of facts, concepts or instructions in a formalised manner suitable for
communication or processing by human beings or by computer (Patterson and Gittings, 1996).
Usually primary pieces of information – which come as numbers, symbol or images, photos, etc.
Datum (geodetic) – a geographic model obtained by referencing the earth's sea level surface area
and applying theoretical mathematical calculations.
DEM – Digital Elevation Model
DGPS – Differential GPS
DMSV – Discrete model of spatial variation
DOP – Dilution of Precision – a multiplicative factor caused by geometry that modifies ranging
between the user and his set of satellites. High DOP means low geometrical quality of signal. Also
referred to as GOP or GDOP (Garmin Co., 1998).
DWB – Distance to water bodies
Environmental regression – prediction and mapping of a dependent variable using statistical
regression between it and one or more independent ecological variables (such as rainfall, elevation
etc.). Also used term is geo-ecological modelling.
EPE – Estimated Position Error – a measurement of horizontal position error based upon a variety of
factors including DOP and satellite signal quality.
Geoinformation technologies – or geoinformatics; a common name for RS or better (digital)
aerospace survey, satellite positioning systems (GPS, DGPS) and all GIS hardware and software.
GIS – Geographic Information System
GP – Geopedological (approach)
GP approach in soil survey – approach to classification of landforms and mapping soils developed
by Prof. A. Zink from Soil Science department, ITC, Enschede.
GPS – Global positioning system

Grid-based GIS – GIS that is based on the map calculations and modelling of multiple layers; the
base format of the data is of raster type (usually the base layer used is DEM). With the raster data
model or grid, spatial data is not continuous but divided into discrete units. Unlike vector data
however, there are no implicit topological relationships (Patterson and Gittings, 1996).
GT – see Geoinformation technologies
GWD – Ground water depth
HAS – Height above sea level
Information – structured data that give answers to specific questions.
IRRAD – Relative irradiation
ISSS – International Society of Soil Science
MLA – Maximum location accuracy
MSE – Mean Square Error
NDVI – Normalised difference vegetation index = (near infra-red - red band) / (near infra-red + red
band).
OM – organic matter content in % as determined in soil lab.
PI – Prescott index = 0.445⋅Rainfall / Potential Evapotranspiration0.75.
Precision – deterministic value that is calculated as a measure of variation – equal to coefficient of
variation (Forbes et al., 1981).
Prediction map – map calculated through quantitative modelling process where values are not
verified, i.e. not measured but fitted/interpolated i.e. predicted.
Pseudorange – a distance measurement using uncorrected time comparisons from satellite
transmitted code and the local receiver's reference code.
Quantitative spatial modelling – mathematical formulation of spatially distributed features (reality).
SDB – Soil data base.
Significance; significantly – statistically proved assumption; the significance level of a statistical
hypothesis test is a fixed probability calculated with some test of rejecting the null hypothesis.
Usually, the significance level is chosen to be 0.05 (or equivalently, 5%), although to really reject or
confirm the hypothesis standard threshold probability used is 1% (Easton and McColl, 1997).
SIS – Soil Information System; e.g.: soil map linked with the SDB.
Soil – unconsolidated material that covers Earth surface, can support growth of plants and is
developed through weathering of the initial rock material, by the activity of climate and living
organisms modified by relief in time.
Soil explanatory data – data that explain the spatial distribution of soils and soil properties i.e.
influence the soil forming processes, right side of the Jenny equation e.g. slope.
Soil map – a map showing the distribution of soils or other soil map units in relation to the
prominent physical and cultural features of the earth’s surface; group of spatially defined
information about soil i.e. soil properties that affect an intended use – cartographic part of the SIS
(Rossiter, 1998).
Soil property, characteristic or variable – characteristic is usually use for attributes that
qualitatively describe the soil, while soil properties are usually measurable/quantitative soil variable
such as chemical and physical properties measured in the lab. In this thesis, soil property and soil
variable terms are used with same general meaning.
Soil survey – a process of determining and mapping the types of soils and soil properties over a
landscape for others to understand soil and adjust their land use; finishes with soil resource
inventory – soil map and DB on soils; also includes interpretation/evaluation of soil management.

APPENDIX 1 GLOSSARY
Solum depth – a) real – the maximum depth of the soil from surface where roots of current land
cover are still seen; b) theoretical – material formed through pedogetic processes that is overlaying
parent material (Soil Science Society of America, 1996).
Stratified kriging – geostatistical interpolation in-between different strata – relatively homogenous
units (Burrough and McDonnell, 1998).
True value – reference value that can not be determined with significantly higher accuracy – “real”
value.
UTC – Universal Time Coordinated – a universal time standard, referencing the time at Greenwich,
England. Also referred to as GMT or Zulu time.
WRB – World Reference Base, 1998; international classification system as approved by the
International Society of Soil Science (FAO, 1998).

APPENDIX 2 CATALOGUE
8.2 Catalogue of Soil explanatory variables
8.2.1 Slope and aspect
Slope Aspect
Relation to GP mapping units

Hilland
Plain

8.2.2 Profile and tangent curvature
Profile curvature Tangent curvature

Hilland
Plain

8.2.3 Ground water depth and distance to water bodies
Ground water depth Distance to water bodies

Hilland
Plain

8.2.4 Wetness index
CTI (from 25 iterations)
Relation to GP mapping units only Hilland
Plain

8.2.5 Prescott index
Prescott index
Average annual rainfall
Average annual temperatures

Relative irradiation
Relation to contour lines

8.2.6 NDVI and Land use map
Original NDVI image Corrected NDVI image
Land use map (classified from TM image)

8.2.7 Final map - classification of landforms
5 sample areas used to train the algorithm
Final map of GP landforms (extrapolation)

APPENDIX 3 DATA SETS
8.3 Original data sets used
8.3.1 Example of an ASCII file produced by Garmin’s software

File structure:
SOFTWARE NAME & VERSION

POINT NAME
DATE AND TIME OF POST-PROCESSING
PROJECTION AND ELLIPSOID (DATUM)
NORTHING, EASTING AND ALTITUDE OF REFERENT POINT
NORTHING, EASTING, ALTITUDE, UTC TIME, EPE, DOP AND SATELLITES (with code) USED IN
CALCULATIONS PER SINGLE READING
NEW POINT NAME, NORTHING, EASTING, ALTITUDE averaged from single readings, UTC TIME,
NUMBER OF SINGLE READINGS AND SIGMA
TIME LAT LONG ALT D EPE HPE VPE PDOP HDOP VDOP SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4
1 14:20:52 52.2229711 6.8844428 34.4 2 73.6 73.6 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
2 14:20:53 52.2225746 6.8847269 34.4 2 73.6 73.6 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
3 14:20:54 52.2227677 6.8845483 34.4 2 73.6 73.6 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
4 14:20:55 52.2227623 6.884499 34.4 2 73.5 73.5 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
5 14:20:57 52.2227927 6.8844829 34.4 2 73.5 73.5 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
6 14:20:58 52.2230409 6.8842326 34.4 2 73.5 73.5 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
7 14:20:59 52.2226479 6.8846488 34.4 2 73.5 73.5 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
8 14:21:00 52.222738 6.8845396 34.4 2 73.4 73.4 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
9 14:21:01 52.2227727 6.8845799 34.4 2 73.4 73.4 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
10 14:21:02 52.2227683 6.8845852 34.4 2 73.4 73.4 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
11 14:21:03 52.2229055 6.8844689 34.4 2 73.4 73.4 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
12 14:21:04 52.2231584 6.8843058 34.4 2 73.4 73.4 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
13 14:21:05 52.2231997 6.8842766 34.4 2 73.3 73.3 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
14 14:21:08 52.2230383 6.8843451 34.4 2 73.3 73.3 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
15 14:21:09 52.2228179 6.8845182 34.4 2 73.3 73.3 __ 3.1 3.1 __ 27 19 18 24
16 14:21:13 52.2228737 6.8841055 34.4 2 78.2 78.2 __ 3.3 3.3 __ 27 19 2
17 14:21:14 52.2226926 6.8844069 72.7 3 72.5 48.8 53.7 3.1 2.1 2.3 27 19 18 24
ID TIME LAT LONG ALT SIGMA

ITC 16SEP99 52.2228506 6.88450765 40 2.8 73 53 18.39

8.3.2 GPS data
Table 27. Same points (mini-pits) located using three methods. Missing
values are gross errors or unsuccessfully processed DGPS data.
no. SOIL ID DGPS GPS AERO
X Y X Y X Y
1 A001 6561610 5078885 6561623 5079052 6561624 5078904
2 A002 - - 6561870 5080228 6561906 5080269
3 A003 6560948 5080961 6560934 5081083 6561092 5080971
4 A004 6559866 5080454 6559883 5080486 6559680 5080453
5 A005 6559379 5079868 6559394 5079771 6559375 5079857
6 A006 6559351 5079540 6559331 5079555 6559350 5079546
7 A007 6558959 5077395 6558985 5077421 6559003 5077417
8 A008 6559249 5077164 6559268 5077115 6559285 5077113
9 B001 6554066 5072824 6554061 5072838 6554093 5072822
10 B002 6553964 5072864 6554104 5072900 6553966 5072884
11 B003 6552973 5072284 6552964 5072304 6553005 5072243
12 B004 6552936 5071760 6552905 5071624 6552954 5071774
13 B005 6552745 5072837 6552765 5072827 6552772 5072843
14 B006 6554335 5070702 6554339 5070710 6554404 5070628
15 B007 6554961 5070222 6554969 5070252 6554959 5070248
16 B008 6552911 5072049 6552923 5072056 6552990 5072015
17 C001 6539192 5065703 6539162 5065657 6539194 5065672
18 C002 6539489 5065631 6539486 5065721 6539500 5065624
19 C003 6538714 5066333 6538747 5066365 6538680 5066250
20 C004 - - 6539153 5067108 6539129 5067034
21 C005 6537900 5068024 6537894 5067996 6537882 5068041
22 C006 6538226 5068394 6538238 5068337 6538373 5068549
23 C007 6535950 5066581 - - 6535970 5066599
24 C008 6537890 5066355 6537883 5066359 6537795 5066286
25 D001 6563537 5054434 6563512 5054464 6563554 5054510
26 D002 - - 6562715 5051863 6562748 5052216
27 D003 6561078 5051975 6561066 5052032 6561079 5051961
28 D004 6560237 5052419 6560216 5052456 6560287 5052411
29 D005 6561197 5054064 6561197 5054133 6561040 5054156

APPENDIX 3 DATA SETS
8.3.3 Original lab data
Table 28. Original lab data. Bolded are values used in thesis.
ID-uzorka a b c d e OM CARB pH
A001-1 0.76 5.48 36.95 35.80 21.00 1.39 19.59 6.95
A001-2 1.44 7.67 43.90 31.20 15.80 0.53 16.72 7.28
A001-3 0.80 12.24 48.46 25.10 13.40 0.49 22.57 7.37
A001-4 2.37 1.53 40.59 39.00 16.50 0.63 27.43 7.45
A002-1 0.71 4.45 29.04 41.20 24.60 4.37 22.57 7.12
A002-2 0.43 6.16 44.11 34.10 15.20 4.34 20.44 7.27
A003-1 23.59 5.76 14.65 34.60 21.40 7.13 10.29 6.95
A003-2 12.84 5.07 17.99 36.10 28.00 12.81 18.74 7.08
A003-3 0.85 31.61 41.64 17.80 8.10 18.55 13.72 7.25
A004-1 12.33 48.21 24.57 12.40 2.50 2.50 18.31 7.27
A005-1 4.35 6.26 49.29 28.50 11.60 5.04 5.11 6.93
A005-2 1.61 3.40 45.29 30.40 19.30 2.27 6.86 7.04
A005-3 2.08 3.79 42.33 28.70 23.10 0.58 29.58 7.32
A006-1 1.41 4.00 45.49 29.20 19.90 2.13 5.57 7.08
A006-2 0.70 3.09 44.31 26.60 25.30 1.25 4.72 7.08
A006-3 6.22 3.78 27.50 33.40 29.10 0.31 25.56 7.74
A007-1 2.35 6.31 17.05 40.20 34.10 7.65 7.29 6.96
A007-2 0.92 2.93 27.25 27.10 41.80 2.20 6.43 7.18
A007-3 3.60 3.83 24.87 32.60 35.10 1.14 27.68 7.30
A007-4 1.22 4.72 26.65 39.80 27.60 0.53 43.87 7.40
A008-1 1.64 3.44 36.72 21.70 36.50 1.32 3.83 6.70
A008-2 0.51 4.40 36.59 19.80 38.70 0.45 4.72 7.40
A008-3 2.98 6.77 44.75 25.60 19.90 0.37 35.35 7.50
B001-1 0.39 3.19 39.62 27.50 29.30 1.93 5.09 7.03
B001-3 3.54 3.41 49.05 28.60 15.40 1.45 18.66 7.52
B002-1 1.77 5.51 42.02 30.90 19.80 3.76 14.48 7.00
B002-2 0.88 2.79 43.83 31.30 21.20 1.39 11.50 6.85
B002-3 2.62 2.67 53.10 26.10 15.50 0.58 18.00 7.20
B003-1 1.79 5.59 37.92 32.30 22.40 1.97 21.30 7.10
B003-2 1.88 2.74 54.18 25.60 15.60 0.61 26.41 7.30
B004-1 0.80 3.70 48.10 28.50 18.90 2.95 10.29 6.80
B004-2 0.36 2.35 54.19 23.00 20.10 1.23 11.50 7.20
B004-3 0.49 1.93 50.38 26.20 21.00 0.81 11.93 7.30
B005-1 12.39 26.97 29.64 19.90 11.10 1.32 26.58 6.90
B005-2 22.35 24.22 25.43 17.90 10.10 0.53 18.86 7.35
B006-1 5.20 4.16 48.14 25.90 16.60 1.01 23.85 7.20
B006-2 2.33 1.93 52.34 24.60 18.80 0.50 13.20 6.80
B007-1 0.55 1.43 42.52 27.00 28.50 1.82 2.56 5.90
B007-2 0.17 1.04 42.59 27.20 29.00 0.69 2.56 5.60
B007-3 7.06 1.97 48.37 26.80 15.80 0.61 25.13 7.10
B008-1 0.40 2.11 41.79 25.60 30.10 1.79 2.98 6.30
B008-2 0.41 1.24 39.25 25.20 33.90 0.75 2.98 6.30
Codes used: a - 2 – 0,2 mm (%) texture fraction; b - 0,2 – 0,05 mm texture fraction; c - 0,05 – 0,02 mm
texture fraction; d - 0,02 – 0,002 mm texture fraction; e - <0,002 mm texture fraction; OM – Organic
matter content; CARB - CaCO3 content; pH - pH in KCl

Table continued
ID-uzorka a b c d e OM CARB pH
C001-1 2.47 20.60 18.43 33.70 24.80 7.16 5.5 7.1
C001-2 19.74 18.46 17.49 22.80 21.50 2.42 7.2 7.27
C002-1 6.78 46.19 23.43 15.80 7.80 2.07 11.0 7.6
C003-1 2.65 29.28 27.07 22.70 18.30 4.24 8.5 7.52
C003-2 4.39 33.55 30.16 20.20 11.70 1.42 21.2 7.55
C003-3 0.76 85.64 8.10 2.10 3.40 0.39 18.2 7.56
C004-1 0.36 2.63 30.11 35.00 31.90 2.7 3.4 5.91
C004-2 1.13 2.60 30.87 29.80 35.60 1.39 3.0 6.54
C004-3 0.90 2.92 35.88 27.00 33.30 0.75 2.5 5.1
C005-1 1.32 5.82 47.46 27.70 17.70 2.15 10.6 6.7
C005-2 0.57 5.09 50.44 21.90 22.00 2.15 9.8 6.9
C006-1 0.41 2.37 40.81 29.40 27.00 2.38 3.0 6.32
C006-2 0.60 1.36 39.34 27.80 30.90 0.87 10.6 7.05
C006-3 4.10 4.78 39.62 30.40 21.10 1.79 31.8 7.57
C007-1 0.56 6.42 28.22 33.60 31.20 4.97 3.8 6.75
C007-2 7.98 8.52 33.51 30.80 19.20 1.07 18.7 7.1
C007-3 6.21 10.48 36.71 30.50 16.10 0.95 16.1 7.35
C007-4 0.34 24.83 48.23 18.10 8.50 0.58 5.1 6.8
C008-1 3.61 28.43 26.96 25.30 15.70 2.19 11.0 7.2
C008-2 2.36 27.32 29.32 20.80 20.20 1.36 14.4 7.2
C008-3 2.14 43.43 32.44 14.70 7.30 0.69 31.8 7.6
D001-1 1.35 24.40 30.06 28.10 16.10 3.04 14.8 7.22
D001-2 1.06 15.42 27.33 32.10 24.10 2.66 12.3 7.33
D001-3 0.48 8.28 30.73 40.20 20.30 6.31 29.3 7.63
D001-4 0.59 51.56 36.35 5.80 5.70 0.81 19.9 7.52
D002-1 35.98 59.09 1.33 1.90 1.70 1.65 8.9 7.4
D002-2 11.38 83.43 2.59 2.10 0.50 0.72 12.7 7.74
D002-3 19.95 64.98 5.47 6.40 3.20 1.34 12.3 7.58
D003-1 0.73 18.38 38.89 24.30 17.70 1.04 5.9 6.18
D003-2 3.34 14.06 41.90 30.10 10.60 1.01 24.2 7.2
D004-1 5.48 26.60 27.42 26.20 14.30 1.58 3.0 6.2
D004-2 6.36 25.69 25.65 26.80 15.50 1.07 2.5 6.2
D004-3 8.04 46.25 21.21 10.00 14.50 0.47 2.5 4.8
D005-1 0.89 6.41 20.90 30.80 41.00 3.61 11.9 6.75
D005-2 4.75 8.02 24.93 39.80 22.50 1.93 40.5 7.2
D005-3 2.01 58.33 26.67 6.40 6.60 0.67 19.6 7.35
X01-1 0.72 2.15 42.23 28.40 26.50 1.85 2.1 6.56
X01-2 0.63 3.95 39.42 32.00 24.00 1.65 28.0 7.48
X01-3 1.17 4.67 39.96 30.70 23.50 1.23 31.8 7.51
X02-1 0.69 10.98 19.03 35.20 34.10 3.27 8.1 7.03
X02-2 0.98 13.02 25.21 36.00 24.80 2.07 17.0 7.09
X02-3 0.60 3.05 40.06 37.40 18.90 1.14 47.5 7.34
X02-4 0.32 4.32 16.36 40.40 38.60 0.82 11.6 6.8
X01-4 1.45 5.77 42.48 30.60 19.70 1.04 27.6 7.53

General description: very deep, moderately well drained, brownish to yellowish soil derived from transported loess; soil structure is weak with
8.4
dominant texture fraction – coarse silt through out the profile.

Landform and topography: flat part (little concave) of high terrace;
APPENDIX 4
Land use and human influence: deep ploughing; crop - sugar beet;
Location: N 45° 51’ 35’’; E 18° 38’ 38’’; Altitude: 101 m; 200 m from Knezevo village;
Diagnostic horizons and properties: Mollic A, Calcic C, secondary carbonates
WRB soil classification: Silti-Calcic Kastanozem
Croatian soil classification: Chernozem, luvic, on loess,
Depths Colour Clay Silt Sand OM CaCO3 pH Horizon description

moist/dry <0.002 mm 0.002 – 0.05 – % % (KCl)
0.05 mm 2 mm
Brownish; silt loam; moderate,

10YR 3/3 medium subangular blocky
structure; friable, slightly sticky,
Ap 0 – 45 26.5 70.6 2.9 1.85 2.14 6.6
slightly plastic, few fine pores;
10YR 3/3 common medium roots; abrupt
and broken boundary to
Yellowish brow; silt loam; weak,

Soil profile descriptions and Lab data
A/Ck 10YR 4/3 fine granular structure; loos, non

sticky, slightly plastic, few fine

45 – 68 24.0 71.4 4.6 1.65 28.0 7.5
pores; few round carbonatic
10YR 4/4 nodules; gradual and wavy
boundary to
Yellowish; silt loam; weak, fine

10YR 6/6 granular structure; loos, non
sticky, slightly plastic, few round
CAk 68 – 102 23.5 70.7 5.8 1.23 31.8 7.0
carbonatic nodules; diffuse and
10YR 6/6 wavy boundary to
Yellowish; silt loam to silt; loos,

10YR 5/6 non sticky, non plastic, few round
carbonatic nodules;
> 102 19.7 73.1 7.2 1.04 27.6 7.5
Ck 10YR 6/8
PROFILES
Photo A. Full pit taken in high terrace part of plain with main soil profile description and analytical data.
79
General description: deep soil, with ground water depth varying from 0.5 to 2 m; dark brownish to yellowish; clods on the top; deeply
ploughed; soil structure is moderate with dominant texture fractions – silt and clay; shells commonly found in Cg; alluvial fine texture parent
material.
APPENDIX 4
Landform and topography: artificially drained part of floodplain (little elevated);

Land use and human influence: deep ploughing; wheat;
Location: N 45° 46’ 33’’; E 18° 46’ 57’’; Altitude: 85 m; 500 m from village Suza;
and analytical data.
Diagnostic horizons and properties: Mollic A, Cambic B, gleyic and calcaric soil properties, abrupt textural change (?)
WRB soil classification: Calcari-Mollic Gleysol, (Abruptic)
Croatian soil classification: Hypogley, mineral, calcareous
Depths Colour Clay Silt Sand OM CaCO3 pH Horizon description
moist/dry <0.002 mm 0.002 – 0.05 – % % (KCl)
0.05 mm 2 mm
Brownish to greyish; silty clay

5YR 3/1 loam; weak, very coarse
Ap subangular blocky structure;
0 – 42 34.1 54.2 11.7 3.27 8.1 7.0 friable, sticky, plastic, common
2.5 YR 5/2 coarse pores; few fine roots;
gradual and smooth boundary to
Brownish; silt loam; weak,

5YR 3/2 medium subangular blocky
AB structure; friable, sticky, plastic,

42 – 63 24.8 61.2 14.0 2.07 17.0 7.1 few fine pores; few fine distinct
2.5YR 4/2 sharp mottles, diffuse and smooth
boundary to
Yellowish brown; silt loam;

5YR 5/3 weak, medium subangular blocky
structure; friable, sticky, slightly
63 – 117 18.9 77.5 3.6 1.14 17.5 7.3 plastic, common medium distinct
Bgk - sharp mottles, clear and smooth
boundary to
Dark brownish; silty clay

5YR 4/1 loam to sitly clay; firm,
sticky, plastic, few medium
> 117 38.6 56.8 4.6 0.82 11.6 6.8 distinct sharp mottles;
Cg -
PROFILES
81
Photo B. Full pit taken in the hydro-meliorated part of the floodplain with main soil profile description
APPENDIX 5 PHOTOGRAPHS
8.5 Field work photographs
Photo C. During the fieldwork, three main groups of features were documented for every profile: soil-
forming environment - landforms (1), specific soil properties (2) and soil profile (3).
(1) River-cut – about 20 m high cut into the hill
next to the river Danube showing layer of loess
above weathered parent rock.
(2) Pseudomycelia – discontinuous form of

secondary calcium carbonates forming in A/C or C
horizon (loess).
(3) Mini-pit showing typical soil that appears in this

loess environment; thick A directly over parent
material.

APPENDIX 5 PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo D. Some specific landform features as seen on satellite image (1), on the field (2) and (4) and soil
features (3) and (5) appearing in the area.
(1) Perspective view on “Baranja” hill, satellite image draped over the DEM (scale height = 1:5)
(2) Floodplain covered by natural vegetation (3) Sample with secondary carbonates
(4) Sloping part of the Hilland (5) Dark Mollic (Chernic) horizon

Hengl MSC Thesis F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hengl MSC Thesis F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPROVING SOIL SURVEY METHODOLOGY

USING ADVANCED MAPPING TECHNIQUES

CASE STUDY – BARANJA, CROATIA

Degree Assessment Board

Prof. Dr. J.A. Zinck (Chairman)

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

1.1 Motives for research

1.1.1 Limitations of classical soil survey

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 1

2 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

1.1.2 Collecting and organizing the Soil data

VECTOR FORM RASTER FORM

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 3

Discrete (Polygon) Issue Continuous (Grid)

4 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

Field resolution (m) 5x5 25 x 25 100 x 100 1 x 1 km

RS compatibility Still not compatible

1.1.3 Trends in Natural Resource Management

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 5

1.2 Soil related data and quantitative modelling

Pedogenetic factor Related soil properties Explanatory variables Units

Wetness gleying properties, horizon depths, CTI – Compound index

6 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

1.3 Research objectives and hypotheses

1.3.1 Main research objectives

Classical survey Possible improvement Alternative improvement

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 7

O1 To apply inexpensive GPS methods in soil survey.

O2 To make soil mapping units more scientific and cost-effective.

O4 To improve the form, detail and accuracy of presented soil information.

8 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

2.1 GPS in soil survey

B. mapping profiles, soil boundaries and soil related features;

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 9

2.2 Improving the form and accuracy of soil information

10 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

2.3 Soil survey and Soil science in Croatia

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 11

3 Description of the Study Area

3.1 General statistics

Geographical Name: Baranja

Croatia in Eastern Europe Osijek

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 13

3.2 Physiography, Geology and geomorphology

14 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

Figure 5. Climatic diagram (according to C. W. Thornthwaite) showing monthly

16 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

3.4 General economy (LU and land users)

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 17

18 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 19

3.6 Ground water regime

Figure 7. Seasonal variation of groundwater depths in lower

20 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES

4 Materials and methods

4.1 Coordinate systems and datums

Table 8. Co-ordinate systems used and their specifications.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES 21

4.2 Data field collection

Soil survey report

During the actual fieldwork, the following observation were done:

22 INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR AEROSPACE SURVEY AND EARTH SCIENCES