Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:29:10.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing the efficiency of ordinary kriging and cokriging to estimate the Atterberg limits spatially using some soil physical properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

O. Baskan ,
G. Erpul  and
O. Dengiz
O. Baskan*
Affiliation:
Soil Fertilizer and Water Resources Research Institute, 06172 Yenimahalle-Ankara, Turkey
G. Erpul
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ankara, 06110 Diskapi-Ankara, Turkey
O. Dengiz
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ondokuz Mayis, 55139 Kurupelit-Samsun, Turkey
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The spatial distribution of the Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish the consistency and behaviour of a soil and its engineering properties, which strongly depends on the water content of the soil and types of silts and clays in the soil. By spatial modeling, and comparing the results of ordinary kriging with the cokriging approach, this study aims to find correlations between the Atterberg limits and the selected physical soil parameters in order to examine how effective they are in generating an understanding of the dynamics of a physical soil system.

In 156 soil samples, the Atterberg limits and soil moisture conditions were determined, and auxiliary functions were selected by application of cokriging using correlation analysis and regression equations obtained by the residual maximum likelihood (REML). These techniques were evaluated by the results of the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean squared error (MSE). Cokriging analysis was found to be more effective at estimating the liquid limit (WLL) and the plastic limit (WPL) than kriging analysis and with smaller error values. On the other hand, the kriging approach, which had smaller MAE and MSE values, was more effective at estimating the plasticity index (WPI) values than the cokriging method. Unlike the REML regression equations, the field capacity (FC) value was the more suitable parameter for the cokriging estimates. When the necessary labour and time were considered for determining the Atterberg limits, both kriging and cokriging were found to be applicable for estimation of these limits.

Keywords

krigingcokrigingAtterberg limitsconsistency limitssoil water content
Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 181 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atterberg, A. (1911) Die plastizitat der Tone. Internationale Mitteilungen für Bodenkunde, 1, 10–43.Google Scholar
Ball, B.C., Campbell, D.J. & Hunter, E.A. (2000) Soil compactibility in relation to physical and organic properties at 156 sites in UK. Soil & Tillage Research, 57, 83–91.Google Scholar
Baver, L.D. (1930) The Atterberg consistency constants: factors affecting their values and a new concept of their significance. Journal of the American Societyof Agronomy, 22, 935–948.Google Scholar
Bouyoucos, G.J. (1951) A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soils. AgronomyJournal, 43, 435–438.Google Scholar
Bowles, T.E. (1970) Engineering Properties of Soil and Their Measurement. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Burgess, T.M. & Webster, R. (1980) Optimal interpolation and isarithmic mapping of soil properties: II. Block kriging. Journal of Soil Science, 31, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canbolat, M.Y. & Oztas, T. (1997) Factors affecting consistency limits of soil and evaluation of consistency limits for agricultural purposes. Ataturk University. The Journal of The Facultyof Agriculture, 28, 120–129 (in Turkish).Google Scholar
Chang, Y.H., Scrimshaw, M.D., Emmerson, R.H.C. & Lester, J.N. (1998) Geostatistical analysis of sampling uncertainty at the Tollesbury Managed Retreat site in Blackwater Estuary, Essex, UK: kriging and cokriging approach to minimize sampling density. Science of the Total Environment, 221, 43–57.Google Scholar
De Jong, E., Acton, D.F. & Stonehouse, H.B. (1990) Estimating the Atterberg limits of Southern Saskatchewan soils from texture and carbon contents. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 70, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ersahin, S. (2003) Comparing ordinary kriging and cokriging to estimate infiltration rate. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 67, 1848–1855.Google Scholar
Gamma Design (2004) Geostatistics for the Environmental Sciences. Version 7.0. Plainwell, Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
Goovaerts, P. (1997) Geostatistics in soil science: state-of-the-art and perspectives. Geoderma, 89, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goovaerts, P. (1999) Using elevation to aid the geostatistical mapping of rainfall erosivity. Catena, 34, 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotway, C.A., Ferguson, R.B., Hergert, G.W. & Peterson, T.A. (1996) Comparison of kriging and inverse distance methods for mapping soil parameters. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 60, 1237–1247.Google Scholar
Hillel, D. (1980) P. 349 in: Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Hillel, D. (1998) P. 765 in: Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.Google Scholar
Isaaks, H.E. & Srivastava, R.M. (1989) P. 561 in: An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Istok, J.D., Smyth, J.D. & Flint, A.L. (1993) Multivariate geostatistical analysis of ground-water contaminant: A case history. Ground Water, 31, 63–74.Google Scholar
Jefferson, I. & Rogers, C.D.F. (1998) Liquid limit and the temperature sensitivity of clays. Engineering Geology, 49, 95–109.Google Scholar
Journel, A.G. & Huijbregts, C.H.J. (1978) P. 600 in: Mining Geostatistics. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
Klute, A. & Dirksen, C. (1986) Hydraulic Conductivity and Diffusivity: Laboratory Methods. Pp. 687–732 in: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. (Klute, A., editor.). ASA and SSSA Agronomy Monograph no. 9 (2nd edition), Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
Larney, F.J., Fortune, R.A. & Collins, J.F. (1988) Intrinsic soil physical parameters influencing intensity of cultivation procedures for sugar beet seedbed preparation. Soil & Tillage Research, 12, 253–267.Google Scholar
Laslett, G.M. (1994) Kriging and splines: An empirical comparison of their predictive performance in some applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89, 391–409.Google Scholar
McBride, R.A. (1989) A re-examination of alternative test procedures for soil consistency limit determination: II. A simulated desorption procedure. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 53, 1, 84-191.Google Scholar
McBride, R.A. (1993) Soil consistency limits. Pp. 519–527 in: Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis (Carter, M.R., editor), Lewis Publications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
Mapfumo, E. (1997) Soil and Plant Response to Compaction. PhD thesis, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Mapfumo, E. & Chanasyk, D.S. (1998) Guidelines for safe trafficking and cultivation, and resistance-density-moisture relations of three disturbed soils from Alberta. Soil & Tillage Research, 46, 193–202.Google Scholar
Martinez-Cob, A. (1996) Multivariate geostatistical analysis of evapotranspiration and precipitation in mountainous terrain. Journal of Hydrology, 174, 19–35.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J.K. (1993) Fundamentals of Soil Behavior. 2 nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Mueller, L., Shindler, U., Fausey, N.R. & Lal, R. (2003) Comparison of methods for estimating maximum soil water content for optimum workability. Soil & Tillage Research, 72, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, R.T., Thornburn, T.H. & McKenzie, L.J. (1960) Relationships of Atterberg limits to some other properties of Illinois soils. Soil Science Societyof America Proceedings, 24, 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seed, H.B., Woodward, R.J. & Lundgren, R. (1964) Fundamental Aspects of the Atterberg Limits. Journal Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, A.S.C.E, Vol. 90, No. SM6, pp. 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shouse, P.J., Gerik, T.J. Russell, W.B. & Cassel, D.K. (1990) Spatial distribution of soil particle size and aggregate stability index in a clay soil. Soil Science, 149, 351–360.Google Scholar
Smith, C.W., Hadas, A., Dan, J. & Koyumdjisky, H. (1985) Shrinkage and Atterberg limits in relation to other properties of principal soil types in Israel. Geoderma, 35, 47–65.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil Taxonomy. A Basic of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Survey. USDA Handbook No: 436, Washington D.C. Google Scholar
Sridharan, A., Rao, S.M. & Murthy, N.S. (1986) Liquid limit for montmorillonite soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 9, 156–159.Google Scholar
Stein, A. & Corsten, L.C.A. (1991) Universal kriging and cokriging as a regression procedure. Biometrics, 47, 575–588.Google Scholar
Stein, A., van Dooremolen, W., Bouma, J. & Bregt, A.K. (1988) Cokriging point data on moisture deficit. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 52, 1418–1423.Google Scholar
Terzaghi, C. (1926) Simplified soil tests for subgrades and their physical significance. Public Roads, 7, 153–162.Google Scholar
Thomas, P.J., Baker, J.C., Zelazny, L.W. & Hatch, D.R. (2000) Relationship of Map Unit Variability to Shrink—Swell Indicators. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 64, 262–268.Google Scholar
Trangmar, B.B., Yost, R.J. & Uehara, G. (1985) Application of geostatistics to spatial studies of soil properties. Advances in Agronomy, 38, 65–91.Google Scholar
Triantafilis, J., Odeh, I.O.A. & McBratney, A.B. (2001) Five geostatistical models to predict soil salinity from electromagnetic induction data across irrigated cotton. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 65, 869–878.Google Scholar
US Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954) Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Agricultural Handbook, no. 60, USDA.Google Scholar
Vauclin, M., Vieira, S.R., Vachaud, G. & Nielsen, D.R. (1983) The use of cokriging with limited field observations. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 47, 175–184.Google Scholar
Vieira, S.R., Nielsen, D.R. & Biggar, J.W. (1981) Spatial variability of field-measured infiltration rate. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 47, 175–184.Google Scholar
Voltz, M. & Webster, R. (1990) A comparison of kriging, cubic splines and classification for predicting soil properties from sample information. Journal of Soil Science, 41, 473–490.Google Scholar
Webster, R. & Oliver, M.A. (2001) Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., UK.Google Scholar
Yates, S.R. & Warrick, A.W. (1987) Estimating soil water content using cokriging. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51, 23–30.Google Scholar
Zhang, R., Myers, D.E. & Warrick, A.W. (1992) Estimation of the spatial distribution of the soil chemicals using pseudo cross-variograms. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 56, 1444–1452.Google Scholar
Zhang, R., Shouse, P. & Yates, S. (1997) Use of pseudocrossvariograms and cokriging to improve estimates of solute concentrations. Soil Science Societyof America Journal, 61, 1342–1347.Google Scholar