Pedotransfer functions for prediction of soil organic carbon content for Chernozems Haplic and Calcic: A Case Study from the Left-Bank Forest- Steppe of Ukraine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31073/acss98-02Keywords:
soil organic Carbon; Chernozems Haplic and Calcic; pedotransfer functionAbstract
The aim of the present research is to simulate and evaluate pedotransfer functions (PTF) for predicting soil organic carbon in Chernozem Haplic and Chernozem Calcic of the Left-Bank Forest-Steppe of Ukraine using data from agrochemical soil certification. Soil samples were collected from the upper arable horizon (0–20 cm) within the Left Bank Upland Province of the Forest-Steppe zone for Chernozem Haplic and Chernozem Calcic. According to the Ukrainian national soil classification system, the studied soils are classified as Typical Chernozems and Ordinary Chernozems. In addition to standard agrochemical analyses made by Poltava branch of State Institution «Institute for Soil Protection of Ukraine», in the Kyiv laboratory of this Institution determined the total carbon (TC), total inorganic carbon (TIC), and total organic carbon (TOC) contents. The Carbon content was determined using an analyzer Multi EA 4000 analyzer (Jena) via combustion. The total carbon released was automatically measured using a non-dispersive infrared detector (NDIR). The TOC content was determined as: TOC = TC - TIC (g/kg of soil). The descriptive statistical analysis and correlation and regression analyses were carried out using Excel; to assess the accuracy of the models and the agreement between the predicted and measured values of TOC (RMSE, NRMSE, MAE, R² and MAD). The statistically significant of the differences between the groups of predicted values of the TOC content was assessed using the t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances. The Humus and TOC content practically follow a normal distribution, which allows us to correctly estimate confidence intervals and significance levels; apply parametric statistical tests. The Humus content did not appear to be a key factor driving the TOC content. Taking into account the wide variability in TOC-to-Humus ratios observed in our study (ranging from 0.495 to 0.92), the use of a conventional conversion factor (e.g., 0.58) to estimate TOC content from Humus content may lead to substantial inaccuracies. The predicted values of TOC content using the PTFs, can be considered statistically interchangeable with the observed ones under the tested conditions, thereby confirming the adequacy of the models for practical application in TOC estimation. Given the absence of bias and the acceptable levels of prediction error (NRMSE < 10% for all models), the tested PTFs may be reliably used for TOC assessment in monitoring, land-use planning, and carbon stock estimation. Our vision of the practical use of modeled PTFs is as follow: if no exact information on the taxonomic classification of soils is available, it is better making use of PTF3 (TOC (g/kg) = 11.0+2.394*Humus - 0.049*P + 0.065*К); if the soil type is determined clearly, then for Chernozems Haplic – PTF5 (TOC (g/kg) = 32.1 + 1.21*Humus + 0.0017N + 0.088K - 0.085P - 2.71*pH), and for Chernozems Calcic – PTF7 (TOC (g/kg) = 15.4 + 1.81*Humus).
References
Kaur, M., Nagabhooshanam, N., & Sharma, P. (2024). Quantifying the carbon sequestration potential of different soil management practices aimed at increasing organic content in soil and reducing the usage of chemical inputs. Global NEST Journal, 26(7). https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.05932
Campos‐Cáliz, A., Valencia, E, Plaza, C., Garland, G., Edlinger, A., Herzog, C., … García-Palacios, P. (2024). The positive effects of soil organic carbon on European cereal yields level off at 1.4 %. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, 3, e70017. https://doi.org/10.1002/sae2.70017
Xie, E., Chen, J., Peng, Y., Yan, G., & Zhao, Y. (2024). Historical and future dynamics of cropland soil organic carbon stocks in an intensive human-impacted area of southeastern China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 372, 109098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2024.109098
Colombi, T., Walder, F., Büchi, L., Sommer, M., Liu, K., Six, J., … Keller, T. (2019). On-farm study reveals positive relationship between gas transport capacity and organic carbon content in arable soil. SOIL, 5(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-91-2019
Körschens, M. (2002). Importance of soil organic matter (SOM) for biomass production and environment: A review. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 48(2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340214162
Kanaujia, A., Gupta, J., Banerjee, S., & Malik, S. (2022). Correlation of organic carbon content of soil on paddy productivity: A case study. International Journal of Advances in Agricultural Science & Technology, 9(3), 43–46. https://doi.org/10.47856/ijaast.2022.v09i03.003
Chatterjee, A. Lal, R., Wielopolski, L., Martin, M. Z. & Ebinger, M. H. (2009). Evaluation of different soil carbon determination methods. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 28(3), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680902776556
Abu El Haija, K., Chiang, Y. W., & Dos Santos, R. M. (2024). On-site determination of soil organic carbon content: A photocatalytic approach. Clean Technologies, 6(2), 784–801. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol6020040
Berthelin, J., Laba, M., Lemaire, G., Powison, D., Tessier, D., Wander, M., & Baveye, P. C. (2022). Soil carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation: Mineralization kinetics of organic inputs as an overlooked limitation. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13221
Zhao, T., Kubota, H., Hernandez-Ramirez, G. (2024). Contrasting soil organic carbon concentrations and mass storage between conventional farming and organic farming: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 16(24), 11260. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411260
Pulleman, M. M., Jongmans, A. G., Marinissen, J. C. Y., & Bouma, J. (2003). Effects of organic versus conventional arable farming on soil structure and organic matter dynamics in a marine loam in the Netherlands. Soil Use and Management, 19(2), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1079/SUM2003183
Sheoran, S., Meena, R. S., & Sharma, D. K. (2019). Impact of organic and conventional farming practices on soil quality: A global review. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(1), 951-968. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1701_951968
Segura, C., Neal, A. L., Castro-Sardiňa, L., Harris, P., Rivero, M. J., Cardenas, L.M., & Irisarri, J. G. N. (2024). Comparison of direct and indirect soil organic carbon prediction at farm field scale. Journal of Environmental Management, 365, 121573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121573
Wadoux, A. M. J.-C., Minasny, B., McBratney, A. B. (2020). Machine learning for digital soil mapping: Applications, challenges and suggested solutions. Earth-Science Reviews, 210, 103359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103359
Fernandez-Ugalde, O., Tóth, G. (2017). Pedotransfer functions for predicting organic carbon in subsurface horizons of European soils. European Journal of Soil Science, 68, 716–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12464
Benke, K. K., Norng, S., Robinson, N. J., Chia, K., Rees, D. B., & Hopley, J. (2020). Development of pedotransfer functions by machine learning for prediction of soil electrical conductivity and organic carbon content. Geoderma, 366, 114210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114210
Xu, L., He, N. P., Yu, G. R., Wen, D., Gao, Y., & He, H. L. (2015). Differences in pedotransfer functions of bulk density lead to high uncertainty in soil organic carbon estimation at regional scales: Evidence from Chinese terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 120(8), 1567-1575. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG002929
Hateffard, F., Szatmári, G., & Novák, T. (2023). Applicability of machine learning models for predicting soil organic carbon content and bulk density under different soil conditions. Soil Science Annual, 74(1), 165879. https://doi.org/10.37501/soilsa/165879
Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R. (2014). Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? – Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific Model Development, 7, 1247-1250. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014
Hodson, T. O. (2022). Root-mean-square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE): When to use them or not. Geoscientific Model Development, 15, 5481–5487. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022
Auzzas, A., Carpa, G. F., Jani, A. D., & Ganga, A. (2024). An improved digital soil mapping approach to predict total N by combining machine learning algorithms and open environmental data. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 10, 6519–6538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-024-02127-8
Dangal, S. R. S., Sanderman, J., Wills, S., & Ramirez-Lopez, L. (2019). Accurate and precise prediction of soil properties from a large mid-infrared spectral library. Soil Systems, 3(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems3010011
Chicco, D., Warrens, M. J., & Jurman, G. (2021). The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e623. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.623
Voltr, V., Menšík, L., Hlisnikovský, L., Hruška, M., Pokorný, E., & Pospíšilová, L. (2021). The soil organic matter in connection with soil properties and soil inputs. Agronomy, 11, 779. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040779
Zhang, H. Wu, P., Yin, A., Yang, X., Zhang, M., & Gao, C. (2017). Prediction of soil organic carbon in an intensively managed reclamation zone of eastern China: A comparison of multiple linear regressions and the random forest model. Science of the Total Environment, 592, 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.146
Ribeiro, S. G., Oliveira, M., Lopes, L. M., Costa, M. C. G., Toma, R. S., Araújo, I. C. S., … Teixeira, A. S. (2023). Reflectance spectroscopy in the prediction of soil organic carbon associated with humic substances. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, 47, e0220143. https://doi.org/10.36783/18069657rbcs20220143
John, K., Abraham Isong, I., Michael Kebonye, N., Okon Ayito, E., Chapman Agyeman, P., & Marcus Afu, S. (2020). Using machine learning algorithms to estimate soil organic carbon variability with environmental variables and soil nutrient indicators in an alluvial soil. Land, 9, 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9120487
Ťupek, B., Ortiz, C. A., Hashimoto, S., Stendahl, J., Dahlgren, J., Karltun, E., & Lehtonen, A. (2016). Underestimation of Boreal Soil Carbon Stocks by Mathematical Soil Carbon Models Linked to Soil Nutrient Status. Biogeosciences, 13, 4439–4459. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4439-2016
Lal, R. (2008). Carbon sequestration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences, 363(1492), 815-830. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2185
Lal, R. (2015). Restoring Soil Quality to Mitigate Soil Degradation. Sustainability, 7, 5875-5895. https://doi:10.3390/su7055875
Klaus, L., Lal, R., Ehlers, K. (2019). Soil organic carbon stock as an indicator for monitoring land and soil degradation in relation to United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Land Degradation & Development, 30(7), 824-838. https: //doi.org: 10.1002/ldr.3270
Romanova, S., Dmytruk, Y., Zhukova, Y. (2024). Soil monitoring infrastructure in response to war. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 81(1), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2024.2314892
Yatsuk, I. P., Balyuk, S. A. (Eds.). (2019). Methodology for Agricultural Chemical Certification of Agricultural Land: Guidance Document. Kyiv [In Ukrainian].
Haddaway, N. R., Hedlund, K., Jackson, L. E., Kätterer, T., Lugato, E., Thomsen, I. K., … Isberg, P.-E. (2017). How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environmental Evidence, 6:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0108-9
Nocita, M., Stevens, A., Toth, G., Panagos, P., Wesemael, B., & Montanarella, L. (2014). Prediction of soil organic carbon content by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy using a local partial least square regression approach. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 68, 337-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.022
Grunwald, S., Congrong, Y.U., & Xiong, X. (2018). Transferability and Scalability of Soil Total Carbon Prediction Models in Florida, USA. Pedosphere, 28(6), 856-872. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60048-7
Willmott, C. J. & Matsuura, K. (2005). Advantages of the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) over the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in Assessing Average Model Performance. Climate Research, 30, 79-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/cr030079
Minasny, B., McBratney, A. B., Malone, B. P., & Wheeler, I. (2013). Chapter One – Digital Mapping of Soil Carbon. Advances in Agronomy, 118, 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-405942-9.00001-3
Jensen, J. L., Christensen, B. T., Schjønning, P., Watts, C. W., & Munkholm, L. J. (2018). Converting loss-on-ignition to organic carbon content in arable topsoil: pitfalls and proposed procedure. The European Journal of Soil Science, 69(4), 604-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12558
Prout, J. M., Shepherd, K. D., McGrath, S. P., Kirk, G. J. D., & Haefele, S. M. (2021). What is a good level of soil organic matter? An index based on organic carbon to clay ratio. The European Journal of Soil Science, 72(6), 2493-2503. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.13012
Six, J. Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. & Paustian, K. (2002). Stabilization Mechanisms of Soil Organic Matter: Implications for C-Saturation of Soils. Plant Soil, 241, 155-176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016125726789
Wiesmeier, M., Urbanski, L., Hobley, E., Lang, B., Lützow, M., Marin-Spiotta, E. … Kögel-Knabner, I. (2019) Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils – A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma, 333, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.026
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
