Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/271130831
CITATIONS READS
5 405
2 authors, including:
Bradley A. Miller
Iowa State University
44 PUBLICATIONS 433 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Bradley A. Miller on 02 September 2015.
Pedology
Abbreviations: CI, confidence index; DEM, digital elevation models; DTA, digital terrain
analysis; MLRA, major land resource area; MO, MLRA office; OSD, official soil series
description; PDF, probability density function; PrcP, profile curvature priority decision
tree; PrcP-ci, PrcP based on confidence index; PrcP-mean, PrcP based on mean midpoints;
PrcP-med, PrcP based on median midpoints; ReeP, relative elevation priority decision tree;
ReeP-ci, ReeP based on confidence index; ReeP-mean, ReeP based on mean midpoints;
ReeP-med, ReeP based on median midpoints; SlgP, slope gradient priority decision tree;
SlgP-ci, SlgP based on confidence index; SlgP-mean, SlgP based on mean midpoints; SlgP-
med, SlgP based on median midpoints; SSURGO, Soil Survey Geographic dataset.
I
n 1968, Ruhe and Walker defined the five major hillslope profile positions
(Fig. 1). The transferability of this model for fully developed slopes, regardless
of climate, landscape age, or parent material, has been clearly demonstrated
(Wood, 1942; King, 1957; Frye, 1959; Ruhe, 1975), becoming the standard for
guiding myriad soil toposequence studies as well as for landscape description and
segmentation in general (Conacher and Dalrymple, 1977; Pennock et al., 1987;
Giles, 1998; Park and van de Giesen, 2004). Numerous studies—some of them
landmark papers—have leaned on or otherwise built on this framework to exam-
ine the variability of soil properties across hillslopes (e.g., Furley, 1971; West et al.,
1988; Stolt et al., 1993; Kagabo et al., 2013; Tsatskin et al., 2013). Because of the
interrelationships that exist between soil and vegetation, hillslope position has also
become a useful framework in ecological studies (Monger and Bestelmeyer, 2006;
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 133
efficiency of DTA. However, to do so, the five
hillslope positions need to be defined in a man-
ner that is accurate, repeatable, and transferable
across landscapes.
The purpose of this research is, therefore,
to develop a digital model that standardizes the
definition of hillslope position as identified by
field soil scientists. Once developed, hillslope
position classifications can be applied consis-
tently and objectively as improved base maps
for soil mapping endeavors.
METHODS
General Setup
We utilized experts’ (soil scientists from the
Soil Survey) observations of hillslope position in
the field to determine the optimal segmentation
of hillslopes. We then used land-surface derivatives
from a LiDAR-based DEM as parameters for pre-
dicting these experts’ assessments.
The parameters for determining hillslope
position are scale dependent, requiring soil scien-
tists in the field to mentally calibrate their analy-
Fig. 2. Distribution of calibration points in Ottawa County, MI. Each set of points represents
sis scale for each land-surface derivative. To this a transect, walked by NRCS field soil scientists, usually with 8 to 10 field observations.
end, Miller (2014) calibrated the optimal digital
analysis scale for each of these terrain derivatives to the analysis regarding soil properties and their interpretation of hillslope
scale used by soil scientists assessing hillslope position (i.e., slope position. These points were intersected with the DTA grids of
at 9 m, profile curvature at 63 m, and relative elevation at 135 m). the model parameters and grouped by the field assessment of
The present study builds on that work by using the same parameter hillslope position. Due to limitations in detecting subtle varia-
analysis scales as inputs to a hillslope classification model. All ter- tions for classifying some locations, especially in flat areas, not
rain analyses of slope gradient and profile curvature were conduct- all observation points included a description applicable to all
ed on LiDAR-derived, 3-m resolution elevation grids using the components of hillslope position determination. For example,
r.param.scale function in GRASS 6.4.2 (GRASS Development 411 points were described as “flat.” Although these points could
Team, 2014). Relative elevation was calculated on the LiDAR data not be used to calibrate breaks for relative elevation, they were,
using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI, 2014) with the analysis scale dependent however, used to populate assessment groups for slope gradient
method presented by Miller (2014). and profile curvature.
Next, a decision tree approach was used to model the syn-
Calibration of Decision Tree Structure thesis and differentiation of the land-surface derivatives for de-
The hillslope position model was calibrated in Ottawa termining hillslope position. In all decision trees, the first level
County, MI. The county includes a wide variety of terrain, most- of criteria was calibrated for two classification breaks to create
ly derived from Late Wisconsin glaciation (Pregitzer, 1972). Its three overall categories. The remaining levels of the decision trees
topography ranges from flat, lake, and outwash plains to hum- then only required a single break to make two categories within
mocky till plains. Areas of high relief sand dunes also occur near the respective branches of the tree. There were only three pos-
the Lake Michigan shore. Slope gradients range from 0 to 80%, sible combinations of the parameters for the decision trees due
with a mean slope gradient of 5% (9-m analysis scale). to the use of three categories at the top tier. This research tested
Field observations of hillslope position in Ottawa County all three decision tree hierarchy structures. The initial decision
were collected by NRCS soil scientists working out of the Grand tree hierarchy differentiated hillslope positions first by profile
Rapids office (MLRA office [MO] 11-7, major land resource curvature, then by slope gradient, and finally by relative eleva-
area [MLRA] 97). These observations were commonly collected tion. Because this hierarchy emphasized profile curvature at the
to better understand boundaries between map units that have top level, it will be referred to as the profile curvature priority
proven difficult to delineate. A pool of 1039 GPS-located, field decision tree (PrcP) (Fig. 3a). The second hierarchy differenti-
observations recorded by the soil scientists and taken as 8 to 10 ated hillslope positions first by slope gradient and then by pro-
point transects with 40- to 80-m spacing were used for calibra- file curvature and relative elevation (Fig. 3b) and will be referred
tion in this study (Fig. 2). At each point, the mapper made notes to as the slope gradient priority decision tree (SlgP). The third
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 135
Resources, which were based on 2007 to 2009
LiDAR data (IDNR, 2009). Hillslope position
validation points here were field observations
with locations recorded by GPS and obtained
from the Soil Survey Office in Waverly, IA
(MO 10-11, MLRA 104). Dickinson County
had 75 and Cedar County had 35 field obser-
vations. The amount of agreement was assessed
in the same manner as for Ottawa County.
Like the Michigan study area, Dickinson
County, IA is dominated by glacial landforms
but with a large proportion of closed basins
(Pulido, 2011). The area consists primarily of
till, glaciolacustrine, and outwash plains. The Fig. 5. Map of the counties used for developing the hillslope position classification model.
mean slope gradient in the area is 3% (9-m Dickinson County, IA (a) and Cedar County, IA (b) were used to test the transferability of the
analysis scale). Cedar County’s physiography models that were originally calibrated and validated in Ottawa County, MI (c).
has been classified as southern Iowa drift plain Table 2. Statistics of calibration points categorized into the assessment groups of
except for some Iowan erosion surface in the each model parameter.
northern part of the county (Ruhe, 1969; Model parameter
Assessment
Mean Median SD Count
group
Dermody, 2009). Across the county, pre-
Illinoian glacial deposits have been dissected Low 2.20% 1.61% 2.60% 577
Slope gradient
through several episodes of landscape devel- Medium 6.41% 3.16% 8.27% 218
(9-m analysis scale)
opment (Bettis, 1989). Slope gradients in the High 14.17% 7.02% 15.78% 171
area have a mean of 5% (9-m analysis scale). Concave −0.00538° m−1 −0.00120° m−1 0.02193° m−1 105
The model determined to have the high- Profile curvature −1 −1 −1
Linear −0.00021° m −0.00004° m 0.01938° m 751
est agreement with validation points in all (63-m analysis scale)
Convex 0.00388° m −1 0.00136° m −1 0.01500° m −1 111
three study areas was subsequently compared
with the current Soil Survey map delineations. Low −2.16 m −0.74 m 4.41 m 206
Zonal statistics of the hillslope position classi- Relative elevation Middle −1.18 m −0.03 m 8.53 m 166
(135-m analysis scale)
fications based on map units in the Soil Survey High 1.35 m 0.55 m 6.33 m 200
Geographic dataset (SSURGO; Soil Survey
Staff, 2013b) were used to compare the two profile curvature and low–high relative elevation should, by defini-
maps. This test identified the percent of existing map unit delinea- tion, be zero. Compared to the other two calibration methods, the
tions that were classified into the different hillslope positions by median midpoint based breaks are the closest to meeting that defi-
the selected model. nition. The hardened CI breaks are generally similar to the mean
midpoint calibration method but are tempered by the larger SDs
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION for steeper slope groups and the middle relative elevation group.
Calibration
Using data obtained from the calibration points, we gener- Ottawa County Validation
ated descriptive statistics of the assessment groups (Table 2) and For Ottawa County, the decision tree models correctly pre-
used them to calculate classification breaks for the hillslope classes. dicted between 36 and 59% of field scientists’ assessments of hill-
Each of the assessment groups, two to three per model parameter slope position (Table 4). Disagreements occurred because of a
depending on the decision tree, exhibited non- Table 3. Classification breaks calibrated from the assessment group statistics of each
normal distributions and different amounts model parameter.
of variation. Therefore, the use of assessment Model parameter Breaks Mean midpoint Median midpoint Hardened CI†
groups’ mean vs. the median and the consid- Low–medium 4.30% 2.37% 3.19%
eration of respective assessment groups’ SD Slope Medium–high 10.28% 5.08% 9.08%
(9-m analysis scale)
resulted in unique classification breaks for Low–high 8.19% 4.31% 3.89%
each calibration method. For comparison, the Concave–linear −0.00279° m−1 −0.00062° m−1 −0.00263° m−1
Profile curvature
determined classification breaks for the mean (63-m analysis scale) Linear–convex 0.00184° m−1 0.00066° m−1 0.00210° m−1
Concave–convex −0.00075° m−1 0.00008° m−1 0.00012° m−1
midpoint, median midpoint, and the equiva-
lent break values for the CI (after hardening Relative elevation Low–middle −1.67 m −0.38 m −1.83 m
the fuzzy classification) are presented in Table (135-m analysis scale) Middle–high 0.09 m 0.26 m 0.28 m
Low–high −0.40 m −0.10 m −0.71 m
3. The calibrated breaks for concave–convex
† CI, confidence index.
Fig. 6. Confusion matrixes for classification breaks based on the Fig. 7. Confusion matrixes for classification breaks based on the
midpoint between assessment groups’ means for (a) profile curvature midpoint between assessment groups’ medians for (a) profile
priority (PrcP) decision tree (kappa = 0.44), (b) slope gradient priority curvature priority (PrcP) decision tree (kappa = 0.35), (b) slope
(SlgP) decision tree (kappa = 0.49), and (c) relative elevation priority gradient priority (SlgP) decision tree (kappa = 0.46), and (c) relative
(ReeP) decision tree (kappa = 0.27). SU, summit; SH, shoulder; BS, elevation priority (ReeP) decision tree (kappa = 0.36). SU, summit;
backslope; FS, footslope; TS, toeslope. SH, shoulder; BS, backslope; FS, footslope; TS, toeslope.
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 137
that slope gradient was the most important parameter for iden- Table 5. Percent agreement between soil scientists’ field
assessments and each hillslope position models’ prediction by
tifying backslopes. each classification break calibration method.
The ReeP models all had difficulty classifying backslope po-
Model† Mean Median Confidence index
sitions. Although using group medians to define central concepts
Dickinson County, IA
improved model performance, the ReeP-med model still had
PrcP 19% 21% 25%
successful prediction rates substantially lower than the PrcP and SlgP 29% 52% 36%
SlgP models. The classification errors for the ReeP models sug- ReeP 12% 12% 11%
gested that the range for middle relative elevation was too wide Cedar County, IA
and the break between middle and high relative elevations was PrcP 49% 34% 51%
too low (classification ranges for middle relative elevation: mean SlgP 46% 54% 49%
ReeP 34% 37% 31%
midpoint = −1.67–0.09 m, median midpoint = −0.38–0.26 m,
†PrcP, profile curvature priority decision tree; ReeP, relative elevation
and CI = −1.83–0.28 m; Fig. 3c). The ReeP-ci model’s perfor- priority decision tree; SlgP, slope gradient priority decision tree.
mance was slightly improved by a higher middle-high classifica-
tion break but not enough to improve its correct prediction rate. applied outside of the calibration area (Table 5). The models
The ReeP-med model had the highest performance of the ReeP performed better in Cedar County, probably because its relief
calibration methods because it was unaffected by a few extremely was more similar to that of Ottawa County. However, unlike the
low relative elevation values in the calibration data set. other models, the SlgP-med model performed consistently well
in all three landscapes. Despite not being calibrated for the re-
Validation in Different Landscapes spective counties, the SlgP-med model was still able to predict
(Transferability) field assessment of hillslope position at a rate comparable to the
Using the classification breaks calibrated in Ottawa County, best performing models in the calibration area (Fig. 9).
the decision tree models were applied to the two counties in The SlgP-med decision tree consistently had the highest
Iowa. The performance of most of the models was reduced when prediction success rates (52–54%), indicating that its logic best
matches the mental model used by soil scientists in the field.
This model first determined if a location had a low, medium, or
high slope gradient. Medium slope gradients were then differ-
entiated by slope shape as either convex (shoulder) or concave
(footslope). Finally, any remaining flat areas were examined as to
whether they had a high (summit) or low (toeslope) relative el-
evation. This sequence may not necessarily match every field sci-
entists’ thought process; many may determine hillslope position
more by intuition than a stepwise decision process. Nonetheless,
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 139
superactive, mesic Mollic Hapludalfs) and Tama (fine-silty,
mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Argiudolls) soils. The Soil
Survey’s block diagrams suggested that both Downs and Tama
soils are mapped across summit, shoulder, and backslope po-
sitions (Soil Survey Staff, 2009). As the slope class increased,
the percentage of the soil series mapped within backslopes in-
creased. The upland depressional, Garwin soil series (fine-silty,
mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Endoaquolls) had the major-
ity of its area mapped on toeslopes. The floodplain complex of
the Colo and Ely soil series (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic
Cumulic Endoaquolls and fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic
Aquic Cumulic Hapludolls, respectively) was predominantly
mapped on footslopes and toeslopes. This example illustrates
how the hillslope position model generally matched soil series
concepts as mapped in the field. We will argue below that the
model also can add important information about the precise
locations of the map unit boundaries between many of these
soil series. This information can be invaluable in upgrading such
maps and in assessing error or uncertainty for them.
On the hummocky till plain of Dickinson County (Fig.
13), where hillslope segments tend to be small, a change in
dominant hillslope position could be observed through a se-
quence of slope classes. The upland convex Clarion soil series
(fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludolls) pro-
gressed from being mapped primarily on summits, to more so Fig. 11. (a) Soil Survey Geographic dataset (SSURGO) map unit delineations
(Pulido, 2011) overlain onto a hillshade of the LiDAR elevation grid in
on shoulders, to predominately on backslopes on the sequence Dickinson County, IA. (b) The same map but also showing hillslope positions
of B, C, and D slope classes. In this landscape of numerous as determined by the terrain classification of the selected (slope gradient
closed basins, the swales between convex hills have been filled priority [SlgP]-med) hillslope position model. Note the many areas that
transition directly from summit to toeslope or shoulder to footslope. SU,
in with local alluvium, resulting in only small areas meeting the summit; SH, shoulder; BS, backslope; FS, footslope; TS, toeslope.
definition of footslopes. Concave and depressional soil series
such as Canisteo (fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, calcareous, Use and Applicability
mesic Typic Endoaquolls), Harps (fine-loamy, mixed, superac- Classification of Finer Details
tive, mesic Typic Calciaquolls), and Okoboji (fine, smectitic, For topography, the problem of coarse resolution base
mesic Cumulic Vertic Endoaquolls) were mapped on footslopes maps has largely been solved by the advent of technologies such
in some areas but were predominantly delineated on toeslopes. as LiDAR. Further, GIS data formats remove the cartographic
Where the OSD did not specify slope position or shape, such limitation of a minimum area that can be represented on a soil
as for many of the soils in Ottawa County (Fig. 14), a correspon- map. However, neither of these developments addresses the issue
dence between hillslope position and drainage class (DC) was used of the time required to manually delineate the additional bound-
to match delineations. For example, the poorly drained Sims soil ary lengths. Fortunately, classification models in a GIS can auto-
series (fine, mixed, semiactive, nonacid, frigid Mollic Epiaquepts) mate the delineations with quantified definitions. The classifica-
was predominantly mapped on toeslopes. However, slope class still tion model presented here solves the automation problem with
distinguished the B slope Kawkawlin soils (fine, mixed, semiactive, quantified definitions that have been substantiated by field soil
frigid Aquic Glossudalfs) that were mapped on footslopes from the scientists working in multiple environments.
Kawkawlin soils on A slopes, which were mostly mapped on toes- An example of where automated classification of hillslope po-
lopes. In contrast, the Nester soil series (fine, mixed, semiactive, frig- sition can delineate small inclusions can be observed in Dickinson
id Oxyaquic Glossudalfs) was illustrated in the Soil Survey’s block County, IA. Here, many obvious map unit inclusions have been
diagram as occurring on various types of upland sites. Nester soils, identified by the Soil Survey as point locations, probably because of
therefore, represent an example of a consociation that could ben- map scale limitations. Most occur as small, isolated depressions of
efit from disaggregation based on hillslope position. For example, wetter soils, often in close proximity to areas classified as toeslopes.
Nester soils on backslope and shoulder slope areas may better match The positional offset between some of the inclusion (spot) points
a different series definition, perhaps one that has a thinner solum or and the areas digitally identified as isolated toeslopes is shown in Fig.
has different interpretations as to land use. 15. This offset is likely due to the resolution limitation of the base
map on which the original inclusion points were drawn and the or-
thorectification process required to digitize the paper soil map. This
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 141
142
Fig. 13. Zonal statistics for the hillslope position model by Soil Survey Geographic dataset (SSURGO) Fig. 14. Zonal statistics for the hillslope position model by Soil Survey Geographic dataset
map units of the Canisteo–Clarion–Nicollet (Nicollett: fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic Aquic SSURGO map units of the Nester–Kawkawlin–Manistee (Manistee: sandy over clayey, mixed,
Hapludolls) soil association in Dickinson County, IA. For reference, the block diagram of this soil active, frigid Alfic Haplorthods) soil association in Ottawa County, MI. For reference, the block
association is also provided (modified from the NRCS Soil Survey Staff, 2000). SU, summit; SH, shoulder; diagram of this soil association is also provided (modified from the NRCS Soil Survey Staff,
BS, backslope; FS, footslope; TS, toeslope; PD, poorly drained; VPD, very poorly drained; SPD, somewhat 1985). The sandy Manistee soil series is not currently mapped in Ottawa County. SU, summit;
poorly drained; MWD, moderately well drained. SH, shoulder; BS, backslope; FS, footslope; TS, toeslope; PD, poorly drained; SPD, somewhat
poorly drained; MWD, moderately well drained; WD, well drained.
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 143
superactive, mesic Aquic Hapludolls) soils from Canisteo
(fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, calcareous, mesic Typic
Endoaquolls), Okoboji (fine, smectitic, mesic Cumulic Vertic
Endoaquolls), and Blue Earth (fine-silty, mixed, superactive,
calcareous, mesic Mollic Fluvaquents) soils. Examples such as
those mentioned here are limitless.
CONCLUSIONS
We developed, calibrated, and presented a land-
scape classification model that reliably identifies the five
standard hillslope positions using LiDAR data as the
input topographic data. The use of such data for these
applications is substantiated by the long history of using
hillslope position in NRCS soil research and mapping.
The model structure and breaks were calibrated to the
experience of soil scientists in the field. The resulting hill-
slope position model consistently provides good agree-
ment with soil scientists’ field assessments.
The digital classification of hillslope position, as pro-
vided by the model we present here, improves on human
assessment by efficiently applying rules of classification
consistently and objectively across the landscape. This
approach reduces the variability in such classifications
due to human error, bias, and judgment, which are often
introduced by interpretation of low resolution topo-
Fig. 17. Examples of a soil map from Cedar County, IA showing areas that could
graphic and stereophotographic data. Application of this be disaggregated. (a) Plan view and (b) perspective view (relief exaggerated 3´).
model’s output can help identify areas that meet the cri- Numbers indicate matching points of reference. (1) Depressions identified by the
teria for different hillslope elements but were previously model, potentially within the Garwin soil series, but which are mapped within
the Muscatine soil series. (2) The Fayette soil series is described as occurring on
unmapped due to cartographic, base map, or resource interfluves and sideslopes. However, the block diagram (Fig. 12) indicates that
limitations. Identification of hillslope elements of all sizes, the Downs soil series occurs on summits above the Fayette soil series, which
regardless of map unit extent, presents an excellent oppor- predominantly occurs on backslopes. SlgP, slope gradient priority decision tree.
tunity to disaggregate and otherwise improve existing soil Arnold, J., M.D. Corre, and E. Veldkamp. 2009. Soil N cycling in old-growth
map units. This type of disaggregation would be best applied to forests across an Andosol toposequence in Ecuador. For. Ecol. Manage.
257(10):2079–2087. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.02.014
topographically complex landscapes where two or three soil series Bettis, E.A. 1989. Late Quaternary history of the Iowa River valley in the
vary predictably as a function of hillslope position and/or drain- Coralville Lake area. In: O.W. Plocher, editor, Geologic reconnaissance
age class. The modeled maps of slope elements or position can be of the Coralville Lake area. Geological Society of Iowa guidebook 51.
Geological Society of Iowa, Iowa City. p. 93–100.
used to identify smaller, more homogenous soil areas and can help
Clothier, B.E., A.J. Hall, M. Deurer, S.R. Green, and A.D. Mackay. 2011. Soil
improve placement of soil map unit boundaries. ecosystem services. In: T.J. Sauer, J.M. Norman, and M.V.K. Sivakumar,
editors, Sustaining soil productivity in response to global climate change:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Science, policy, and ethics. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. p. 117–139.
We are grateful to the County of Ottawa, MI as well as Matt Bromley Conacher, A.J., and J.B. Dalrymple. 1977. Landsurface mapping. Geoderma
18(1–2):111–115. doi:10.1016/0016-7061(77)90085-4
and Ryan Dermody of the NRCS Soil Survey Offices in Grand Rapids,
Dermody, R.P. 2009. Soil survey of Cedar County, Iowa. Natural Resource
MI and Waverly, IA, respectively, for providing the data needed for Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
this study. We thank Ashton Shortridge, David Lusch, and Sasha Drăguţ, L., and T. Blaschke. 2006. Automated classification of landform
Kravchenko for their advice on previous drafts. Support was provided elements using object-based image analysis. Geomorphology 81:330–344.
by the Graduate College and the Department of Geography at doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.04.013
Michigan State University, the Soil Classifiers Association of Michigan, ESRI. 2014. ArcGIS 10.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA.
the Association of American Geographers, and the Leibniz Centre Frye, J.C. 1959. Climate and Lester King’s “Uniformitarian nature of hillslopes.”
Agricultural Landscape Research. J. Geol. 67:111–113. doi:10.1086/626562
Furley, P.A. 1971. Relationships between slope form and soil properties
developed over chalk parent materials. Institute of British Geographers
REFERENCES Spec. Publ. 3. Institute of British Geographers, London. p. 141–163.
Anderson, R.M., V.I. Koren, and S.M. Reed. 2006. Using SSURGO data to Giles, P.T. 1998. Geomorphological signatures: Classification of aggregated
improve Sacramento model a priori parameter estimates. J. Hydrol. slope unit objects from digital elevation and remote sensing data. Earth
320:103–116. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.020 Surf. Processes Landforms 23(7):581–594. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-
Arnold, R.W. 2006. Soil survey and soil classification. In: S. Grunwald, editor, 9837(199807)23:7<581::AID-ESP863>3.0.CO;2-S
Environmental soil-landscape modeling: Geographic information technologies Goodchild, M.F., L.T. Steyaert, and B.O. Parks, editors. 1996. GIS and environmental
and pedometrics. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. p. 37–60. modeling: Progress and research issues. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
www.soils.org/publications/sssaj 145