SSSAJ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Shearer, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Shearer, S. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Mueller, T. G.
Right arrow Articles by Shearer, S. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Geostatistics
Right arrow Spatial Variability
Right arrow Site-Specific Analysis
Right arrow Soil Fertility and Productivity
Right arrow Spatial Distribution
Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:2042-2047 (2004).
© 2004 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

Division S-8—Nutrient Management & Soil & Plant Analysis

Map Quality for Ordinary Kriging and Inverse Distance Weighted Interpolation

T. G. Muellera,*, N. B. Pusuluria, K. K. Mathiasa, P. L. Corneliusa, R. I. Barnhisela and S. A. Shearerb

a University of Kentucky, Dep. of Agronomy, N-122 Ag. Science North, Lexington, KY 40502
b Dep. of Biosyst. and Agric. Eng., University of Kentucky, 218 C.E. Barnhart, Lexington, KY 40546-0276

* Corresponding author (mueller{at}uky.edu)

The selection of a spatial interpolation methods will impact the quality of site-specific soil fertility maps. The objective of this study was to describe and predict the relative performance of inverse distance weighted (IDW) and ordinary kriging. Soil samples were collected on 30.5-m grids for fields in five Kentucky counties and analyzed for pH, buffer pH, P, K, Ca, and Mg. From these data sets, 61-m grid subsets were extracted. Data were interpolated with IDW and kriging procedures. Prediction efficiency (PE) was determined using an independent dataset (PEvalidation) and with cross-validation (PEcross-validation). Multiple stepwise regression was used to develop models that described the relative performance of ordinary kriging and IDW with statistical properties of the data. At the 30.5-m grid scale, the performance of ordinary kriging relative to IDW improved as the range of spatial correlation increased and fit of the semivariogram model improved. However, at the 61.0-m grid scale, the performance of ordinary kriging relative to IDW diminished as the degree of spatial structure increased and the fit of the semivariogram model improved. Alone, PEcross-validation poorly describes the performance of PEvalidation across locations, soil properties, and sampling intervals (r2 = 0.18). However, in combination with the range of spatial correlation, substantial variability at the 30.5-m grid scale was described for variables with sample semivariograms that reached plateaus (R2 = 0.61). In some situations, better decisions will be made regarding the use of these methods by considering the range of spatial correlation and cross-validation statistics.

Abbreviations: FULL, datasets created by combining the validation and 30.5-m grid datasets • IDW, inverse distance weighted • IDW1.2, IDW interpolation with a distance exponent of 1.2 • MSE, mean squared error • PE, prediction efficiency PEvalidation, PE determined using an independent data set • PEcross-validation, PE determined with cross-validation • {Delta}PEvalidation, difference in PE between ordinary kriging and IDW1.2 as determined using an independent validation dataset • {Delta}PEcross-validation, difference in PE between ordinary kriging and IDW1.2 as determined with cross-validation • r2semivariogram, F, the coefficient of determination for the relationship between semivariogram pairs and the semivariogram model values • RangeF, range of spatial correlation as determined with the FULL datasets • RangeS, range of spatial correlation as determined with the sample dataset RSV relative structural variability • RSVF, RSV as determined with the FULL datasets • RSVS, RSV as determined with the sample datasets • {Delta}RSV, RSVF – RSVS • SSFM, Site-specific fertility management




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
T.-L. Liu, K.-W. Juang, and D.-Y. Lee
Interpolating Soil Properties Using Kriging Combined with Categorical Information of Soil Maps
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., May 23, 2006; 70(4): 1200 - 1209.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2004 by the Soil Science Society of America.