Cargando…
Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment
Simulations are used to generate plausible realisations of soil and climatic variables for input into an enterprise land suitability assessment (LSA). Subsequently we present a case study demonstrating a LSA (for hazelnuts) which takes into account the quantified uncertainties of the biophysical mod...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
PeerJ Inc.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4627905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26528422 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1366 |
_version_ | 1782398347143806976 |
---|---|
author | Malone, Brendan P. Kidd, Darren B. Minasny, Budiman McBratney, Alex B. |
author_facet | Malone, Brendan P. Kidd, Darren B. Minasny, Budiman McBratney, Alex B. |
author_sort | Malone, Brendan P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Simulations are used to generate plausible realisations of soil and climatic variables for input into an enterprise land suitability assessment (LSA). Subsequently we present a case study demonstrating a LSA (for hazelnuts) which takes into account the quantified uncertainties of the biophysical model input variables. This study is carried out in the Meander Valley Irrigation District, Tasmania, Australia. It is found that when comparing to a LSA that assumes inputs to be error free, there is a significant difference in the assessment of suitability. Using an approach that assumes inputs to be error free, 56% of the study area was predicted to be suitable for hazelnuts. Using the simulation approach it is revealed that there is considerable uncertainty about the ‘error free’ assessment, where a prediction of ‘unsuitable’ was made 66% of the time (on average) at each grid cell of the study area. The cause of this difference is that digital soil mapping of both soil pH and conductivity have a high quantified uncertainty in this study area. Despite differences between the comparative methods, taking account of the prediction uncertainties provide a realistic appraisal of enterprise suitability. It is advantageous also because suitability assessments are provided as continuous variables as opposed to discrete classifications. We would recommend for other studies that consider similar FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) land evaluation framework type suitability assessments, that parameter membership functions (as opposed to discrete threshold cutoffs) together with the simulation approach are used in concert. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4627905 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | PeerJ Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46279052015-11-02 Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment Malone, Brendan P. Kidd, Darren B. Minasny, Budiman McBratney, Alex B. PeerJ Agricultural Science Simulations are used to generate plausible realisations of soil and climatic variables for input into an enterprise land suitability assessment (LSA). Subsequently we present a case study demonstrating a LSA (for hazelnuts) which takes into account the quantified uncertainties of the biophysical model input variables. This study is carried out in the Meander Valley Irrigation District, Tasmania, Australia. It is found that when comparing to a LSA that assumes inputs to be error free, there is a significant difference in the assessment of suitability. Using an approach that assumes inputs to be error free, 56% of the study area was predicted to be suitable for hazelnuts. Using the simulation approach it is revealed that there is considerable uncertainty about the ‘error free’ assessment, where a prediction of ‘unsuitable’ was made 66% of the time (on average) at each grid cell of the study area. The cause of this difference is that digital soil mapping of both soil pH and conductivity have a high quantified uncertainty in this study area. Despite differences between the comparative methods, taking account of the prediction uncertainties provide a realistic appraisal of enterprise suitability. It is advantageous also because suitability assessments are provided as continuous variables as opposed to discrete classifications. We would recommend for other studies that consider similar FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) land evaluation framework type suitability assessments, that parameter membership functions (as opposed to discrete threshold cutoffs) together with the simulation approach are used in concert. PeerJ Inc. 2015-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4627905/ /pubmed/26528422 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1366 Text en © 2015 Malone et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. |
spellingShingle | Agricultural Science Malone, Brendan P. Kidd, Darren B. Minasny, Budiman McBratney, Alex B. Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
title | Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
title_full | Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
title_fullStr | Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
title_full_unstemmed | Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
title_short | Taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
title_sort | taking account of uncertainties in digital land suitability assessment |
topic | Agricultural Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4627905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26528422 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1366 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT malonebrendanp takingaccountofuncertaintiesindigitallandsuitabilityassessment AT kidddarrenb takingaccountofuncertaintiesindigitallandsuitabilityassessment AT minasnybudiman takingaccountofuncertaintiesindigitallandsuitabilityassessment AT mcbratneyalexb takingaccountofuncertaintiesindigitallandsuitabilityassessment |