Chinese Geographical Science

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 552–568 | Cite as

Equality testing for soil grid unit resolutions to polygon unit scales with DNDC modeling of regional SOC pools

  • Dongsheng Yu
  • Yue Pan
  • Haidong Zhang
  • Xiyang Wang
  • Yunlong Ni
  • Liming Zhang
  • Xuezheng Shi
Article
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Matching soil grid unit resolutions with polygon unit map scales is important to minimize the uncertainty of regional soil organic carbon (SOC) pool simulation due to their strong influences on the modeling. A series of soil grid units at varying cell sizes was derived from soil polygon units at six map scales, namely, 1:50 000 (C5), 1:200 000 (D2), 1:500 000 (P5), 1:1 000 000 (N1), 1: 4 000 000 (N4) and 1:14 000 000 (N14), in the Taihu Region of China. Both soil unit formats were used for regional SOC pool simulation with a DeNitrification-DeComposition (DNDC) process-based model, which spans the time period from 1982 to 2000 at the six map scales. Four indices, namely, soil type number (STN), area (AREA), average SOC density (ASOCD) and total SOC stocks (SOCS) of surface paddy soils that were simulated by the DNDC, were distinguished from all these soil polygon and grid units. Subjecting to the four index values (IV) from the parent polygon units, the variations in an index value (VIV, %) from the grid units were used to assess its dataset accuracy and redundancy, which reflects the uncertainty in the simulation of SOC pools. Optimal soil grid unit resolutions were generated and suggested for the DNDC simulation of regional SOC pools, matching their respective soil polygon unit map scales. With these optimal raster resolutions, the soil grid units datasets can have the same accuracy as their parent polygon units datasets without any redundancy, when VIV < 1% was assumed to be a criterion for all four indices. A quadratic curve regression model, namely, y =–0.80 × 10–6x2 + 0.0228x + 0.0211 (R2 = 0.9994, P < 0.05), and a power function model R = 10.394Ŝ0.2153 (R2 = 0.9759, P < 0.05) were revealed, which describe the relationship between the optimal soil grid unit resolution (y, km) and soil polygon unit map scale (1:10 000x), the ratio (R, %) of the optimal soil grid size to average polygon patch size (Ŝ, km2) and the Ŝ, with the highest R2 among different mathematical regressions, respectively. This knowledge may facilitate the grid partitioning of regions during the investigation and simulation of SOC pool dynamics at a certain map scale, and be referenced to other landscape polygon patches’ mesh partition.

Keywords

soil organic carbon (SOC) soil grid unit resolutions soil polygon unit map scales DeNitrification-DeComposition (DNDC) model SOC pools 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Batjes N H, 2000. Effects of mapped variation in soil conditions on estimates of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks for South American. Geoderma, 97: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouwman A F, Boumans L J M, Batjes N H, 2002. Modeling global annual N2O and NO emissions from fertilized fields. Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 16(4): GB1080. doi: 10.1029/2001GB001812Google Scholar
  3. Cai Z C, Sawamoto T, Li C S et al., 2003. Field validation of the DNDC model for greenhouse gas emissions in East Asian cropping systems. Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 17(4): GB1107. doi: 10.1029/2003GB002046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davidson E A, Janssens I A, 2006. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature, 440: 165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2009. Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.1). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 1–38.Google Scholar
  6. Fu B J, Chen L D, Ma K M et al., 2011. Landscape ecology: Principles and Applications (Second Edition). Beijing: Science Press, 1–396. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  7. Giltrap D L, Li C S, Saggar S, 2010. DNDC: a process-based model of greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural soils. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 136: 292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang Y, Zhang W, Zheng X, 2004. Modeling methane emission from rice paddies with various agricultural practices. Journal of Geophysics Research, 109: D08113, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004401.Google Scholar
  9. Lal R, 2004. Soil carbon sequestration tomitigate climate change. Geoderma, 123(2): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Levy P E, Mobbs D C, Jones S K et al., 2007. Simulation of fluxes of greenhouse gases from European grasslands using the DNDC model. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 121: 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li C S, 2007. Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from soils: Scientific basis and modeling approach. Soil Scicence and Plant Nutrient, 53: 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li C S, Frolking S, Frolking T A, 1992a. A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events: I. Model structure and sensitivity. Journal of Geophysics Research, 97 (D9): 9759–9776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li C S, Frolking S, Frolking T A, 1992b. A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events: II. Model applications, Journal of Geophysics Reserch, 97(D9): 9777–9783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li C S, Frolking S, Xiao X M, 2005. Modeling impacts of farming management alternatives on CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions: a case study for water management of rice agriculture of China. Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 19: GB3010. doi: 10.1029/2004GB002341Google Scholar
  15. Li C S, Mosier A, Wassmann R et al., 2004. Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from rice-based production systems: Sensitivity and upscaling. Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 18: GB1043. doi: 10.1029/2003GB002045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li C S, Qiu J J, Frolking S et al., 2002. Reduced methane emissions from large-scale changes in water management in China’s rice paddies during 1980–2000. Geophysical Research Letter, 29(20): 1972. doi: 10.1029/2002GL015370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li C S, Salas W, De Angelo B et al., 2006. Assessing alternatives for mitigating net greenhouse gas emissions and increasing yields from rice production in China over the next twenty years. Journal of Environment Quality, 35: 1554–1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li C S, Zhuang Y H, Frolking S et al., 2003. Modeling soil organic carbon change in croplands of China. Ecological Applications, 13: 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li H, Qiu J J, Wang L G et al., 2010. Modelling impacts of alternative farming management practices on greenhouse gas emissions from a winter wheat-maize rotation system in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 135: 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li Qinkue, 1992. Paddy Soil of China. Beijing: Science Press, 1–680. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. Liu Z P, Shao M A, Wang Y Q, 2011. Effect of environmental factors on regional soil organic carbon stocks across the Loess Plateau region, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 142: 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ni J, 2001. Carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems of China: estimates at different spatial resolutions and their responses to climate change. Climate change, 49: 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pathak H, Li C S, Wassmann R, 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from Indian rice fields: calibration and upscaling using the DNDC model. Biogeosciences, 2: 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pogson M, Smith P, 2015. Effect of spatial data resolution on uncertainty. Environmental Modelling & Software, 63: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qin Falyu, Shi Xuezheng, Xu Shengxiang et al., 2015. Zonal differences in correlation patterns between soil organic carbon and climate factors at multi-extent. Chinese Geographical Science, 25(5): 537–548. doi: 10.1007/s11769-015-0736-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qiu Jianjun, Wang Ligang, Tang Junhua et al., 2004. Studies on the situation of soil organic carbon storage in croplands in northeast of China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 37(8): 1166–1171. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  27. Rüth B, Lennartz B, 2008. Spatial variability of soil properties and rice yield along two catenas in southeast China. Pedosphere, 18(4): 409–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schlesinger W H, 1997. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–102.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt K, Behrens T, Scholten T, 2008. Instance selection and classification tree analysis for large spatial datasets in digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 146: 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shen Yu, Huang Yao, Zong Lianggang et al., 2003. Simulation and prediction of soil organic carbon dynamics in Jiangsu province based on model and GIS techniques. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 36(11): 1312–1317. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Shi X Z, Yang R W, Weindorf D C et al., 2010. Simulation of organic carbon dynamics at regional scale for paddy soils in China. Climatic Change, 102: 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shi X Z, Yu D S, Warner E D et al., 2006. Cross-reference system for translating between genetic soil classification of China and Soil Taxonomy. Soil Scicence Society of America Journal, 70: 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith K A, Dobbie K E, 2001. The impact of sampling frequency and sampling times on chamber-based measurements of N2O emissions from fertilized soils. Global Change Biology, 7(8): 933–945. doi: 10.1046/j.1354-1013.2001.00450.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soil Survey Staff, 1994. Keys to Soil Taxonomy (6th edition). Washington, DC: United States Goverment Printing Office, 1–437.Google Scholar
  35. Su S L, Zhang Z G, Xiao R et al., 2012. Geospatial assessment of agroecosystem health: development of an integrated index based on catastrophe theory. Stoch Environment Research and Risk Assessement, 26: 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun W J, Huang Y, Zhang W et al., 2010. Carbon sequestration and its potential in agricultural soils of China. Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 24: GB3001. doi: 10.1029/2009GB 003484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang H, Qiu J, Eric V R et al., 2006. Estimations of soil organic carbon storage in cropland of China based on DNDC model. Geoderma, 134: 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tonitto C, David M B, Li C S et al., 2007. Application of the DNDC model to tile-drained Illinois agroecosystems: model comparison of conventional and diversified rotations. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 78(1): 65–81. doi: 10.1007/s 10705-006-9074-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Valade A, Ciais P, Vuichard N et al., 2014. Modeling sugarcane yield with a process-based model from site to continental scale: uncertainties arising from model structure and parameter values. Geoscientific Model Development, 7: 1225–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wan Y F, Lin E D, Xiong W et al., 2011. Modeling the impact of climate change on soil organic carbon stocks in upland soils in the 21st century in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 141: 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang S H, Shi X Z, Zhao Y C et al., 2011. Regional simulation of soil organic carbon dynamics for dry farmland in east China by Coupling a 1:500 000 soil database with the Century model. Pedosphere, 21(3): 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu Y, Liu S, Tan Z, 2015. Quantitative attribution of major driving forces on soil organic carbon dynamics. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systtems, 7: 21–34. doi: 10.1002/2014MS000361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu Qi, Lu Yanchun, Liu Yuanchang et al., 1980. Paddy Soil of Taihu Region in China. Shanghai: Science Press, 1–68. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  44. Xu S X, Shi X Z, Zhao Y C et al., 2011. Modeling carbon dynamics in Paddy soil in Jiangsu Province of China with soil databases differing in spatial resolution. Pedosphere, 21(6): 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu S X, Shi X Z, Zhao Y C et al., 2012. Spatially explicit simulation of soil organic carbon dynamics in China's paddy soils. Catena, 92: 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Xu S X, Zhao Y C, Shi X Z et al., 2013. Map scale effects of soil databases on modeling organic carbon dynamics for paddy soils of China. Catena, 104: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yang Ruwei, Xu Qi, Shi Xuezheng et al., 2009. The research of paddy soil organic carbon simulation at regional scale. Anhui Agricultural Science Bulletin, 15(13): 126–128. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  48. Yu D S, Ni Y L, Shi X Z et al., 2014. Optimal soil raster unit resolutions in estimation of soil organic carbon pool at different map scales. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 78(3): 1079–1086. doi: 10.2136/sssaj 2013.07. 0262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu D S, Shi X Z, Wang H J et al., 2007a. National scale analysis of soil organic carbon stocks in China based on Chinese soil taxonomy. Pedosphere, 17(1): 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yu D S, Shi X Z, Wang H J et al., 2007b. Regional patterns of soil organic carbon stocks in China. Journal of Environment Management, 85: 680–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yu D S, Yang H, Shi X Z et al., 2011. Effects of soil spatial resolution on quantifying CH4 and N2O emissions from rice fields in the Taihu Region of China by DNDC model. Global Biogeochemical Cycle, 25: GBC2004. doi: 10.1029/2010GB003825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yu D S, Zhang L M, Shi X Z et al., 2013. Soil assessment unit scale affects quantifying CH4 emissions from rice fields. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77(2): 664–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yu Dongsheng, Shi Xuezheng, Sun Weixia et al., 2005. Estimation of China soil organic carbon storage and density based on 1:1 000 000 soil database. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 16: 2279–2283. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  54. Yu Y Q, Huang Y, Zhang W, 2012. Modeling soil organic carbon change in croplands of China, 1980–2009. Global and Planetary Change, 82–83: 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yu Yongqiang, Huang Yao, Zhang Wen et al., 2007c. Modeling farmland soil organic carbon dynamics in eastern China: spatio-temporal pattern. Geography and Geo-Information Science, 23(1): 97–100. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  56. Zhang L M, Yu D S, Shi X Z et al., 2009a. Quantifying methane emissions from rice fields in the Taihu Lake region, China by coupling a detailed soil database with biogeochemical model. Biogeosciences, 6: 739–749. doi: 10.5194/bg-6-739-2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang L M, Yu D S, Shi X Z et al., 2009b. Simulation of global warming potential (GWP) from rice fields in the Tai-Lake region, China by coupling 1:50 000 soil database with DNDC model. Atmospheric Environment, 43: 2737–2746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang L M, Yu D S, Shi X Z et al., 2012. Simulation soil organic carbon change in China’s Tai-Lake paddy soils. Soil & Tillage Research, 121: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang L M, Yu D S, Shi X Z et al., 2014a. Effects of soil data and dimulation unit resolution on quantifying changes of soil organic carbon at regional scale with a biogeochemical process model. PLoS ONE, 9(2): e88622. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone. 0088622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang W, Zhang Q, Huang Y et al., 2014b. Uncertainties in estimating regional methane emissions from rice paddies due to data scarcity in the modeling approach. Geoscicentific Model Development, 7: 1211–1224. doi: 10.5194/gmd-7-1211-2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhao Y C, Shi X Z, Weindorf D C et al., 2006. Map scale effects on soil organic carbon stock estimation in north China. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70: 1377–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhu Q, Zhuang Q, 2014. Parameterization and sensitivity analysis of a process-based terrestrial ecosystem model using adjoint method. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systtems, 6: 315–331. doi: 10.1002/2013MS000241CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agricultural Ecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dongsheng Yu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yue Pan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Haidong Zhang
    • 1
  • Xiyang Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yunlong Ni
    • 1
  • Liming Zhang
    • 3
  • Xuezheng Shi
    • 1
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesNanjingChina
  2. 2.University of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.College of Resource and EnvironmentFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations