Digital Soil Resource Inventories: Status and Prospects in 2015

Chapter
Part of the Springer Environmental Science and Engineering book series (SPRINGERENVIRON)

Abstract

Eleven years ago, the author published a paper (Soil Use and Management 20(3): 296–301) titled “Digital soil resource inventories: status and prospects,” which concluded that, at the time, the quantity and quality of digital soil survey information at global, national, regional, and local scales was increasing dramatically, however, with several problems such as (1) lack of metadata, (2) limited interpretations for professionals who are not soil specialists, (3) geodesic incompatibility with other digital data, (4) frequent reorganization of Web sites, and most seriously (5) much digital data were proprietary and only available for sale or under license. The current paper updates the situation to mid-2015, with an inventory of publically available soil geographic databases, their coverage, the type of information, and intended purposes. These are summarized in a portal maintained by the author (http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/dgr2/research/sgdb/sgdb.html). With regard to the deficiencies identified eleven years ago, metadata provision is much improved; more products come with interpretations; geodetic incompatibility has largely been overcome by metadata and conversion programs; Web sites still change frequently and are often confusing; and much data are still proprietary or not generally accessible. Over the next several years, several disruptive technologies are predicted to radically change how online soil survey information is collected, compiled, and disseminated. The question of open access to primary data is not resolved.

Keywords

Soil geographic databases Spatial data infrastructure 

References

  1. Arrouays D, Grundy MG, Hartemink AE, et al (2014) GlobalSoilMap. Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier, pp 93–134Google Scholar
  2. Batjes NH, Al-Adamat R, Bhattacharyya T, et al (2007) Preparation of consistent soil data sets for modelling purposes: Secondary SOTER data for four case study areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 122:26–34.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell JL, Rustad LE, Porter JH, et al (2013) Quantity is nothing without quality: automated QA/QC for streaming environmental sensor data. BioScience 63:574–585. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.10
  4. Chaney, NW, Hempel, JW, Odgers, N, McBratney, AB, & Wood, EF (2015). dSSURGO: Development and validation of a 30 meter digital soil class product over the 8-million square kilometer contiguous United States. Geophysical Research Abstracts 17:EGU2015–11042.Google Scholar
  5. Dewitte O, Jones A, Spaargaren O, et al (2013) Harmonisation of the soil map of Africa at the continental scale. Geoderma 211-212:138–153. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.007
  6. Hengl T, de Jesus JM, MacMillan RA, et al (2014) SoilGrids1 km — Global Soil Information Based on Automated Mapping. PLoS ONE 9:e105992. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105992
  7. IIASA; FAO; ISRIC; ISS-CAS; JRC (2012) Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2). FAO and IIASA, Rome, Italy and Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  8. Oldeman LR, van Engelen VWP (1993) A world soils and terrain digital database (SOTER) — An improved assessment of land resources. Geoderma 60:309–325. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(93)90033-H
  9. Omuto C, Nachtergaele F, Vargas Rojas, Ronald (2012) State of the art report on global and regional soil information: where are we? Where to go? ix, 69. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  10. Panagos P, Jones A, Bosco C, Kumar PSS (2011) European digital archive on soil maps (EuDASM): preserving important soil data for public free access. International Journal of Digital Earth 4:434–443. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2011.596580
  11. Panagos P, Van Liedekerke M, Jones A, Montanarella L (2012) European Soil Data Centre: Response to European policy support and public data requirements. Land Use Policy 29:329–338. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.07.003
  12. Pourabdollah A, Leibovici DG, Simms DM, et al (2012) Towards a standard for soil and terrain data exchange: SoTerML. Computers and Geosciences 45:270–283. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.11.026
  13. Rossiter DG (2004) Digital soil resource inventories: status and prospects. Soil Use and Management 20:296–301.Google Scholar
  14. Science Committee (2013) Specifications: Tiered GlobalSoilMap.net products; Release2.3. GlobalSoilMap.netGoogle Scholar
  15. Sekhon BS, Bhumbla DK, Sencindiver J, McDonald LM (2014) Using soil survey data for series-level environmental phosphorus risk assessment. Environmental Earth Sciences 72:2345–2356. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3144-6
  16. Toth B, Mako A, Guadagnini A, Toth G (2012) Water retention of salt-affected soils: Quantitative estimation using soil survey information. Arid Land Research and Management 26:103–121. doi: 10.1080/15324982.2012.657025
  17. Yao H, Campbell CD, Chapman SJ, et al (2013) Multi-factorial drivers of ammonia oxidizer communities: evidence from a national soil survey. Environmental Microbiology 15:2545–2556. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12141
  18. Yu X, Duffy C, Baldwin DC, Lin H (2014) The role of macropores and multi-resolution soil survey datasets for distributed surface-subsurface flow modeling. Journal of Hydrology 516:97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.055

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Soil and Crop SciencesCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.ISRIC-World Soil InformationWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Chinese Academy of Sciences Soil Science InstituteNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations