2004
DOI: 10.1016/s0016-7061(03)00166-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fuzzy continuous classification and spatial interpolation in conventional soil survey for soil mapping of the lower Piave plain

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This limit was chosen because it represents the bottom of the studied system and was considered as almost similar throughout the study area. This sampling technique is commonly used to provide an indication of the soils represented in the field and to describe the soil types, if soil profiles have been previously determined (Cosandey et al, 2003;Earl et al, 2003;Bragato, 2004). This is the case for this site where previous studies have already been published (Bureau et al, 1995;Fierz et al, 1995;Mendonça Santos et al, 2000).…”
Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This limit was chosen because it represents the bottom of the studied system and was considered as almost similar throughout the study area. This sampling technique is commonly used to provide an indication of the soils represented in the field and to describe the soil types, if soil profiles have been previously determined (Cosandey et al, 2003;Earl et al, 2003;Bragato, 2004). This is the case for this site where previous studies have already been published (Bureau et al, 1995;Fierz et al, 1995;Mendonça Santos et al, 2000).…”
Section: Data Acquisitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CI measures the overlapping of fuzzy classes at any point and provides insight for further investigating the sites with high membership values to more than one class (Bragato, 2004 Other useful indexes to analyze overlapping fuzzy-regions may be adapted from the crisp realm (i.e. indexes commonly used for comparison of raster maps).…”
Section: Feature Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Through which different sources of soil information are used for the partitioning, synthesis, and simplification of different test sites. The majority of authors work predominantly with topographical data (Irvin et al, 1997;Theocharopoulos et al, 1997;Burrough et al, 2000;Bragato, 2004;Bakhsh et al, 2007;Etzelmüller et al, 2007), while others use chemical soil properties for partitioning (Søvik and Aagaard, 2003;Spijker et al, 2005;Vašát et al, 2010), soil texture (e.g., Twarakavi et al, 2010), work with theoretical data sets (e.g., Simbahan and Dobermann, 2006), use geophysical data as input towards partitioning of subsoil (e.g., Dietrich et al, 1998;Tronicke et al, 2004;Paasche and Tronicke, 2007;Dietrich and Tronicke, 2009;Paasche et al, 2010), or use texture and geophysical data (Moral et al, 2010). Li et al, (2007) use interdisciplinary input data, e.g., vegetation index, EC, total N, organic matter (OM), and cation-exchange capacity for clustering towards the delineation of site-specific management zones.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%