Uncertainty indication in soil function maps – Transparent and easy-to-use information to support sustainable use of soil resources

Abstract

Abstract. The mapping of soil functions is increasingly being used to inform decision-making in spatial planning processes related to the capacity of soils to contribute to ecosystem services. In this study, we add to the transparency of soil function maps by indicating uncertainties arising from prediction uncertainties of soil properties as generated by digital soil mapping (DSM). For a study area in the Swiss Midlands, we map 10 static soil functions for agricultural soils together with their uncertainties, using soil property data generated by DSM. Mapping the ten soil functions using simple ordinal assessment 20 scales reveals pronounced spatial patterns with a high variability of soil function fulfillment (SFF) across the region, linked to the inherent properties of the soils and terrain attributes and climate conditions. Uncertainties in soil properties propagated through SFA methods generally lead to substantial uncertainty in the mapped soil functions. We propose two types of uncertainty maps that can be readily understood by stakeholders. Cumulative distribution functions of SFF scores indicate that SFA methods respond differently to the propagated uncertainty of soil properties. Even where methods are comparable 25 on the level of complexity and assessment scale, their comparability in view of uncertainty propagation might be different.We conclude that uncertainty indications in soil function maps are required to enable informed and transparent decisions on the sustainable use of soil resources. Introduction 30Human wellbeing relies on soil resources, and soil should therefore be better integrated into ecosystem service frameworks that inform decision-making and environmental policies (Dominati et al., 2010). Soil acts in multi-functional ways, and fulfils many functions in the regulation of the nutrient and water cycle, in carbon sequestration or the filtering of chemical SOIL Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2017-41 Manuscript under review for journal SOIL Discussion started: 31 January 2018 c Author(s) 2018. CC BY 4.0 License. 2 compounds, providing biodiversity and habitats for flora and fauna, and it is essential for the production of food, fibre and biomass (Adhikari and Hartemink, 2016;Haygarth and Ritz, 2009). The capacity of soils to deliver ecosystem services is largely determined by its functions, and each individual soil function can be seen as providing a soil-related contribution to ecosystem services (Bouma, 2014). The concept of soil functions has been increasingly been applied to reveal the role played by soils in sustaining the wellbeing of humans and of society, emphasizing the multi-functionality of soils and their 5 chemical, physical and biological properties. (Dominati et al., 2014; EC, 2006;Haygarth and Ritz, 2009;Makó et al., 2017;Schulte et al., 2014; Schwilch et al., 2016;Tóth et al., 2013). In general, soil function assessment (SFA) entails the rating of soils according to their capacity to fulfill an individual soil function, the so-called soil function fulfillment (...

Soil function assessment in high‐mountain environments: Testing the SEPP tool in a ski resort in the Italian Alps

“…More details regarding the SEPP tool and the assessed soil functions are provided in the SEPP user manual (Supporting Information) and by Gruber et al (2019), who applied the tool. However, an updated version of the SEPP tool – in comparison to the version used by Gruber et al (2019) – was used in this study, where the ordinal scale was inverted to match the logic of SFAs in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (see BayGLA and BayLfU, 2003; Greiner et al, 2018; Haslmayr et al, 2016), with 1 representing a low and 5 representing a high level of function fulfilment. The underlying, sometimes slightly modified, methods were originally developed in Germany and published by Ad‐hoc‐AG Boden (2000), BayGLA and BayLfU (2003), BVB (2005), Gerstenberg and Smettan (2005), Lehmann et al (2008), Müller and Waldeck (2011), and Umweltministerium Baden‐Württemberg (1995).…”

“…Furthermore, there are various SFA methods that depend on the soil function to be assessed and the availability of soil data. The evaluation is usually performed using empirical equations, pedotransfer functions, lookup tables, or a combination thereof (Greiner et al, 2018). The procedure can be time‐consuming and error‐prone, particularly if several soil functions and/or more than a handful of sites are considered.…”

Stakeholder interpretation of probabilistic representations of uncertainty in spatial information: an example on the nutritional quality of staple crops

“…the vagueness of concepts such as a 'deep soil', which play a part in data interpretation) (Li et al 2018). For this reason it is widely recognized in geographical information science (GIScience) that the uncertainty about spatial information must be communicated to its end-users if they are to apply it effectively (Li et al 2012, Greiner et al 2018. Heuvelink and Burrough (2002) suggested that it is necessary to address how stakeholders deal with problems of uncertainty in spatial information as part of a decision making process.…”

“…Other approaches have been used to compute local probabilites that variables exceed thresholds of environmental significance. These include copulas, conditional simulation and Bayesian methods to compute or sample from a local posterior distribution (Goovaerts 2001, Marchant et al 2011, Greiner et al 2018.…”