UNCERTAINTIES IN DIGITAL SOIL MAPPING AND POSSIBILITIES OF OVERCOMING THEM

Abstract

Digital soil mapping (DSM) incorporates the most advanced approaches and methods in the computer analysis and modeling of spatial soil data. Currently, over 90% of all publications in the field of soil mapping are related to DSM. An analysis of scientometric databases and publications shows that the number of publications is growing annually, yet the declared quality of the resulting soil maps remains virtually unchanged. This is due to a number of factors, and the purpose of this article is to identify them through a review of scientific publications. The conducted research has shown that maps created using DSM approaches vary in quality. The accuracy of the models used to create digital soil maps, as declared by the authors, typically ranges from 30–40% to 70–80%. Sixteen potential sources of error in digital soil maps were identified, grouped into errors in the initial data on soil properties, initial data on predictors, errors in model selection, and errors in soils as a modeling object. Some sources of error can be eliminated now or in the near future, but there are errors whose elimination seems impossible at the current stage of scientific and technological development. The greatest potential for significant improvement in the quality of digital soil maps of surface soil horizon properties is present, while the least promising is for maps of soil classification names. The presence of errors in soil maps created using digital soil mapping methods should be disclosed during the creation of any soil map, including masking out areas of the map with the greatest errors.

 

References

1. Андроников В.Л., Королюк Т.В. Использование дистанционных методов в почвоведении и сельском хозяйстве // Почвоведение. 1985. № 5. С. 173–179. 2. Гопп Н.В. Использование почвенно-геоморфологической базы данных для изучения пространственной изменчивости содержания гумуса, физической глины и ила в почвах Кузнецко-Салаирской геоморфологической провинции // Почвоведение. 2021. № 7. С. 783–796. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0032180X21070054 3. Жоголев А.В., Савин И.Ю. Автоматизированное обновление среднемасштабных почвенных карт // Почвоведение. 2016. № 11. С. 45–54. https://doi.org/10.7868/S0032180X16110125 4. Жоголев А.В., Савин И.Ю. Цифровое обновление традиционно составленных почвенных карт // Почвоведение. 2025. № 4. С. 435–448. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0032180X25040017 5. Козлов Д.Н., Конюшкова М.В. Современное состояние и перспективы развития цифровой почвенной картографии (по материалам международного совещания, г. Логан, США, 2008 г.) // Почвоведение. 2009. № 6. С. 750–753. 6. Савин И.Ю. Проблема масштаба в современной почвенной картографии // Бюллетень Почвенного института имени В.В. Докучаева. 2019. Т. 97. С. 5–20. https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2019-97-5-20 7. Савин И.Ю., Жоголев А.В., Прудникова Е.Ю. Современные тренды и проблемы почвенной картографии // Почвоведение. 2019. № 5. С. 517–528. https://doi/org/ 10.1134/S0032180X19050101 8. Савин И.Ю. Перспективы развития картографирования и мониторинга почв на основе интерполяции точечных данных и дистанционных методов // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Сер. 17. Почвоведение. 2022. № 2. С. 13‒19. 9. Савин И.Ю., Прудникова Е.Ю., Виндекер Г.В. и др. Стратегия спутникового мониторинга содержания органического углерода в пахотных горизонтах почв России // Бюллетень Почвенного института имени В.В. Докучаева. 2025. Т. 123. С. 65–99. https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2025-123-65-99 10. Симакова М.С., Савин И.Ю. Использование материалов аэро- и космической съемки в картографировании почв: (пути развития, состояние, задачи) // Почвоведение. 1998. № 11. С. 1339–1347. 11. Симакова М.С. О компьютерной картографии почв // Почвоведение. 2002. № 2. С. 133–139. 12. Соколов И.А., Таргульян В.О. Взаимодействие почвы и среды: почва–память и почва–момент // Изучение и освоение природной среды / Отв. ред. М.И. Нейштат. М., 1976. С. 150–164. 13. Столбовой В.С., Молчанов Э.Н. Единый государственный реестр почвенных ресурсов России как модель пространственной организации почвенного покрова // Известия Российской академии наук. Сер. географическая. 2015. № 5. С. 135–143. https://doi.org/10.15356/0373-2444-2015-5-135-143 14. Фридланд В.М. Структура почвенного покрова. М., 1972. 423 с. 15. Чащин А.Н., Самофалова И.А., Мудрых Н.М. Использование морфометрических показателей рельефа для почвенного картографирования пашни в условиях средней тайги в северной части Пермского края // ИНТЕРКАРТО. ИНТЕГРИС. 2021. Т. 27, № 4. С. 162–174. https://doi.org/10.35595/2414-9179-2021-4-27-162-174 16. Adhikari K., Minasny B., Greve M.B. et al. Constructing a soil class map of Denmark based on the FAO legend using digital techniques // Geoderma. 2014. Vol. 214–215. P. 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.09.023 17. Amundson R., Jenni H. The place of humans in the state factor theory of ecosystems and their soils // Soil Science. 1991. Vol. 151, № 1. P. 99–109. 18. Angelini M.E., Heuvelink G.B., Kempen B. et al. Digital soil mapping of an Argentinian pampa region using structural equation modelling // Wageningen Soil Conference 2015: Soil Science in a Changing World / Eds.: B. Jansen, S.D. Keesstra, G. Mol, J. Wallinga, A.M. Zaal. Wageningen, 2015. P. 134. 19. Arrouays D., Leenaars J.G.B., Richer-de-Forges A.C., et al. Soil legacy data rescue viaGlobalSoilMap and other international and national initiatives // GeoResJ. 2017. Vol. 14. P. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grj.2017.06.001 20. Arrouays D., Richer-de-Forges A., McBratney A. et al. The GLOBALSOILMAP project: past, present, future, and national examples from France // Dokuchaev Soil Bulletin. 2018. Vol. 95. P. 3–23. https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2018-95-3-23 21. Behrens T., Förster H., Scholten T. et al. Digital soil mapping using artificial neural networks // Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2005. Vol. 168, № 1. P. 21–33. 22. Brevik E.C., Hartemink A.E. Soil Maps of the United States of America // Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2013. Vol. 77. P. 1117–1132. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2012.0390 23. Brus D.J., De Gruijter J.J., Van Groenigen J.W. Designing spatial coverage samples using the k-means clustering algorithm // Developments in Soil Science. 2006. Vol. 31. P. 183–192. 24. Brus D.J., Kempen B., Heuvelink G.B.M. Sampling for validation of digital soil maps // European Journal of Soil Science. 2011. Vol. 62, № 3. P. 394–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01364.x 25. Buenemann M., Coetzee M. E., Kutuahupira J. et al. Errors in soil maps: The need for better on-site estimates and soil map predictions // PLOS One. 2023. Vol. 18, № 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270176 (дата обращения: 10.10.2025). 26. Chinilin A.V., Savin I.Yu. Comparison of the effectiveness of various ways of preprocessing spectrometric data in order to predict the concentration of organic soil carbon // Journal of Optical Technology. 2018. Vol. 85, № 12. P. 789–795. https://doi/org/10.1364/JOT.85.000789 27. Chinilin A.V., Savin I.Yu. Combining machine learning and environmental covariates for mapping of organic carbon in soils of Russia // Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science. 2023. Vol. 26, № 3. С. 666–675. 28. Ferhatoglu C, Miller B. A. Choosing Feature Selection Methods for Spatial Modeling of Soil Fertility Properties at the Field Scale // Agronomy. 2022. Vol. 12, № 8. P. 1786. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081786 29. Gowing C., Suvannang N., Caon L. Global Soil Laboratory Network: Basic guidelines on how to produce a soil sample for proficiency testing. FAO: Rome, Italy. 2020. 7 p. 30. Hengl T. GSIF: Global Soil Information Facilities. R Package Version 0.4-1. 2014. 31. Hengl T., de Jesus J.M., MacMillan R.A. et al. SoilGrids1km – Global Soil Information Based on automated mapping // PLOS One. 2014. Vol. 9, № 12. e114788. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114788 32. Heuvelink G.B.M., Webster R. Spatial statistics and soil mapping: A blossoming partnership under pressure // Spatial Statistics. 2022. Vol. 50. P. 100639 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spasta.2022.100639 33. Huang H., Liu Y., Liu Y. et al. Digital Mapping of Soil pH and Driving Factor Analysis Based on Environmental Variable Screening // Sustainability. 2025. Vol. 17, № 7. P. 3173. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17073173 34. Ivanova E.A., Suleymanov A.R., Nikitin D.A. et al. Machine learning-based mapping of Acidobacteriota and Planctomycetota using 16 S rRNA gene metabarcoding data across soils in Russia // Sci Rep. 2025. Vol. 15. P. 2376. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08050-x 35. Javidan R., Rahmati O., Soleimanpour S.M. et al. Soil properties mapping using the Google Earth Engine platform // Remote Sensing of Soil and Land Surface Processes: Monitoring, Mapping, and Modeling / Eds.: A.M. Melesse, O. Rahmati, K. Khosravi, G.P. Petropoulos. 2024. P. 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-15341-9.00022-8 36. Jenny H. Factors of Soil Formation: A System of Quantitative Pedology. Dover Publications, New York, 1941. P. 281. 37. Khaledian Y., Miller B.A. Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping // Applied Mathematical Modelling. 2020. Vol. 81. P. 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016 38. Kempen B., Brus D.J., Heuvelink G.B. et al. Updating the 1:50,000 Dutch soil map using legacy soil data: A multinomial logistic regression approach // Geoderma. 2009. Vol. 151, № 3. P. 311–326. 39. Kempen B., Bru, D.J., Stoorvogel J.J. et al. Efficiency comparison of conventional and Digital soil mapping for updating soil maps // Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2012. Vol. 76, № 6. P. 2097–2115. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0424 40. Khosravani P., Baghernejad M., Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi R. et al. Assessing the role of environmental covariates and pixel size in soil property prediction: A comparative study of various areas in southwest Iran // Land. 2024. Vol. 13. P. 1309. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13081309 41. Lagacherie P., Arrouays D., Bourennane H. et al. How far can the uncertainty on a Digital Soil Map be known? A numerical experiment using pseudo values of clay content obtained from Vis-SWIR hyperspectral imagery // Geoderma. 2019. Vol. 337. P. 1320–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.08.024 42. Lagacherie P., McBratney A., Voltz M. Digital soil mapping: an introductory perspective. Amsterdam. Elsevier, 2006. Vol. 31. 658 p. 43. Li X., McCarty G.W., Du L. et al. Use of topographic models for mapping soil properties and processes // Soil Systems. 2020. Vol. 4, № 2. P. 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4020032 44. Ließ M., Sakhaee A. Deep learning with a multi-task convolutional neural network to generate a national-scale 3D soil data product: The particle size distribution of the German agricultural soil landscape // Agriculture. 2024. Vol. 14, № 8. P. 1230. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081230 45. Lilburne L., Helfenstein A., Heuvelink G.B.M. et al. Interpreting and evaluating digital soil mapping prediction uncertainty: A case study using texture from SoilGrids // Geoderma. 2024. Vol. 450. P. 117052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.117052 46. Maynard J.J., Yeboah E., Owusu S. et al. Accuracy of regional-to-global soil maps for on-farm decision-making: are soil maps “good enough”? // Soil. 2023. Vol. 9. P. 277–300. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-277-2023 47. McBratney A.B., Santos M.L.M., Minasny B. On digital soil mapping // Geoderma. 2003. Vol. 117, № 1–2. P. 3–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00223-4 48. Minasny B., McBratney A.B. A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of ancillary information // Computers & Geosciences. 2006. Vol. 32, № 9. P. 1378–1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2005.12.009 49. Minasny B., McBratney A.B. Digital soil mapping: A brief history and some lessons // Geoderma. 2016. Vol. 264, № 1. P. 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.07.017 50. Minasny B., McBratney A.B. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Applications in Soil Science // European Journal of Soil Science. 2025. Vol. 76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.70093 51. Mulder V.L., Roudier P., Arrouays D. Editorial: Digital soil mapping — advancing the knowledge frontiers // Frontiers in Soil Scince. Sec. 2023. Vol. 3. Article 1225672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2023.1225672 52. Odgers N., Sun W., McBratney A.B. et al. Disaggregating and harmonizing soil map units through resampled classification trees // Geoderma. 2014. Vol. 214. P. 91–100. 53. Padala R.S., Aneesh M. Morphometric analysis of watersheds: A comprehensive review of data sources, quality, and geospatial techniques // Watershed Ecology and the Environment. 2024. Vol. 6. P. 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsee.2023.12.001 54. Richer-de-Forges A.C., Chen Q., Baghdadi N. et al. Remote Sensing Data for Digital Soil Mapping in French Research: A Review // Remote Sensing. 2023. Vol. 15, № 12. P. 3070. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15123070 55. Saby N., Minasny B., Arrouays D. et al. Designing soil monitoring schemes for large areas based on high resolution digital soil mapping products: a case study from France // Pedometrics 2017. Jun 2017, Wageningen, Netherlands. 298 p. 56. Suleymanov A., Arrouays D., Savin I. Digital soil mapping in the Russian federation: a review // Geoderma Regional. 2024. Vol. 36. С. e00763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2024.e00763 57. Zhang W., Fu B., Xu A. et al. Geostatistical Characteristics of Soil Data from National Soil Survey Works in China // Scientia Agricultura Sinica. 2022. Vol. 55, № 13. P. 2572–2583. https://doi.org/10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.13.008 58. Zhogolev A., Savin I. The influence correction of boreal forest vegetation on SRTM data // Geocarto International. 2018. Vol. 33, № 6. P. 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2016.1277272 59. Zhogolev A., Savin I. Soil mapping based on globally optimal decision trees and digital imitations of traditional approaches // ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2020. Vol. 9, № 11. P. 664. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9110664 60. Zhu A.X., Band L., Vertessy R. et al. Derivation of soil properties using a soil land inference model (SoLIM) // Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1997. Vol. 61, № 2. Р. 523–533.