HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pringle, M. J. Articles by Lark, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pringle, M. J. Articles by Lark, R. M. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Pringle, M. J. Articles by Lark, R. M. Related Collections Spatial Distribution Carbon Sequestration Other Models

SPECIAL SECTION: FROM FIELD- TO LANDSCAPE-SCALE VADOSE ZONE PROCESSES

Spatial Analysis of Model Error, Illustrated by Soil Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, UK
^* Corresponding author (matthew.pringle{at}bbsrc.ac.uk)

Received 31 January 2005.

A spatial analysis of model error is required when the observations and model predictions are made at locations in space. This is because: (i) a model may reproduce observed variations better at some spatial scales than others, (ii) the model may be more or less successful at reproducing the relative variability of a process at different spatial scales, and (iii) the spatial pattern of model error may contain information about its possible sources. A geostatistical analysis can address these issues. We developed a model of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from soil. The soil (Dystric and Typic Eutrudepts) was sampled on a 1024-m transect at Silsoe, UK. Observed CO₂ emissions were compared with model predictions at 156 random locations on the transect. A spatial analysis of the model's error, using a (cross-validated) linear model of coregionalization, revealed details not apparent with a nonspatial analysis. The model could not predict high-frequency fluctuations in CO₂ emissions, but could accurately predict lower-frequency fluctuations. Factorial cokriging analysis allowed us to estimate and visualize the low-frequency components. We interpolated model error to unsampled locations, and found bias on soil with relatively large clay contents. Volumetric water content had a weak scale-dependent correlation with model error. We propose the inter-block correlation to quantify the effect of a change of support on the correlation of observations and model predictions; the best pixel size for the prediction of soil CO₂ emissions on the transect was 10 to 20 m.

Abbreviations: AIC, Akaike Information Criterion • LMCR, linear model of coregionalization • MAPD, median absolute pair difference • ME, mean error • MVE, minimum-volume ellipsoid • RMSE, root-mean-square-error

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. M. Tarquis, N. R. A. Bird, A. P. Whitmore, M. C. Cartagena, and Y. Pachepsky Multiscale Entropy-based Analysis of Soil Transect Data Vadose Zone J., May 27, 2008; 7(2): 563 - 569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Corwin, J. Hopmans, and G. H. de Rooij From Field- to Landscape-Scale Vadose Zone Processes: Scale Issues, Modeling, and Monitoring Vadose Zone J., March 8, 2006; 5(1): 129 - 139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]