Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31430307›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison of catchment scale 3D and 2.5D modelling of soil organic carbon stocks in Jiangxi Province, PR China.

Tobias Rentschler, Philipp Gries, Thorsten Behrens, Helge Bruelheide, Peter Kühn, Steffen Seitz, Xuezheng Shi, Stefan Trogisch, Thomas Scholten, Karsten Schmidt

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tobias RentschlerChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3878-5539
Philipp GriesChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Thorsten BehrensChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Helge BruelheideDepartment of Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Peter KühnChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Steffen SeitzChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Xuezheng ShiInstitute of Soil Science, State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China.
Stefan TrogischDepartment of Geobotany and Botanical Garden, Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Thomas ScholtenChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Karsten SchmidtChair of Soil Science and Geomorphology, Department of Geosciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As limited resources, soils are the largest terrestrial sinks of organic carbon. In this respect, 3D modelling of soil organic carbon (SOC) offers substantial improvements in the understanding and assessment of the spatial distribution of SOC stocks. Previous three-dimensional SOC modelling approaches usually averaged each depth increment for multi-layer two-dimensional predictions. Therefore, these models are limited in their vertical resolution and thus in the interpretability of the soil as a volume as well as in the accuracy of the SOC stock predictions. So far, only few approaches used spatially modelled depth functions for SOC predictions. This study implemented and evaluated an approach that compared polynomial, logarithmic and exponential depth functions using non-linear machine learning techniques, i.e. multivariate adaptive regression splines, random forests and support vector machines to quantify SOC stocks spatially and depth-related in the context of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning research. The legacy datasets used for modelling include profile data for SOC and bulk density (BD), sampled at five depth increments (0-5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-50 cm). The samples were taken in an experimental forest in the Chinese subtropics as part of the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) China experiment. Here we compared the depth functions by means of the results of the different machine learning approaches obtained based on multi-layer 2D models as well as 3D models. The main findings were (i) that 3rd degree polynomials provided the best results for SOC and BD (R2 = 0.99 and R2 = 0.98; RMSE = 0.36% and 0.07 g cm-3). However, they did not adequately describe the general asymptotic trend of SOC and BD. In this respect the exponential (SOC: R2 = 0.94; RMSE = 0.56%) and logarithmic (BD: R2 = 84; RMSE = 0.21 g cm-3) functions provided more reliable estimates. (ii) random forests with the exponential function for SOC correlated better with the corresponding 2.5D predictions (R2: 0.96 to 0.75), compared to the 3rd degree polynomials (R2: 0.89 to 0.15) which support vector machines fitted best. We recommend not to use polynomial functions with sparsely sampled profiles, as they have many turning points and tend to overfit the data on a given profile. This may limit the spatial prediction capacities. Instead, less adaptive functions with a higher degree of generalisation such as exponential and logarithmic functions should be used to spatially map sparse vertical soil profile datasets. We conclude that spatial prediction of SOC using exponential depth functions, in conjunction with random forests is well suited for 3D SOC stock modelling, and provides much finer vertical resolutions compared to 2.5D approaches.

Indexed as

CarbonChinaComputer GraphicsComputer SimulationMachine LearningModels, ChemicalSoilCarbonSoil

Identifiers

PMID31430307
PMCPMC6701766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.