809004130

Student -809004130

AGSL -3010 Soil sensing modeling project

Hypothesis: The undisturbed land has a higher soil water concentration due to the vegetative coverage than land used for agriculture. Objectives 1) 2) 3) 4) To examine disturbed and undisturbed field data from field station. To assess data quality for proper usage. To determine what the differences are between disturbed and undisturbed soil. To examine the difference between disturbed and undisturbed land.

Executive summary
Soil sensing or soil moisture sensing is an important capability in assessing the detrimental need for land use. Land-use is particularly essential in determining as the name suggest what the land is particularly useful for and how the vegetation is affecting the soil and vice versa. The property of the soil itself affects the soil moisture content. In assessing the effectiveness of DUALEM data the quality for usage was important in manually filtering and transforming to refit a real time image of the land surface from SAR satellite. The quality of assessment resulted in a high quality residual image of an electromagnetic induction of the site. It is concluded from the image that the hypothesis is proven true. It is proven true that the vegetation coverage and less agriculture results in a higher soil moisture concentration within these areas. The scope of the project was limited to resources and time but highly acceptable due to electro magnetic induction.

pg. 1

809004130

Introduction The purpose of the study is to fulfill the objective in order to meet the criterias for fulfilling the hypothesis, in answering true or false. The objectives are clearly stated although limited with data. The areas assessed on the field station are briefly described separately. The method for data collection was performed within separate groups. An instrument known as the DUALEM instrument was used in obtaining raw data. The DUALEM sensor received position coordinates along with time and speed. Other readings obtained were voltage, temperature etc. known as aux_1, aux_2, aux_3 and etc. These values where then taken to be assessed via the method in figure one. Disturbed and Undisturbed fields- 1038'21.68" N 6125'45.58" W

Cocoa field - 1038'42.04" N 6124'09.62" W (Not described as is assumed to be exaggerated in description by its name). The detail of the field station plot of land assessed is given below:

Disturbed This area of land appears to have been used for cultivation, no trees can be seen in this area, flat undulating land, entirely covered with grass vegetation, shrubs can be seen in small clusters about the area and a recognizable square of densely clustered planted vegetation in located on the easterly side of the plot. Rows of beds created by a tractor are visible in a horizontal, west to easterly direction and crops are planted in neat rows on the top corner of the plot. Tracks with no vegetation are visible where traffic and movement appear to be frequent.

Undisturbed The undisturbed plot of land is heavily vegetated and appears to run in diagonal strips. Intermediating between sparse and dense vegetation to small diagonal grassy plain. Trees line the outer region and run in long diagonal clusters across the land. It does not appear entirely natural though because of the positioning of the trees and they appear to be planted and then left to grow. A dense cluster of vegetation is visible at the South eastern corner of the plot. With trees that appear larger than the rest with larger canopies. Smaller trees or shrubs are scattered and less clustered but follow along a diagonal path. They once again join denser vegetation along the middle. But overall clusters of shrubs and grass are visible. The plain appears unkempt and not smooth, muddy patches are visible on the lower regions of the field, with no trees seen but shrubs in small areas and the grass appears taller when compared to the disturbed region. The areas assessed were dampened that morning by early morning showers or rainfall. So the results displayed below are unsure as to an average day -without bias.

pg. 2

809004130

Study site and data

The image above depicts the study site: larger box area undisturbed and the smaller box area disturbed.

pg. 3

809004130

Methods

The collection of data was accomplished through groups work where team players were needed in separate groups called; disturbed soil sampling and the undisturbed soil sampling. The instrument used to take the data was called a DUALEM sensor. The individual in the group took the back pack and the cylinder along with the GPS coordinate receiver. Holding the cylinder approximately 10 cm above the ground the person would walk in a specific manner desiring type of result. The diagram above (figure one) depicts the way the data was transformed for use in the project. In assessing the functionality a grid of 10m or 5m and then 2.5m was produced. The 2.5m grid was found to be acceptable and was used in performing the kriging and NS back transform of data to format to SAR image. ***An explanation of missing steps is the vesper usage where a grid is simply generated of the Global Positioning Satellite coordinates. **An underlining of steps is missing, but the manner in approaching
hypothesis is needed. Therefore the figure above was produced.

pg. 4

809004130

ResultsCocoa aux_2 Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Count Column1 29.9528061 0.19875215 28.2 25.7 7.87018347 61.9397879 2.17040038 1.2879188 49.2 14.5 63.7 1568 Disturbed aux_2 Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Count Column2 15.4452282 0.15825188 15 13.1 4.9134596 24.1420852 0.05103551 0.40842749 28.1 4 32.1 964 Undisturbed aux_2 Mean Standard Error Median Mode Standard Deviation Sample Variance Kurtosis Skewness Range Minimum Maximum Count Column3 19.8677122 0.50953512 15.2 8.5 11.8624327 140.71731 2.41888912 1.34848639 73.3 4.3 77.6 542

Table 1: The data samples from different sites. These were used in producing a final image where a complete data analysis was performed for all aux-2 with respect to the particular areas as show above.

Boxplot of Cocoa
70

60

50

Cocoa

40

30

Boxplot of Disturbed, Undisturbed

80 70 60 50

20

10

Data

40 30 20 10 0 Disturbed Undisturbed

Figure 2: The boxplot displaying the range of values and outliers using aux-2.

pg. 5

809004130

Unfiltered Scatter Plot with the R Squares value:

Aux-2 Cocoa
80 60 Aux-2 40 20 0 0 1000 Range 2000 y = -0.0064x + 34.984 R = 0.1385 Aux-2 Cocoa Linear (Aux-2 Cocoa)

Figure 3: The linear regression of unfiltered aux-2 with fairly little relation amongst values.

Aux-2 Disturbed
40 30 Aux-2 20 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 Range y = 0.0054x + 12.837 R = 0.0934 Aux-2 Disturbed Linear (Aux-2 Disturbed)

Figure 4: The linear regression of unfiltered aux-2 with fairly little relation amongst values.

Aux-2 Undisturbed
100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 Range y = -0.0211x + 25.561 R = 0.0775 Aux-2 Undisturbed Linear (Aux-2 Undisturbed) Aux-2

600

Figure 5: The linear regression of unfiltered aux-2 with little or no relation amongst values.

pg. 6

809004130

Filtered data analysis-

Histograms of unfiltered disturbed sample and the other NST transform data.

pg. 7

809004130

Histograms of unfiltered undisturbed sample and the other NST transform data.

pg. 8

809004130

Histograms of unfiltered cocoa sample and the other NST transform data.

pg. 9

809004130

Image of disturbed sample with 2.5m grid and Aux-2 NST transform.

Image of undisturbed sample with 2.5m grid and Aux-2 NST transform.

pg. 10

809004130

Image of cocoa sample with 2.5m grid and Aux-2 NST transform.

Variogram Aux-2 NST of disturbed sample.

pg. 11

809004130

Variogram Aux-2 NST of undisturbed sample.

Variogram Aux-2 NST of cocoa sample.

pg. 12

809004130

The final product of work. The disturbed, undisturbed and cocoa image samples define within a boundary after running through sgems and vesper. This is the NS-back transform.

EMv.1- The disturbed sample electro magnetic induction image after-

EMv.2- The undisturbed sample electro magnetic induction image after-

pg. 13

809004130

EMv.3- The cocoa sample electro magnetic induction image after-

Analysis

Figure 6: The electro magnetic induction of image and site: undisturbed and disturbed respectively.

pg. 14

809004130

Figure 7: The variance of the electro magnetic induction of site: undisturbed and disturbed.

Figure 8: The electro magnetic induction of cocoa field (not mentioned in the introduction).

pg. 15

809004130

Figure 9: The variance of the electro magnetic induction of the cocoa field (not mentioned above)

Discussion The spatial structure of soil moisture is linear or non linear to particular dynamics of the size of area being assessed (Narendra, et al. 2008). The size is important in understanding the moisture fluctuation of wet or dry. Soil moisture of wet to dry fluctuates even if the soil is of one class. Example, the above figures 69 show images or rather parts of the areas known as the St. Augustine soil series. The data from the cocoa field is from 2006 and the disturbed and undisturbed is 2011. There is a time line difference in the soils development but the generality remains the same for the soils series. Spatial and temporal variations in vegetation indices have been have been found to be linked to prevailing climate, ecosystem, terrain and physical soil properties (Muldera, et al. 2011). Mulder gives an advance article of how remote sensing is capable in scanning soil. The complexity of the subject matter is that the vegetative indices or vegetation data is translated from satellite and explained in how trees or vegetation affects the soil. From these google earth images on figure 6 we can easily see the translation of the DUALEM scan of the two separate areas merged unto the SAR image. (***It should be noted rain fell that morning.) Although biased with the down pour of rain and this project was based on soil moisture content and the difference on the weight of vegetation difference -affecting the soil moisture. There still can be seen

pg. 16

809004130

purpose as the resulted image (figure 6) did display large amounts of blue area to display the difference of high and low in water content in the soil. The reason for the state and evolution of soil moisture are primarily forced by precipitation (Narendra, et al. 2008). Another answer as to the variation of soil moisture is explained that, variations in soil texture, topography, crop cover and irrigation practices result in large spatial and temporal variability in soil moisture (Lunt, et al. 2005). Soil texture and crop cover are two key essential to be explained here. Before moving further ahead table 1 and figure 2 should be analyzed along with the Variograms above. Table one is the data analysis performed for aux-2 only and the boxplot further depicts the data in a suitable manner. The boxplot displays the measure of dispersion amongst the sample areas, seen as widely spread with a high census of outliers. This meant a great disproportion in the wet to dry in the sample areas. The Variogram graphs confirms the great change needed in kriging of the data and the suitability fit made in assess the electro magnetic induction data in trying to make a model to fit the area scanned as only points. This is seen in the image with 2.5m grid and Aux-2 NST transform seen above. NST stands for normal score transformation where the raw data results in the final Normal score back transformation of product. EMv.1-3 Now the crop coverage is seen along with the electro magnetic induction over mapped of the SAR image. The soil texture conforms to the crop coverage as the relation soil moisture shares to soil is shared through CAC and other functionalities as mineral composition and electrical conductivity. These are in fact the result of crop coverage. The roots of the vegetation have a greater effect upon the soil than soil with less natural undisturbed larger trees but smaller crops. This is confirmed in the figure 6. The cocoa field image confirms this although with a time lag difference. The purpose of assessing the hypothesis is proven true as the higher vegetative coverage results in higher soil water content. Serrano, et al. 2010 performed a similar research project but more advanced where he did an assessment of the variability of soil and vegetation in a permanent pasture using the same non-contact electro magnetic induction probe. The conclusion is seen in the figure 6 9. A greater in-depth explanation of how roots affect the zone of moisture is given by (Crow, et al. 2008).

Conclusion

The undisturbed land has a higher soil water concentration due to the vegetative coverage.

Number of words: 1994 excluding reference.

pg. 17

809004130

References Journals only 1. Sommer, S. Hill, J., Megier J. (1998). The potential of remote sensing for monitoring rural land use changes and their effects on soil conditions, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 67, Issues 2-3, Pages: 197-209. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00119-9 2. Narendra N. Das, Binayak P. Mohanty. (2008). Temporal dynamics of PSR-based soil moisture across spatial scales in an agricultural landscape during SMEX02: A wavelet approach. Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 112, Issue 2, Pages 522-534. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2007.05.007 3. Wen-Zhong You, et al (2010). Spatial and temporal variations of soil moisture in three types of agro forestry boundaries in the Loess Plateau, China. Journal of Forestry Research, Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 415422. doi: 10.1007/s11676-010-0091-2 4. Crow T. Wade, Kustas P. William, Prueger H. John. (2008). Monitoring root-zone soil moisture through the assimilation of a thermal remote sensing-based soil moisture proxy into a water balance model. Remote Sensing of Environment, Volume 112, Issue 4, Pages 1268-1281. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2006.11.033 5. Serrano M. Joao, et al (2010). Mapping soil and pasture variability with an electromagnetic induction sensor. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 7-16. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2010.03.008 6. Robinson T.P., Metternicht G. (2006).Testing the performance of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil properties. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 97-108. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2005.07.003 7. Muldera V.L., Bruina de S., Schaepmana M.E., Mayrc T.R. (2011) The use of remote sensing in soil and terrain mapping A review. Geoderma, Volume 162, Issues 1-2, 15 April 2011, Pages 119. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.018 8. Njoku G. Eni, Entekhabi Dara (1996). Passive microwave remote sensing of soil moisture. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 184, Issues 1-2, Pages 101-129. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(95)02970-2 9. Lunt I.A., Hubbard S.S., Rubin Y. (2005) Soil moisture content estimation using groundpenetrating radar reflection data. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 307, Issues 1-4, Pages 254-269. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.10.014 10. Champagne M. Catherine, Staenz Karl, Bannari Abdou, McNairn Heather, Deguise Jean-Claude. (2003). Validation of a hyperspectral curve-fitting model for the estimation of plant water content of agricultural canopies. Remote Sensing of Environment Volume 87, Issues 2-3, Pages 148-160. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(03)00137-8

Retrieved from: 1. http://www.sciencedirect.com 2. http://www.springerlink.com

pg. 18