DSM in Italy: the case study of the PRIN project
Terribile F(1)., Aru A., Basile A(3)., Bocchi S. (4), Bonfante A. (1), Bonifacio E. (5), Buttafuoco G. (3), Cantelli D. (6), Carnicelli S. (7), Castrignanò A. (8), Ciampalini R. (7), Comolli R. (6), Dazzi C. (9), De
Mascellis R. (3), Falsone G. (5), Iamarino M. (1), Iasio C. (7), Laudicina V. A. (9), Lo Papa G. (9), Lopez R.
(4), Manna P. (1), Monteleone S. (7), Parello F., Parisi S., Paternò M., Provenzano G., Scalenghe R. (9), Territo C. (9), Tusa D. (9), Vacca A. (2), Vingiani, S(1)., Wolf U. (7), Zanini E., Zucca C(6).
(1) DISSPA Università di Napoli Federico II; (2) Università di Cagliari; (3) CNR ISAFOM, Ercolano; (4) Università di Milano; (5) Università di Torino; (6) Università di Milano Bicocca; (7) Università di
Firenze; (8) ISA MIPAF Bari; (9) Università di Palermo
It is a national project funded by the Italian Ministry of Research (PRIN)
It is a project on methodologies to address spatial variability issue for soil mapping
An introduction to the approach In the last decade, in Italy soil mapping has indeed become a strategic tool for landscape planning at different levels (village, district, region, country) and for different purposes
•The methodologies have been well standardised and, of course, they all rely on georeferenced databases.
•Soil survey is generally performed on the budget of the different administrative regions and it is generally made by private companies of pedologists.
The standard approach – deterministic and discontinuous (s=f(cl,o,r,p,t…))
Despite the extremelly high value of the results obtained by soil mapping……………there are some problems ……….
•Of course the problem of spatial variability inside each soil mapping and soil type units
• it is an old problem Nelson e McCracken, 1962; Andrew e Stearns, 1963; Mader, 1963; Wilding et al., 1964; Powel e Springer 1965; Beckett e Webster, 1971; Bascomb e Jarvis 1976; Wilding et al. 1965; McCormack e Wilding; Nettleton et al. (1991).
•But also the lack of some major physical and hydrological soil properties (i.e. hydraulic conductivity; water retention curve, mechanical resistivity, etc.…)
•This make difficult for soil map to properly address many functional soil properties (i.e. related to water movement)
Information on the spatial variability of the soil physical properties are becoming a “must” in environmental studies,….. if meaningful result have to be given. Such framework is extremelly important moving towards the use of physically based models. Such limitation is one of the major problems in future application of soil mapping to address many environmental and agricultural problems.
Some of our problems ….
Volcanic soils and triggering mechanisms of landslide initiation: the case study of Sarno e Quindici
(ad es. Basile, Mele, Terribile. 2002. Soil hydraulic behaviour of a selected benchmark soil involved in the landslide of Sarno 1998. Geoderma Elsevier)
Campi Flegrei
Monti Lattari
Monti Lattari:Typic Hapludand
Typic Hapludand
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1101001000
theta
-h (cm)
B A
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1101001000 - h (cm)
theta
Ap
A
Bw
Campi Flegrei (Gauro): Ustivitrand
Tipologia di modelli utilizzatiAn example of the influence of soil type on pollution
susceptibility of shallow groundwaterBasile, A., De Mascellis, R., Terribile, F. 1999. Il suolo e la protezione degli acquiferi: studio pedologico e idrologico dei suoli della
piana del F. Sarno (Campania). Quaderni di Geologia Applicata. Numero monografico su "Rischio di Inquinamento"; pubbl. GNUCI-
CNR n. 2000. pp. 1251-1261
All these soils are sandy loam; they have the same score of the soil parameters in the (widespread) empirical models like
DRASTIC/SINTACS
prof. Rif. Soil Taxonomy Sos. Org. (%)
text drastic sintacs
A 2,7 FS 6 7Bw 1,6 FL
A 6,6 FS 6 8Bw 2,6 FL
A 2,8 FS 6 7Bw 1,7 F
A 2,5 FS 6 8Bw 2,5 F
A 6,6 FS 6 6Bw 2,6 FS
A 2,8 FS 6 8Bw 1,2 FS
A 2 FS 6 8Bw 1,3 SF
Vitrandic Ustochrepts
VAC2 S21 Vitrandic Hustochrept
PAL6 P32
Typic Haplustand
PAL8 P52 Aquic Hustivitrand
PAL4 P37
Eutric Haplustand
PAL5 P22 Aquic Haplustand
VAS1 P70
Vitrandic HustochreptPAL10 S14
Curve di ritenzione dei suoli franco-sabbiosiorizzonti Ap
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
110100100010000
h (cm)
(cm3 cm
-3)
Pal4
Pal5
Pal6
Pal8
Pal10
Vas1
Vac2
Curve di ritenzione dei suoli franco-sabbiosiorizzonti Bw
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
110100100010000
h (cm)
(cm3 cm
-3)
Pal4
Pal5
Pal6
Pal8
Pal10
Vas1
Vac2
Parametri idrodinamici del trasporto nei suoli franco sabbiosi
unità R P D (cm2
min-1)
V (cm min-1)
Pal4 1.13 1.06 7.79 1.03
Pal5 1.31 0.47 1.06 0.05
Pal6 0.80 8.52 0.13 0.11
Pal8 0.92 1.74 1.36 0.28
Pal10 0.73 2.3 3.42 0.6
Vas1 0.89 7.29 1.11 0.61
Vac2 0.91 2.71 7.30 1.86
S1 S 12
1.E-10
1.E-08
1.E-06
1.E-04
1.E-02
1.E+00
110100100010000 - h (cm)
k (cm/min)
S1
S12
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
110100100010000 - h (cm)
(cm3/cm3)
S1
S12
curve di fuoriuscita del soluto (breacktrough curve)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5poro - volumi
Cr
S1 S12
S1 - modello CD S12 - modello CD
S1
S 12
Flussi di soluto e di acqua con drenaggio libero
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
31/05/91 01/07/91 01/08/91 01/09/91 02/10/91 02/11/91
data
W -8
0 (
cm)
-340
-290
-240
-190
-140
-90
-40
10
SO
L
-80 (m
g cm
-2)
S1 -acqua S12 -acqua S1 -soluto S12 -soluto
Condizioni disimulazione
Condizione iniziale ContornoInferiore
Contorno Superiore
- Periodo dal 1/6 al 1/12- Ingresso del solutocontinuo fino al 15/9 eaggiunta singola il 15/9.
- Concentrazione del soluto al15/9 della precedentesimulazione.- Potenziale del suolo suolo da –150 cm in superficie a –50 cm a80 cm di profondità.
-Drenaggio libero(Falda profonda).
- Evapotraspirazione uguale ai datimedi del periodo.- Irrigazione settimanale di 300 m3
ha-1.- Conc. del soluto di 5 mg cm-3 finoal 15/9 + 400 mg cm-3 il 16/9.- Piogge medie del periodo.
Flussi di soluto e di acqua con drenaggio libero
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
31/05/91 01/07/91 01/08/91 01/09/91 02/10/91 02/11/91
data
W -8
0 (
cm)
-340
-290
-240
-190
-140
-90
-40
10
SO
L
-80 (m
g cm
-2)
S1 -acqua S12 -acqua S1 -soluto S12 -soluto
Condizioni disimulazione
Condizione iniziale ContornoInferiore
Contorno Superiore
- Periodo dal 1/6 al 1/12- Ingresso del solutocontinuo fino al 15/9 eaggiunta singola il 15/9.
- Concentrazione del soluto al15/9 della precedentesimulazione.- Potenziale del suolo suolo da –150 cm in superficie a –50 cm a80 cm di profondità.
-Drenaggio libero(Falda profonda).
- Evapotraspirazione uguale ai datimedi del periodo.- Irrigazione settimanale di 300 m3
ha-1.- Conc. del soluto di 5 mg cm-3 finoal 15/9 + 400 mg cm-3 il 16/9.- Piogge medie del periodo.
U10
U
6
13
10
11
18
15
8
6-32
7
6
32
1
4
5 9
7
8
1
6
SN
2
10-215
5
4
3
13-31
2
1
11-289
8
10
1
13
146
3
2
11-304
5
11
12
T
R
0 1 2 3 Kilometers
N
Aquic Xerofluvent
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13day
h (cm)
location 1-11
'' 2-11
'' 3-11
'' 4-11
'' 5-11
'' 6-11
'' 12-11
'' 13-11
'' 14-11
h = -800 cm
The general aims of the project:
•To approach the difficult problem of soil variability in soil mapping analysing the soil continuum by:
•Standard soil survey
•Geostatistical approaches
•Deterministic continuum approaches (i.e.DEM derived parameters; vegetation indexes, etc.) using covariates
•Measurements with a high benefit/cost ratio for high resolution survey (i.e. vegetation spectral indexes, geophysics, ultrasonic penetrometry, field fluorescence spectrometry, etc.)
•Measurement of highly relevant physical properties for low resolution survey (i.e. automatic tension infiltrometers, REV, etc.)
The research proposal has involved the following
univerisites: Napoli, Firenze, Torino, Milano, Cagliari,
Palermo and 2 research institute (CNR Isafom of
Napoli and ISA of Bari) .
Years: 2002- 2006
The people in charge of the project :
Coordinator: F. Terribile
Pedology: R. Comolli; C. Dazzi
Soil hydrology: A. Basile
Geostatistics: A. Castrignanò
Continuous deterministic approaches – S. Carnicelli
Geophysics: Geostudi (private company) & A. Vacca
Aggregation: Eleonora Bonifacio
Valchiavenna (300 ha)
Lodigiano (2000 ha)
Mustigarufi (150 ha)
Study sites: training sites for the group
Main analysis for each study area
Field
• 100 + 80 (in a sub-area) profile/auger/minipit description
• 100 + 80 (in a sub-area) penetrometric measurements
• About 30 infiltrometry test (70% with TDR measurements);
• Undisturbed samples for hydrology micromorphology on benchmark soils (about 5 profiles);
• Geophysical continuous measurement (mainly EM)
lab
• Water retention curve, Ks and micromorphology on benchmark soils
• PSD, pH (water, KCl) , total geochemistry, C org, N, carbonates, etc. on all the soils
• Aggregate stability
Foto A
Linea 1
Linea 2
FIG 8
C 10000 Hz
Linea 1Picchetto 1
Picchetto 24
Picchetto 24= 0402
Linea 2 Sondaggio foto A
CONFRONTO GEM 300 – RESISTIVITA’
FIG 7
Picchetto 1= 0404
Sondaggio 0404
Sondaggio 0402
FIG. 9
EM38DD
Area 1 traccia DGPS
Area 1 bobine verticali profondità 1.5m circa
misure conducibilità mS/mPrato: Area non coltivata
Porzione iniziale dove lo strumento non è stato calibrato in maniera corretta
Spatial distribution
Limite inferiore del
primo orizzonte
superficiale
Sabbia
Carbonio Organico
N totale
Valchiavenna
N totale DISTANZE (m) LAG
SEMIVARIANZE
ΥCarbonio
Co-Kriging collocato dell’N back-trasformato e della quota nel I°
orizzonte superficiale
class elevation slope flow8a 1900.0 6.8 6.48b 2019.2 20.1 13.58c 1901.2 24.9 9.58d 1971.1 33.0 52.38e 1885.1 17.0 38.88f 1907.3 16.3 245.38g 2032.2 6.2 21.18h 1825.5 39.7 19.3
Landforms classification(Unsupervised Fuzzy k-means)
elevation slopeflow accumulation
soil types and landforms
(Unsupervised Fuzzy k-means classification)
Soil data:
Minipits: n. 110
Profiles: n. 5
CASE STUDY: Valchiavenna (Central Alps – Italy)**
Landform classes
Lanscape analysis and soil variability
slope
tangential curvature profile curvature
flow accumulation
Landforms classification(Supervised Fuzzy k-means)
Soil types: average terrain data(slope, tangential curvature, profile curvature, flow accumulation)
(Supervised Fuzzy k-means classification)
SOIL TYPE N. Slope Profile Tangential Flow% curvature curvature accumulation
PZ 42 18.8 0.001555 0.001413 20.4HI 3 8.9 -0.002533 0.000633 42.1LP 20 29.8 0.000320 0.002845 39.5CM 24 23.9 0.000083 0.000096 32.7FL 5 11.4 -0.000840 -0.000980 448.1RG 10 16.8 0.000310 -0.001410 77.9
67
1121
378
42
35
35
15
Percentage of soil type data accounted by their terrain average values
Podzols map Cambisols mapLeptosols map
Soil type data:
Podzol: n. 42
Cambisol: n. 24
Leptosol: n. 20
First Conclusions
We produced, in the 3 study areas, a unique soil database (at least for Italy), in terms of type of analysis and spatial resolution of the measurements.
It is a very important site where to test methodologies on spatial variability
Feasibility of producing in little time (1-2 weeks /area) an intensive survey of morphological and physical measurements.
First Conclusions
We now plan to address the soil functioning especially in the plain of Lodi with reference to two applications: (i) filtering (nitrate leaching); (ii) crop production
The project will finish in dec 2005 and …..we are very much looking for collaborations and help……
Modello di simulazione (SWAP)
OUTPUT proprietà funzionali W-80 e SOL-80
PARAMETRI SPAZIALMENTE
DIPENDENTI
Proprietà idrauliche
Parametri di trasporto dei soluti
PARAMETRI SPAZIALMENTE
INDIPENDENTI
Parametri della coltura (Kc, funzione di attingimento radicale, etc)
Condizioni Iniziali e al contorno inferiore (falda) e superiore (ETp, pioggie, irrigazioni, sversamenti, etc)
RichardsC(h) h/t = /z [ K(h) (h/z + 1)] - S
EQUAZIONI DEL MOTO DELL’ACQUA E DEL TRASPORTO DEI SOLUTI
Convezione-DispersioneR (Cr/T) = 1/P (2/Cr/Z2) - (Cr/Z)