Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005) p: 1-14

MODELING SOIL-LANDSCAPE RELATIONSHIPS

Yiyi Sulaeman*, Hikmatullah, and H. Subagyo
Indonesian Soil Research Institute (ISRI)

Soil-landscape model represents both relationships between soil and landform

and the relationships between the pattern of soil-landform relationship and processes
of pedogeomorphic evolution. This paper aims to get insight about soil-landscape
relationships as a basis for soil-landscape modeling with giving emphasis on the
methodology and the review of the modeling result of research from developed
countries since the advent of GIS. The modeling follows four consecutive stages:
physiographic domain characterization, geomorphometric characterization of the
landscape, horizon stratigraphy characterization and soil property characterization.
Landscape position determines soil profile properties and horizon properties. At large
scale, slope, flow accumulation, and CTI are best predictors for A-horizon depth (R2=
0.85), whereas CTI alone accounts for 71 % of variance. Flow accumulation and upslope
mean profile curvature are best predictors for soil depth (R2= 0.88), whereas CTI alone
accounts for 84 % of variance. Slope and flow accumulation are best predictor for
carbon content (R2 = 0.80), and CTI accounts for 78 % of variance. A tree with five
terminal nodes was optimal for predicting soil profile depth with slope, CTI, relative
elevation, and temperature as predictors. A tree with five terminal nodes was optimal
for predicting total soil phosphorus with radiometric potassium, relief, downslope
gradient, and plan curvature as predictors. At intermediate to small scale, gilgai and
landform are best predictor for clay content (R2 = 0.51). Gilgai is best predictor for
prediction of EC (R2=0.364), and landform is best predictor for ESP (R2=0.561). A tree
with six terminal nods was optimal for predicting depth of A horizon of tuff soil in
Lampung Province, Indonesia with average slope and elevation as predictors. Modeling
has increasingly developed mainly due to the advance of computer technology both
software and hardware. Generalized linear model and tree-based model can be used to
develop quantitative soil-landscape relationship

Keyword: Soil-landscape relationship, modeling, regression tree, environmental

correlation, Lampung

Abbreviation: CTI = compound topographic index; EC=electric conductivity;

ESP=exchangeable sodium percentage
* Corresponding author

INTRODUCTION landform in the soil landscape system

Basically, a model is an abstract and the relationship between pattern
reduction or simplification of the and process of pedogeomorphic
complex natural system (Dijkerman, evolution (McSweenay et al., 1994).
1974; Hoosbeek and Bryant, 1992; The general objective for
Hoosbeek et al., 2000). It is a modeling is to better organize
conceptual model, as opposed to information related to the
concrete model (real physical object). understanding of soils and ultimately
It is actually also a system, but of a improve prediction of the consequence
simpler and often more abstract in of human interaction with soil
nature (Dijkerman, 1974). Using this (Hoosbeek et al., 2000). Pedologists
definition, soil-landscape model thus build models as convenient device for
refers to an abstract reduction of both collecting, describing, explaining, and
complex relationships between soil and predicting data (Dijkerman, 1974). In
2 Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)
soil landscape modeling, pedologists
are challenged to: 1) identify and
define where landform-soil horizon
relationship is strong; 2) determine the
feasibility of using these relationships
for extrapolation across the landscape;
and 3) interpret these relationships in
terms of process and events that result
in soil-landscape evolution (McSweenay
et al., 1994). In short, pedologist are
challenged to build a good model that
can be used for soil properties
prediction and for further studies such
as global climate change study, land
evaluation, environmental impact
assessment, and simulation modeling.
In addition, Dijkerman (1974) reveals
the characteristics of pedological
model, Hoosbeek and Bryant (1992)
provides a framework for classification
of pedological model, while Hoosbeek
et al (2000) recently reviewed the
established pedological model.
McSweenay et al (1994) provides
a framework for soil landscape
modeling particularly for soil
properties prediction. Modeling process
follow four consecutive stages: 1)
physiographic domain characterization
that involves integration of available
data sets to define and characterize
the physiographic area under study, to
consolidate a priori knowledge about
the area, and to identify other data
that might be valuable for defining soil
pattern; 2) geomorphometric
characterization of the landscape by
primary and secondary landscape
attributes derived from a digital
elevation model (DEM); 3) horizon
stratigraphy characterization that
includes development of a soil horizon
legend that is used to determine the
distribution and spatial relationship
among soil horizons and other layers in
the landscape; and 4) soil property
characterization that involves
laboratory and statistical analysis of
soil horizon attributes collected during
the third stage. However, the study of
soil-landform relationship itself has
begun since 1935, since catena concept
was established (Milne, 1935).
The significance of the soil-
landscape model is that it can be used
as another tool for prediction of soil
properties by taking advantage of the
correlation of quantitative
environmental variables and soil
properties (e.g. McKenzie and McLoad,
1989; McKenzie et al., 1991; Odeh et
al., 1991; Moore, 1993; Odeh et al.,
1994). The advent in computer
technology promotes this approach. In
addition to this approach, spatial
prediction of soil properties can be
conducted using geostatistics (e.g.
Webster and Burger, 1985; Laslett and
McBratney, 1990; Oberthur et al.,
1999; Lagacherie and Voltz, 2000).
Geostatistical methods have proven
useful at large scale but their utility at
intermediate and smaller scales (i.e.
equivalent to cartographic scales from
1:50.000 to 1: 250.000) is less clear.
Besides, it requires dense data, detail,
and plain area so that grid-sampling
technique becomes effective. On the
other hand, soil-landscape model (or
environmental correlation according to
McKenzie and Ryan, 1999) can be
applied in any topographic condition
and scale of study. This has the
advantage of incorporating the
qualitative process knowledge of the
pedologist into spatial prediction as
well as providing a more realistic
portrayal of soil variation that can be
both continuous and discontinuous
(McKenzie and Ryan, 1999). However,
some attempts have been triad to
integrate both approach i.e. mapped
polygons used prior stratification prior
to, or during, geostatistical analysis
(e.g. Volt and Webster, 1990).
Soil-landscape model is also
important for land evaluation and
eventually for land use planning. It
provides data and information about
terrain as well as soil properties
Sulaeman et al. Modeling soil-landscape relationship
required for land evaluation. Land
evaluation basically compares land use
requirement with land characteristics
and land qualities. For unvisited areas,
land evaluation still can be conducted
as land qualities can be predicted using
this model.
The objective of this paper is to
get insight about soil-landscape
relationships as a basis for soil-
landscape modeling activity. This
paper gives emphasis on the
methodology of modeling process and
the review of the result of research
from developed countries since the
advent of Geographic Information
System (GIS). Such modeling has been
conducted in different locations using
similar methodologies, but with
different scales, so that this
presentation is arranged on case-by-
case basis. The discussion is addressed
on methodology issue and the
efficiency of prediction.
METHODOLOGY
Case study 1:
The effect of landscape position on
soil properties variation
Young and Hammer (2000)
conducted this study in northwestern
Boone County, Missouri. They
classified site into three landforms;
ridge slope (slope gradient 1 to 3 %),
shoulder (slope gradient 2 to 4 %), and
backslope (slope gradients generally 4
to 8 %, with a maximum of 15%). Using
transect method with 15 m interval,
soil profiles were described using
standard method (Soil Survey Division
Staff, 1993). Soil samples, then, were
took according to depth increments
below the A-horizon: depth of A-1 is
variable, 20 cm max; A-2 is also
variable, rest of A horizon; B-1 is upper
15 cm of argilic horizon; B-2 is next 15-
cm depth increment; B3 is next 20-cm
increment; and B-4 was next 20-cm
depth increment, in order to ensure
database uniformity.
3
Particle size, organic carbon,
bases, cation exchange capacity (CEC),
and pH were determined. Soil
property difference among landscape
classes were examined for (i) landform
(ridge, shoulder, and backslope; (ii)
plan and profile curvature (convex,
plane, and concave, for pedons
sampled on the backslope only, and
(iii) position along the slope gradient
(upper, mid, lower, and footslope for
pedon sampled on the backslope only).
Data are analyzed using non-
parametric approach since previous
study show that data non-linearly
distribute (Young et al., 1999).
Case study 2:
Modeling soil-landscape relationship
at large scale using general linear
approach
Gessler et al (2000) carried out
this study in the Santa Ynez River
Basin, Santa Barbara County,
California. Five digital elevation
models (DEMs) were developed from
which primary and secondary terrain
attributes (Moore et al., 1991) that
quantify landform (e.g. slope gradient,
profile and plane curvature, flow
direction, flow accumulation,
compound topographic index (CTI), and
upslope mean statistics) are computed.
Soil profiles were described using
standard procedures (Soil Survey
Division staff, 1993) and soil sample
analysis were carried out for
determining organic C and N, bulk
density, texture, pH, CEC, and base
saturation. The mass of C in each
horizon was calculated by multiplying
the measured organic C (OC)
percentage, corrected for gravel
content, by the measured bulk
densities.
They developed soil-landscape
models of A-horizon depth, soil depth,
and C-mass using general linear model
approach with quantitative terrain
attributes as predictors. Due to the
4 Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)
small sample number, only linear
relationships were used for modeling.
Case study 3:
Modeling soil landscape relationship
at large scale using tree-based
approach
McKenzie and Ryan (1999)
conducted this study at Bago-Maragle,
Southern New South Wales, Australia,
using design-based, stratified, two-
stage sampling with geology, landform,
and climate stratifying variable.
Geology maps were digitized and DEM
was developed using digital contours,
streamlines, and spot heights. Prescott
index providing a simple estimate of
microclimate across the study area and
a cheap estimate of relative wetness
and CTI quantifying landscape position
were calculated.
They described soil morphology
and collected soil samples using
Australian standard. Total soil
phosphorus was determined using a
Kjehldal acid digest. Model for soil-
profile-depth and total soil phosphorus
prediction were developed using tree-
based approach.
Case study 4:
Modeling soil landscape-relationship
at intermediate scale using
generalized linear approach
McKenzie and Austin (1993)
carried out this study at Macquarie
Valley on the Central Tablelands of
New South Wales, Australia using
transect method with 300 m sampling
intervals. Soil morphology, bulk
density, electrical conductivity, pH
then was determined. They used
multivariate analysis for detecting
group, trends, and outliers and general
linear technique for developing model
soil-landscape relationship.
Case study 5:
Modeling soil-landscape relationship
at intermediate scale using tree-
based approach in Lampung Province,
Indonesia
This study is part of author’s
thesis. The study combining both
stratigraphic approach as in McKenzie
and Ryan (1993) and terrain analysis
approach is still in progress. The study
is conducted at reconnaissance scale in
Lampung Province Indonesia. Geologic
maps (Burhan et al., 1993; Amin et al.,
1994; Gafoer et al., 1994; and Mangga
et al., 1994) and observation map of
previous study (Tim Puslittanak, 1994)
were digitized. Soil profiles from tuff
area are used for modeling. Model for
A-horizon depth prediction is
developed using tree-based approach
(Venables and Ripley, 1994).
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Result
Influence of landscape position on soil
properties variability
Landscape position seemingly
leads to the uneven of soil profile
properties. Table 1 shows that Clmx
(i.e maximum clay content in the
argillic horizon), Ctcl (i.e. clay content
in the particle size control section or
top 50 cm of argillic), Ardp (i.e. depth
of argillic horizon), Moep (i.e.
thickness of the mollic epipedon or
colors meeting mollic criteria), OrgC
(i.e. percentage organic carbon by
weight in the upper 100 cm of the
pedon), and Modp (i.e. depth to iron
depletion) of soil on ridge, shoulder,
and backslope are significantly
different.
The horizon properties tend to
vary with landscape position. For
horizon A-1 (Table 2), for instance,
there are significant difference in clay,
silty clay loam (SiCL), Mg, cation
exchange capacity at pH 7 (CEC7), base
saturation at pH 7 (BS7), OC, and pH,
between ridge and bacslope.
Sulaeman et al. Modeling soil-landscape relationship 5

Significantly different in SiCL, properties can be explained by the use

Mg, and OC are also shown on shoulder of landscape position.
and backslope comparison. This
suggests that the variability of horizon

Table 1. Summary of nonparametric test for significant difference among

landform for median of variables representing pedon properties

Comparison Pedon properties

Clmx Ctcl Ardp Moep OrgC Modp
All 1 1 1 1 1 1
Ridge vs shoulder ns ns ns ns ns ns
Ridge vs backslope 1 1 1 5 1 1
Shoulder vs backslope 1 1 ns 1 1 1

1= significant at 1 % level; 5=significant at 5 % level;

ns=not significant at 1 % level or 5 % level
Source: Young and Hammer (2000)

Table 2. Summary of nonparametric test for significant difference among

landforms for medians of variables representing horizon properties

Hor. Landform Clay SiCL Ca Mg ECEC CEC7 BS-7 OC pH

A-1 Over 5 1 ns 1 ns 1 1 1 1
1x2 ns ns ns 5 ns ns Ns ns ns
1x3 1 1 ns 1 ns 1 1 5 1
2x3 ns 1 ns 1 ns ns ns 5 1
A-2 Over ns 1 1 1 1 ns 1 ns ns
1x2 ns ns ns 5 ns ns ns ns 1
1x3 ns 1 1 1 1 ns 1 ns ns
2 x.3 ns 1 5 ns 5 ns 1 ns 1
B-1 Over 1 1 5 ns ns 1 1 ns 1
1x2 ns ns ns ns ns ns 5 ns ns
1x3 1 1 5 ns ns 1 1 ns 1
2x3 1 1 ns ns ns 5 1 ns 1
B-2 Over 1 1 5 1 ns ns 1 1 1
1x2 ns ns ns 5 ns ns 5 ns ns
1x3 1 1 5 1 ns ns 1 1 1
2 x.3 1 1 5 ns ns ns 5 1 1
B-3 Over 1 1 ns 1 ns 5 ns 1 ns
1x2 ns ns ns 1 ns 5 ns ns ns
1x3 1 1 ns 1 ns ns ns 1 ns
2 x.3 5 1 ns 1 ns 5 ns 1 ns
B-4 Over 1 1 1 1 ns ns 1 1 1
1x2 ns ns 1 ns ns ns ns ns ns
1x3 1 1 1 1 ns ns 1 1 1
2x3 1 1 ns ns ns ns 1 1 5

1=significant at 1% level; 5=significant at 5 %; ns=not significant;

“over”=overall test among ridge, shoulder, and backslope; “1 x 2”=ridge-shoulder
comparison; “1 x 3”=ridge-backslope comparison; “2 x 3”=shoulder-backslope
comparison.
Source: Young and Hammer, 2000
6 Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)

Detail study on backslope area mottle (motldepth) of profiles from

shows that there are significantly
different in some properties of soil
from convex, plane, and concave
positions, either on plan curvature or
profile curvature (Table 3). On plan
curvature, Ca content, organic carbon
content, and BS-7 of soil from convex
position is significantly different from
that of concave position, Depth of
convex position is significantly from
plane position. On profile curvature,
SiCL texture of soil from at plane
position is significantly different from
that of concave position. Meanwhile,
clay content of soil from concave
position differs significantly from that
of soil from convex position at horizon
B.

Table 3. Medians of variables that are significantly different (P<0.05) among plan
and profile curvature classes within the backslope

Median
Variables Horizon Significance
Convex (1) Plane (2) Concave (3)
Plan Curvature
Ca B-4 1 vs.3 12.7 13 14.7
OC B-2 1 vs.3 0.6 - 0.5
BS-7 B-3 1 vs.3 74 - 83
BS-7 B-4 1 vs.3 77 80 86.5
MotlDepth - 1 vs.2 46 65 50
Profile curvature
SiCL B-1 2 vs. 3 - 94.3 93
SiCL B-3 2 vs.3 - 95.4 93
Clay A-2 2 vs.3 - 28.5 25.3
Clay B-4 1 vs.3 32.9 - 33.5
Source: Young and Hammer, 2000 (-) no data

Quantitative relationship between soil magnitude of either slope or CTI. For

properties and landscape attributes at
large scale
Table 4 lists mathematical
equations relating soil properties and
landscape attributes in Santa Ynez
basin, Santa Barbara County,
California. Depth of A-horizon can be
predicted by the use of slope, flow
accumulation, and CTI. Each variable
in this equation has significant
influence on the variability of the A-
horizon depth as shown by its
coefficient that significantly differs
from 0. Both slope and CTI have
negative sign suggesting that both
variables has negative relationship with
depth of A-horizon; depth of A-horizon
decrease with increasing the
A-horizon depth prediction, model
having these predictors (slope, flow
accumulation, and CTI) accounts for 85
% of the total variance, whereas model
having one predictor (CTI) accounts for
71 % of the total variance (Table 4).
This suggests that CTI have superior
contribution to the variance of A-
horizon depth in compare to slope
gradient and flow accumulation.
Soil depth can be predicted by
the use of flow accumulation and
upslope mean profile curvature,
although upslope mean-profile
curvature shows insignificant
contribution to the variability of soil
depth. This model accounts for 88 % of
the total variance. If CTI is predictor,
Sulaeman et al. Modeling soil-landscape relationship 7

the model accounts for 84 % of the total variance (Table 4).

Table 4. Soil-landscape models with regression coefficients and model fit

statistics

Predicted variable Multiple regression models R2

A-hor. depth 1272.55-13.55 slp**+437.58 log (flac)** -432.56 cti** 0.85**
A-hor. depth -44.89+14.23 cti** 0.71**
Soil depth -383.21+120.83 log (flac)** -40.42 umpns 0.88**
Soil depth -429.73+111.12 cti** 0.84**
C mass -47.76-1.83 slpns+43.02 log (flac)** 0.80**
C mass -141.24+45.58 cti** 0.78**

* Significant at the 0.05 probability level; **significant at the 0.01 probability

level; ns is not significant; slp=slope percentage; flac=contributing flow
accumulation or watershed area; cti=compound topographic index; ump=upslope
mean profile curvature.
Source: Gessler et al., 2000

Carbon organic content can be accounts for 78 % of the total variance

predicted by the use of slope and flow
accumulation though slope gives
insignificant contribution. This model
accounts for 80 % of the total of carbon
content variance, but the model
if CTI as predictor.
Model of A horizon depth and soil
depth provides initial approximation of
the soil-landscape structure across the
catena hillslope.

Figure 1. Regression tree for the prediction of soil profile depth (m) in the Bago-
Maragle, Australia (McKenzie and Ryan, 1999)
8 Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)
The A horizon is the most
biologically active layer where most
soil C is stored. Its thickness is
indicative of biological activity, but it
also provides clues to the location of
erosion and deposition on the hillslope.
Soil depth provides and indication of
water storage pools, overall
productivity, and longer-term erosion,
deposition, and soil building processes.
Over all, these variables provide a
basis for hypothesizing the spatial
distribution of process zones and
landscape function.
Figure 1 shows tree-based
model for soil profile depth.
Regression tree provide (i) information
of predictors and their contribution to
the response variance. Contribution
decreases from top (order 1) to down;
(ii) terminal nodes, that provide
predicted value namely number in
rectangular and variance showing
homogeneity of predicted data for
given area. Variance or more common
in regression tree called deviance close
to zero means predicted data is more
homogeny. Number in circle is also
predicted data but it then subject to
further decomposition.
Slope, position of landscape
(CTI), relative elevation, and climate
(temperature) are predictor variables
for profile depth prediction at Bago-
Maragle, Southern New South Wales,
Australia (Figure 1). Comparing to
others, slope is the most important
predictor as shown by regression tree
where it is on first order. Average
profile depth from whole area is 2.10
m. The gentle area (slope less than 5
%) has deeper profile depth (3.20 m)
and accounts for larger variance
(1.02). The CTI is the most important
variable in gentle area, where lower
area (CTI more than 10.3) has highest
profile depth (4.85 m). Relative
elevation is the most important
splitting variable in the steep area
(slope more than 5 %), where lower
area (relative elevation less than 3.8)
has deeper profile depth (2.37m).
McKenzie and Ryan (1999) stated that a
tree with six terminal nodes was
optimal for predicting soil profile
depth and this model accounts for a
modest 42 % reduction in variance
compared to a null model (i.e. single
mean).
A regression tree model
predicting total phosphorus (T ha-1)
summed over the top 1.0 m of soil
profile is presented in Fig. 2. McKenzie
and Ryan (1999) reported that a tree
with five terminal nodes to be optimal
and it accounts for 78.5 % of the
variance. The rad. K less than 0.84
accounting for a large proportion of
the variance (i.e. 46.9) identifies
basalt and depositional areas with high
level of phosphorus (i.e. 13.01 Tha-1).
Higher potassium (15.25 T ha –1) in this
area may be found on sites with high
relief (> 38 m). In high relief, areas
having downslope gradient less than 7
% tend to be zone of sediment
accumulation and have a large total
phosphorus value (23.97 T ha-1). In
these areas, higher total phosphorus
(15.04 T ha-1) may be found at plan
curvature less than 0.8.
Quantitative relationship between soil
properties and landscape attributes at
intermediate scale
Table 5 lists the model for
predicting some soil properties within
pedoderm of Trangie Cowal and Gin
Gin Hills. A pedoderm is a mappable
unit of soil, which is at either the
land’s surface, or partially or wholly
buried by other pedoderm. Pedoderm
represents one period in which soil
formation has taken place;it was once,
and may still be, at the land’s surface
(McKenzie and Austin, 1993).
Within Trangie Cowal pedoderm,
clay content at 0.10 m can be
predicted by the use of gilgai
occurrence and landform. Geomorphic
Sulaeman et al. Modeling soil-landscape relationship
process in this pedoderm is fluvial
deposition from fine suspended
sediment and pedologic feature is silty
red-brown earths with clear argillic
Figure 2. Regression tree for the prediction of total soil phosphorus in the upper
1.00 m (T ha-1) in the Bago-Maragle, Australia (McKenzie and Ryan, 1999)
Landform is divided to two
groups, namely crest or slope and
depression. Using this model, predicted
clay content on depression area is 48.6
% if gilgai is present and 32.8 % if gilgai
is absence. In this pedoderm, the
present of gilgai and depression is good
predictor for clay content because they
associated with high clay content. This
model accounts for 50.8 % of variance.
Within Gin Gin Hills pedoderm,
electrical conductivity (EC) can be
predicted by the use of the occurrence
of gilgai accounting for 36.4 % of
variance, whereas exchangeable
sodium percentage can be predicted by
the use of landform position
accounting 56.1 % of variance. This
pedoderm is possibly formed from
9
horizon some 0.40 to 0.60 m thick
(McKenzie and Austin, 1993).
aeolian accession and it has strong red,
weathered gradational and duplex soils
with cracking clay in drainage
depression. EC is high if gilgai present
i.e.0.85 mmhos. ESP on depression
region is higher than other landform
i.e. 20.1 %.
Regression tree for prediction of
A-horizon depth of soils developed
from tuff in Lampung Province,
Indonesia, is presented in Fig. 3.
Predicted depth of A-horizon is thinner
on sloping area (0.142 m) than that of
plain area (0.209 m). Also, it shows
that predicted depth of A-horizon in
low elevation (0.16 m) is thicker than
that of in high elevation (0.117 m).
These relates to the difference
of pedogeomorphic process between
10 Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)

two areas. In sloping-high area, erosion deposition of soil and solute material is
carrying surface soil is dominant. dominant.
Conversely, in low-plain area,

Table 5. Within-pedoderm model for clay content, EC, and ESP

Clay content at 0.10 m a

Clay = 22.8 + Gilgai (i) + Landform (j) R2=50.8 %

Gilgai (i)
Gilgai absent 0.0
Gilgai present 16.1

Landform (j)
Crest/slopes 0.0
Depressions 9.7

Electrical conductivity at 0.70 m b

Log (EC1:5) = -2.69 (0.19) + gilgai (i) R2=36.4%
gilgai (i)
Gilgai absent 0.0
Gilgai present 2.62 (0.63)

Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) at 0.70 m b

ESP = 4.2 + landform (i) R2=56.1%
Landform (i)
Crest 0.0
Waxing slope -1.2 (3.8)
Simple slope 2.4 (3.5)
Waning slope 2.3 (3.1)
Depression 15.9 (3.6)
Pedoderm: a) Trangie Cowal, b) Gin Gin Hills; (..) standard error of parameter estimate
Source: McKenzie and Austin (1993)

Discussion environmental variables. Topography

These studies emphasize the at large-scale study refers to terrain.
important of soil data for modeling Hence, term of environmental variable
soil-landscape relationship is used for modeling soil-landscape at
quantitatively. The premise behind this small to intermediate scale or analysis
is that there is close relationship scale for resource management domain
between soil properties and terrain (Eswaran and Kimble, 2003).
attribute (Moore, 1993; Gessler et al., Meanwhile, term of terrain attribute is
2000) or, more general, environmental used for modeling soil-landscape at
variables (McKenzie and Ryan, 1999). large scale or analysis scale for farm
Terrain is actually part of recommendation domain (Eswaran and
environmental variables. McKenzie Kimble, 2003). Research conducted by
and Ryan (1999) include climate, Young and Hammer (2000) actually
topography, parent material, supports this premise by proving it
organisms, and time (i.e. factors of soil statistically. Their study is an
formation of Jenny (1941)) as improvement of previous studies (e.g.
Sulaeman et al. Modeling soil-landscape relationship
Milne, 1935; Jenny, 1941; Buol et al.,
Figure 3. Regression tree for the prediction of A-horizon depth (in m) of tuff soil in
Lampung Province, Indonesia
In quantitative soil-landscape
modeling, one often deals with
statistical analysis as done by workers
in this paper. For inference purpose,
statistical analyses always rely on some
assumption. One assumption that is
always used in regression analysis or
general linear technique and analysis
of variance of model is that data
distribute normally (Graybill, 1976;
Rencher, 1995; Draper and Smith,
1981). Yet, Young at al (1999) shows
that such assumption is not always true
for soil data. They found the majority
of soil properties distribute non-
normally. Another assumption is soil
and environmental variables are
independent to each other. Also, this
11
1997).
assumption cannot be afforded by soil
data that have co-linearity. To fulfill
these assumptions, therefore, one
must conduct special preliminary
analysis such as principal component
analysis, factor analysis, or canonical
analysis (Morrison, 1976; Rencher,
1995). Some workers have applied
these analyses to soil data e.g. Tan et
al (2000) who used canonical analysis
and Park and Vlek (2003) who applied
principal component analysis.
Statistical modeling technique is
another issue in quantitative soil-
landscape modeling. In this paper two
techniques have been demonstrated
i.e. generalized linear model (e.g.
Gessler et al., 2000) and tree-based
12
model (e.g. McKenzie and Ryan, 1999).
The combination of generalized linear
models and generalized additive
models is superior to tree-based
procedure but all were acceptable for
practical application. The advantage of
tree-based model is the capacity to
model non-additive and non-linear
relationship in relatively simple way
being useful for pedologic data where
interactions between the response
variable and environmental
explanatory variables are often
conditional on other explanatory
variables. In contrast, the generalized
model is able to use continuous (e.g.
CTI) or nominal (e.g. rock type). As a
consequence, predictions are more
realistic because they portray soil
variation as being gradual or
discontinuous. The response variable of
a generalized linear model can be
continuous or binary (McKenzie and
Ryan, 1999).
Since 1990-an, the method of
soil-landscape modeling has
increasingly developed due to some
factors. First factor is the advent of
computer technology. Nowadays
software and hardware have been
created. For soil research particularly
pedological study, one may use GIS
software such as ArcView, ArcInfo,
MapInfo, IDRISI, ILWIS, etc. To analyze
soil data, one can use statistical
software such as S-plus, SPSS, Systat,
SAS, etc. Some GIS software (e.g.
IDRISI 32) even has provided module
for statistical analysis. Computer
peripherals also have developed. One
may use digitizing table to input analog
map. Also, one can use big-
sophisticated printer to print maps.
Overall, without these tolls, it is
impossible for Gessler et al (2000),
McKenzie and Ryan (1999) and other
workers to develop three-dimension
landscape and build mathematical
model of soil-landscape relationship.
Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)
These tools facilitate workers to
develop and demonstrate their idea.
Second, workers more realize
that in nature all variable co-relate to
each other. As a result, they use soil
quality as predictor instead of soil
characteristic. For instance, Gessler et
al (2000) used CTI instead of slope to
estimate soil properties. CTI is not soil
characteristic but land quality. CTI is
useful in integrating topographic
variable that is a guide to water and
sediment movement in particular
landscapes. In addition to that, in
nature land is not flat (two dimension)
as on map, but 3-dimension. Hence,
prediction will more reliable if 3-
dimension is used. Terrain attributes
provide a quantification of landform
shape, connectivity and adjacencies
that define external landscape
geomorphometry and water flow
patterns.
Third factor that contributes to
the advent of soil-landscape modeling
is the abundant, readily available data
from previous study. Using this,
workers can try to correlate one soil
characteristic to other soil
characteristics or to soil qualities. This
study is helpful in determining whether
one variable is dependent variable or
independent variable. This information
is used as basis of later studies.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
1. Landscape position significantly
determine the characteristic of the
soil
2. Prediction based on 3-dimension is
more reliable than 2-dimension and
more accurate in detail scale
3. General linear and tree-based
model can be used to develop soil-
landscape modeling
4. By general linear model technique,
slope, flow accumulation and
compound topographic index may
be used as predictors for A-hor
depth; flow accumulation and
Sulaeman et al. Modeling soil-landscape relationship
upper mean slope and CTI are the
best predictors for soil depth; flow
accumulation and CTI is the best
predictor for Cmass; microrelief and
landscape position is the best
predictor fro clay content; and
landscape position is the best
predictor for ESP.
5. By tree-based technique, slope,
CTI, relative elevation and
temperature is best predictor for
soil profile depth; rad K and relief
are best predictor for total soil
phosphorus
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank to the
Indonesian Department of Agriculture
thru PAATP Project, Agency for
Agricultural Research and Development
for funding this paper.
REFERENCE CITED
Amin, T.C, Sidarto, C. Santoso, and W.
Gunawan (1994) Geology of
Kotaagung quadrangle, Sumatera.
Geological research and
Development Centre, Indonesia.
Buol, S.W., F.D. Hole, R.J. McCracken,
R.J. Shouthard (1997) Soil Genesis
and Classification. 4th edition. The
Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Burhan, G., W. Gunawan, Y. Noya, and
U. Subiyatna (1993) Geology of the
Menggala quadrangle, Sumatera.
Geological Research and
Development Centre, Indonesia.
Dijkerman, J.C. (1974) Pedology as
science: the role of data model
and theories in the study of natural
system. Geoderma 11: 73-93.
Draper, M.R. and H. Smith (1981) Applied
Regression Analysis. John Wiley
and Sons. New York.
Eswaran, H. and J. Kimble (2003) Land
quality assessment and monitoring:
the next challenge for soil science.
Pedosphere 13 (1): 1-10.
Gafoer, S., T.C. Amin, and R. Pardede
(1994) Geology of Baturaja
quadrangle, Sumatera. Geological
13
Research and Development Centre,
Indonesia.
Gessler, P.E., O.A. Chadwick, F.
Chamran, L. Althorse, and K.
Holmes (2000) Modeling soil-
landscape and ecosystem
properties using terrain attributes.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:2046-2056.
Graybill, F.A. (1976) Theory and
Application of the Linear Model.
Duxury Press, North Scituate,
Massachusetts.
Hoosbeek, M.R. and R.B. Bryant (1992)
Towards the quantitative modeling
of pedogenesis-a review.
Geoderma 55: 183-210.
Hoosbeek, M.R., R.G. Amudson, and R.B.
Bryant (2000) Pedological
modeling.. In: Handbook of Soil
Science. M.E. Sumner (editors).
CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. E77-
E116.
Jenny, H. (1941) Factors of Soil
Formation. McGraw-Hill Co., New
York.
Lagacherie, P. and M. Voltz (2000)
Predicting soil properties over a
region using sample information
from a mapped reference area and
digital elevation data: conditional
probability approach. Geoderma
97: 187-208.
Laslett, G.M. and A.B. McBratney (1990).
Further comparison of spatial
method for predicting soil pH. Soil
Sci.Soc.Am.J. 54: 1553-1558.
Mangga, S.A, A. Amiruddin, T. Suwardi,
S. Gafoer, and Sidarto (1994)
Geology of the Tanjungkarang
quadrangle, Sumatera. Geological
Research and Development Centre,
Indonesia.
McKenzie, N.J., K.R. Smettem, and A.J.
Ringrose-Voase (1991) Evaluation
of methods for inferring air and
water properties of soils from field
morphology. Aust. J. Soil Res.
29:587-602.
McKenzie, N.J. and D.A. McLoad (1989)
Relationship between soil
morphology and soil properties
relevant to irrigated and dryland
14
agriculture. Aust. J. Soil Res.
27:235-258.
McKenzie, N.J. and M.P. Austin (1993) A
quantitative Australian approach
to medium and small scale surveys
based on soil stratigraphy and
environmental correlation.
Geoderma 57: 329-355.
McKenzie, N.J. and P.J. Ryan (1999)
Spatial prediction of soil properties
using environmental correlation.
Geoderma 89: 67-94.
McSweeney, K., P.E. Gessler, B. Slater,
R.D. Hammer, J. Bell, and G.W.
Petersen (1994) Towards a new
framework for modeling the soil-
landscape continuum. In: Factors
of Soil Formation: A Fiftieth
Anniversary Perspective. R.G.
Amudson, M.J. Singer, and J.W.
Hardin (editors). Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Spec. Publ. No.33. SSSA, Madison,
WI, pp.127-145.
Milne, G. (1935) Normal erosion as a
factor in soil profile development.
Nature 138: 548-549.
Moore, I.D., P.E. Gessler, G.A. Nielson,
and G.A. Peterson (1993) Soil
attribute prediction using terrain
analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:
443-452.
Morrison, D.F. (1976) Multivariate
Statistical Methods. 2nd edition.
McGraw-Hill Book, Co., New York.
Oberthur, T., P. Goovaerts, and A.
Doberman (1999) Mapping soil
texture class using field texture,
particle size distribution and local
knowledge by both conventional
and geostatistical methods.
European Journal of Soil Science
50:457-479.
Odeh, I.O.A., A.B. McBratney, and D.J.
Chittleborough (1994) Spatial
Jurnal Ilmu Tanah dan Lingkungan Vol 5 (2) (2005)
prediction of soil properties from
landform attribute derived from a
digital elevation model. Geoderma
63: 197-214.
Odeh, I.O.A., D.J. Chittleborough, and
A.B. McBratney (1991) Elucidation
of soil-landform relationship by
canocoidal ordinal analysis.
Geoderma 49: 1-32.
Park, S.J. and P.L.G. Vlek (2003)
Environmental correlation of
three-dimensional soil spatial
variability-a comparison of three
adaptive techniques. Geoderma
109:117-140.
Rencher, A.C. (1995) Methods of
Multivariate Analysis. John Wiley
and Sons, New York,
Soil Survey Division Staff (1993) Soil
Survey Manual. SCS. USDA
Handbook No. 18.
Tan, Z.X., R. Lal, N.E. Smeck, F.G.
Calhoun, R.M. Gehring, and B.
Parkinson (2003) Identifying
association among soil and site
variables using canonical
correlation analysis. Soil Sci. 168
(5): 376-382.
Tim Puslittanak (1994) Soil survey of
Northern Lampung. CSR, Bogor,
Indonesia
Venables, W.N. and B.D. Ripley (1994)
Modern Applied Statistics with S-
Plus. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Young, F.J., R.D. Hammer, and D. Larsen
(1999) Frequency distribution of
soil properties on a loess-mantled
Missouri watershed. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 63: 178-185.
Young, F.J. and R.D. Hammer (2000) Soil-
landform relationship on a loess-
mantled upland landscape in
Missouri. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:
185-194.