See NCSP() for the modern interface to numerical soil profile comparison/classification.
pc(
s,
vars,
max_d,
k,
filter = NULL,
sample_interval = NA,
replace_na = TRUE,
add_soil_flag = TRUE,
return_depth_distances = FALSE,
strict_hz_eval = FALSE,
progress = "none",
plot.depth.matrix = FALSE,
rescale.result = FALSE,
verbose = FALSE
)
pc.SPC(s, vars, rescale.result = FALSE, ...)
# S4 method for class 'SoilProfileCollection'
profile_compare(s, vars, rescale.result = FALSE, ...)
# S4 method for class 'data.frame'
profile_compare(
s,
vars,
max_d,
k,
filter = NULL,
sample_interval = NA,
replace_na = TRUE,
add_soil_flag = TRUE,
return_depth_distances = FALSE,
strict_hz_eval = FALSE,
progress = "none",
plot.depth.matrix = FALSE,
rescale.result = FALSE,
verbose = FALSE
)A SoilProfileCollection
Variable names
depth-slices up to this depth are considered in the comparison
a depth-weighting coeficient, use '0' for no depth-weighting (see examples below)
an index used to determine which horizons (rows) are included in the analysis
use every n-th depth slice instead of every depth slice, useful for working with > 1000 profiles at a time
if TRUE, missing data are replaced by maximum dissimilarity (TRUE)
The algorithm will generate a 'soil'/'non-soil' matrix for use when comparing soil profiles with large differences in depth (TRUE). See details section below.
return intermediate, depth-wise dissimilarity results (FALSE)
should horizons be strictly checked for internal self-consistency? (FALSE)
'none' (default)
should a plot of the 'soil'/'non-soil' matrix be returned (FALSE)
Rescale result? Default: FALSE
extra debug output (FALSE)
Additional arguments passed to profile_compare()
A dissimilarity matrix object of class 'dissimilarity, dist', optionally scaled by max(D).
Performs a numerical comparison of soil profiles using named properties,
based on a weighted, summed, depth-segment-aligned dissimilarity
calculation. If s is a SoilProfileCollection,
site-level variables (2 or more) can also be used. The site-level and
horizon-level dissimilarity matrices are then re-scaled and averaged.
Variability in soil depth can interfere significantly with the calculation of between-profile dissimilarity– what is the numerical “distance” (or dissimilarity) between a slice of soil from profile A and the corresponding, but missing, slice from a shallower profile B? Gower's distance metric would yield a NULL distance, despite the fact that intuition suggests otherwise: shallower soils should be more dissimilar from deeper soils. For example, when a 25 cm deep profile is compared with a 50 cm deep profile, numerical distances are only accumulated for the first 25 cm of soil (distances from 26 - 50 cm are NULL). When summed, the total distance between these profiles will generally be less than the distance between two profiles of equal depth. Our algorithm has an option (setting replace_na=TRUE) to replace NULL distances with the maximum distance between any pair of profiles for the current depth slice. In this way, the numerical distance between a slice of soil and a corresponding slice of non-soil reflects the fact that these two materials should be treated very differently (i.e. maximum dissimilarity).
This alternative calculation of dissimilarities between soil and non-soil slices solves the problem of comparing shallow profiles with deeper profiles. However, it can result in a new problem: distances calculated between two shallow profiles will be erroneously inflated beyond the extent of either profile's depth. Our algorithm has an additional option (setting add_soil_flag=TRUE) that will preserve NULL distances between slices when both slices represent non-soil material. With this option enabled, shallow profiles will only accumulate mutual dissimilarity to the depth of the deeper profile.
Note that when the add_soil_flag option is enabled (default), slices
are classified as 'soil' down to the maximum depth to which at least one of
variables used in the dissimilarity calculation is not NA. This will cause
problems when profiles within a collection contain all NAs within the
columns used to determine dissimilarity. An approach for identifying and
removing these kind of profiles is presented in the examples section below.
A notice is issued if there are any NA values within the matrix used for distance calculations, as these values are optionally replaced by the max dissimilarity.
Our approach builds on the work of (Moore, 1972) and the previously mentioned depth-slicing algorithm.
D.E. Beaudette, P. Roudier, A.T. O'Geen, Algorithms for quantitative pedology: A toolkit for soil scientists, Computers & Geosciences, Volume 52, 2013, Pages 258-268, ISSN 0098-3004, doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.10.020 .
Moore, A.; Russell, J. & Ward, W. Numerical analysis of soils: A comparison of three soil profile models with field classification. Journal of Soil Science, 1972, 23, 194-209.
# See ?NCSP for examples