Comparison between a Soft and Crisp Geographic Boundary of the Soil Texture Component in Hydrologic Models
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 14, Issue 6
Abstract
This note is based on the generally accepted fact that soil boundaries are usually gradual rather than abrupt, and this is followed by an application of fuzzy set theory to what are already known to be diffuse boundaries. Sediment yield measurements are used to describe the control condition against which the fuzzy and conventional boundaries are assessed. In terms of the factor, the fuzzy boundary representation showed less difference (up to 16.8%). The Nash–Sutcliff coefficient of efficiency and the root mean square error for the fuzzy boundary are 0.96 and , respectively, whereas those for the conventional boundary are 0.76 and , respectively. The estimation by the soil erosion model shows that the fuzzy representation of geographic boundary is more accurate than the conventional method. But the difference between erosion predictions using conventional boundaries and fuzzy boundaries is relatively small.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This study for G. Lee was supported by Korea Water Resources Corporation Project No. KIWE-CHR-04-4.
References
Ahamed, T. R. K., Rao, G., and Murthy, J. S. R. (2000). “GIS-based fuzzy membership model for crop-land suitability analysis.” Agricultural Systems, 63, 75–95 (2000).
Burrough, P. A. (1992). “Fuzzy classification methods for determining land suitability from soil profile observations and topography.” J. Soil Sci., 43, 193–210.
Burrough, P. A., and Frank, A. U. (1996). Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries, Taylor & Francis, London.
Changying, J., and Junzheng, P. (2000). “Fuzzy prediction of soil strength based on water content and composition.” J. Terramech., 37, 57–63.
Erickson, A. J. (1997). “Aids for estimating soil erodibility—K value class and soil loss tolerance.” U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services, Salt Lake City.
Kandel, A. (1998). Fuzzy mathematical techniques with applications, Addison–Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Korea Institute of Construction Technology (KICT). (1992). “The development of selection standard for calculation method of unit sediment yield in river.” Research Paper No. KICT 89-WR-113 Korea (in Korean).
Renard, K. G., Foster, G. R., Weesies, G. A., McCool, D. K., and Yoder, D. C. (1997). “Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with revised universal soil loss equation (USLE).” Agriculture, handbook No. 703, USDA, ARS, Washington, D.C.
Tran, L. T., Ridgley, M. A., Duckstein, L., and Sutherland, R. (2002). “Application of fuzzy logic-based modeling to improve the performance of the revised universal soil loss equation.” Catena, 47(3), 203–226 (2002).
Wang, F., and Hall, GB. (1996). “Fuzzy representation of geographical boundaries in GIS.” Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst., 10(5), 573–590.
Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). “Predicting rainfall erosion losses—A guide to conservation planning.” USDA—Agriculture handbook No. 537, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 14 • Issue 6 • June 2009
Pages: 640 - 646
Copyright
© 2009 ASCE.
History
Received: Mar 24, 2008
Accepted: Sep 26, 2008
Published online: Feb 18, 2009
Published in print: Jun 2009
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.