Ecological soil mapof the AlpsA cross-border pilot area between Italy and Slovenia
Sara ZanollaStefano BarbieriGiuseppe MicheluttiBorut Vrščaj
Why a cross-border pilot area?To provide a first information on the
main characteristics of alpine soils and their priority threats: organic carbon content erosion risk
with a grid based approach to minimise the “border effects”
The pilot area
SLO
I
The pilot area
SLOFVG
The pilot area
SLO
FVG
The pilot area
DIMENSIONS 400 km2
SHAPE Rectangular in LAEA, matching the INSPIRE grid
1X1 km
ENVIRONMENT Julian Pre-AlpineALTITUDE (min-max) 30-900 mAVERAGE SLOPE 15-60%
The pilot area
The pilot area
The pilot area
SLO
FVG
The pilot area
SLO
FVG
The pilot area
SLO
FVG
The pilot area
SLO
FVG
Cross-border 1:1M soil database
WRB_full
Cross-border 1:1M soil database
Mat_par_dom
Cross-border 1:1M soil database
Aglim1
Towards a common soil map
Steps towards a common soil map
Definition of the pilot area in LAEA; Exchange of the national projection files (*.prj); Conversion of the data in the national projection systems;
Choice of a minimum set of ancillary data layers (DTMs, land use maps, annual rainfall,…) and common legends;
Joint field work; Excavation and description of soil profiles; Discussion and decisions on soil-landscape
relationship; Elaboration of vector databases with available
soil information and ancillary datasets; Elaboration of attribute tables
To b
eco
nti
nued.
..
Steps towards a common soil map
Exchange and revision of the preliminary vector data and tables;
Border edge-matching; Common review of the attribute tables; Rasterization at different resolutions INSPIRE; Elaboration of the databases; Elaboration of the final maps and report.
Steps towards a common soil map
Definition of the pilot area in LAEA; Exchange of the national projection files (*.prj); Conversion of the data in the national projection systems;
Choice of a minimum set of ancillary data layers (DTMs, land use maps, annual rainfall,…) and common legends;
Joint field work; Excavation and description of soil profiles; Discussion and decisions on soil-landscape
relationship; Elaboration of vector databases with available
soil information and ancillary datasets; Elaboration of attribute tables
To b
eco
nti
nued.
..
Steps towards a common soil map
Exchange and revision of the preliminary vector data and tables;
Border edge-matching; Common review of the attribute tables; Rasterization at different resolutions INSPIRE; Elaboration of the databases; Elaboration of the final maps and report.
ECALP field excursion (Spring 2005)
Steps towards a common soil map
Steps towards a common soil map
Some attributes need harmonisation: aglim 1 il roo …others need comparison: agri_use wm1 ...others have to be integrated: sur_urb px_obs ...
Steps towards a common soil map
Soils in our pilot area, often have a lithic (or paralithic) contact within observation depth; but, usually, water can infiltrate and roots can explore soil in the cracks.
Some lithic contacts can also be a root deepening limitation or/and impermeable layer, some others don’t.
We suggest not to use lithic contact as synonym of root limitation or impermeable layer.
Steps towards a common soil map
Steps towards a common soil map
Some attributes need harmonisation: aglim 1 il roo …others need comparison: agri_use wm1 ...others have to be integrated: sur_urb px_obs ...
Steps towards a common soil map
Steps towards a common soil map
Steps towards a common soil map
In our soil maps we don’t have polygons for urban areas and
soil sealing is represented superimposing the topography.
In urban areas the equation:SUR-BARE + SUR-URB + W-BODY + STU-TOT = 100
becomes:0 + 100 + 0 + 0 = 100How do we fill the pixels where SUR-URB
is more than 50%?
Steps towards a common soil map
Other attributes are affected by the same problem, such as WM1 and WM2. The information provided could be generally true for the dominant STU, but doesn’t fit in the pilot area.
Then, the water management system lists mainly voices for plain agricultural soils. In mountainous or hilly areas, different methods would be used.
Would it be possible to add new water management systems (in the format or in a further version of the manual)?
Steps towards a common soil map
Some attributes need harmonisation: aglim 1 il roo …others need comparison: agri_use wm1 ...others have to be integrated: sur_urb px_obs ...
Steps towards a common soil map
We filled the field for the pixels marked I and I/SLO according to Corine Land cover 1995, with the classes:
1.1.1 Continuous urban fabric1.1.2 Discontinuous urban fabric1.2.1 Industrial or commercial units1.2.2 Road and rail networks1.2.3 Port areas1.2.4 Airports1.3.2 Dump sites1.3.3 Construction sites1.4.1 Green urban areas1.4.2 Sport and leisure facilities
Steps towards a common soil map
The total area has been assigned to the pixel. It has been discovered that, since the field allows 2 characters only, it’s not possible to indicate a 100% coverage by urban area. We used 99% instead.
The same procedure has been used for sur_bar and w_body
WRB codes
CMeuCMskdyFull soil
code WRB-FULL
CMCMSoil Refer.
Group WRB-LEV1
sk2nd soil adjective
WRB-ADJ2
eudy1st soil
adjective WRB-ADJ1
Exchange format current version:
WRB codes
CMeuCMskdyFull soil
code WRB-FULL
CMCMSoil Refer.
Group WRB-LEV1
eusk1st soil
adjectiveWRB-ADJ1
dy2nd soil
adjective WRB-ADJ2
Our proposal:
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION