HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Young, F. J. Articles by Williams, F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Young, F. J. Articles by Williams, F. Agricola Articles by Young, F. J. Articles by Williams, F.

Estimation of Map Unit Composition from Transect Data

Dep. of Agriculture, Room 306 Founders Hall, Lincoln Univ., Jefferson City, MO 65012

R. David Hammer^*

Dep. of Soil and Atmospheric Sciences, 144 Mumford Hall

Frederick Williams

Dep. of Statistics, 222 Math Sciences Building, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211

*Corresponding author (snrdaveh{at}mizzou1.missouri.edu).

ABSTRACT

We are concerned with the documentation of taxonomic variability within soil survey map units, and how that variability is expressed statistically. Twelve randomly selected transects were used to sample soil properties and classify pedons within a fluvial map unit of the Boone County, Missouri, soil survey. Map unit taxonomic variability was high, with 28 taxonomic family classes. Twenty-five percent of the sampled soils were in the named taxonomic class of the map unit, but most were similar inclusions. Interpretive purity of the sample was 83%. Variances about this sample proportion were calculated using three methods: (i) simple random sampling, (ii) cluster sampling, and (iii) two-stage random sampling. The simple random sampling formula provided the smallest variance, compared with the cluster formula (55% larger) or the two-stage formula (72% larger). However, the interpretation of transect sampling as simple random sampling is questioned. The two-stage random sampling method seemed most conceptually correct, but is computationally intensive and requires questionable assumptions about the population size. Confidence intervals based on small sample sizes drawn from binomial populations are highly suspect, and perhaps should be referred to as "approximate bounds". It is important to carefully consider the assumptions and effects of any statistical technique chosen to analyze map unit composition.

Contribution from the Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn., Journal Series no. 11 876. Research was conducted in cooperation with the USDA-NRCS and the Missouri Dep. of Natural Resources.

Received for publication February 22, 1996.