See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345005709

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PLANT AND SOIL

Article · October 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 1,259

1 author:

Cobus Botha
KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Rural Development South Africa
16 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cobus Botha on 30 October 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 South African Journal of Plant and Soil 2016: 1–8 © Southern African Plant & Soil Sciences Committee
Printed in South Africa — All rights reserved SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF
PLANT AND SOIL
This is the final version of the article that is ISSN 0257-1862 EISSN 2167-034X
published ahead of the print and online issue http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2016.1141249

In pursuit of a South African national soil database: potential and pitfalls

of combining different soil data sets
George M van Zijl1* and Jacobus O Botha2

1 University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

2 Natural Resources Section, KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
* Corresponding author, email: george@dsafrica.co.za

A national soil profile database will be a huge asset to South Africa, enabling improved soil information products
to be created. However, numerous practical pitfalls exist in reliably creating such a database. This project aimed to
identify such pitfalls, while showing the potential of a larger database. During a 2014 South African Soil Surveyors
Organisation (SASSO) workshop in Cathedral Peak, 10 groups of soil surveyors were tasked to describe at least
five profiles. The data from the groups were treated as different data sets, which needed to be merged into one
SASSO database. Pitfalls to merging the data sets included misclassification of soils due to incomplete laboratory
data, incorrect soil morphology description and incorrect soil description methodology. Furthermore, analysis by
different laboratories and methods yielded dissimilar soil property values, while different data dictionaries collected
diverse information. However, the enlarged database enabled the creation of a soil map that was more accurate than
one created with a smaller, previously collected data set. A minimum set of criteria should accompany all data sets,
including the soil surveyor’s name, the data collection date, the GPS position, the laboratory where the samples were
analysed, and the analysis method with its standard error.

Keywords: Cathedral Peak, digital soil mapping, soil classification, soil survey

Introduction

Knowledge and understanding of soil and how it is
distributed across the landscape is essential for the effective
use, management and conservation of this vital resource.
Soil surveys provide this much-needed information as
these investigate the distribution of soils in a particular area,
determine the most important characteristics, delineate map
units and describe them in a local legend. Soil data is only
part of the information that is needed for land evaluation.
Additional information includes climate, water resources,
landforms, land use and the people’s perception on their
socio-economic setting (Deckers et al. 2004). Soil is further-
more an integral component of many ecological processes.
Its physical and chemical attributes, including colour,
texture, organic carbon, rock fragments, bulk density and
soil nutrients, are increasingly required as input variables
into ecological, hydrologic, climatic and other environmental
modelling for food security and climate-change mitigation
(Sanchez et al. 2009). Despite the need for spatial soil data,
much of the world has very poor coverage of high-resolution
soil data. The information available is typically of low
reliability, coarse-resolution soil maps, often based on
limited soil profile descriptions. In order to fill this data
vacuum, regional legacy soil data available in digital format
are used and harmonised into consistent global soil property
maps (Shangguan et al. 2014).
Globally, there is an increasing amount of digital data
becoming available, usually as large data sets. Examples
are the Harmonized World Soil Database of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
SoilGrids1km and Global Soil Information Facilities (GSIF)
from the International Soil Reference Information Centre
(Hengl et al. 2014), and Global Soil Map (Arrouays et al.
2014). For Africa there are the coarser-scale Soil Map for
Africa (Selvaradjou et al. 2005), Soil Atlas for Africa (Dewitte
et al. 2013), Africa Soil Information Service (AfSIS) (Vågen
et al. 2013) and the Africa Soil Profile Database (Leenaars
et al. 2014). For South Africa, the finer-scale Soil and
Terrain Database (SOTER) (FAO-ISRIC 2003) additional to
the Land Type survey (Land Type Survey Staff 1972–2006)
and regional soil databases are available. These sources
were recently discussed by Paterson et al. (2015). These
digital soil data sets, together with the increasingly
powerful tools of geographic information systems (GIS),
global positioning systems (GPS), remote and proximal
sensors, digital elevation models (DEMs) and sophisti-
cated data-mining techniques, have helped to refine the
predictive ability of soils. This paved the way for digital soil
mapping (DSM) as opposed to digitised (existing) soil maps,
not only for regions and catchments but for whole countries
(McBratney et al. 2003; Gray et al. 2009). However, DSM
relies heavily on soil profile databases and can only create
soil maps that reflect the quality of the data used. Therefore,
in order to improve soil spatial information, there needs to
be a corresponding improvement in soil profile databases.

South African Journal of Plant and Soil is co-published by Taylor & Francis and NISC (Pty) Ltd
2 van Zijl and Botha
In South Africa, the heightened demand for finer resolu-
tion, locally relevant spatial soil data has been fuelled from
both the agricultural and government sectors. Recent
excessively dry growing seasons (SA Weather Service
2015) and subsequent crop failures, together with high
input and low product prices, have highlighted the need
for soil-specific land use and risk management planning
(Bloomberg Business 2015). The recently promulgated
Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA
16 of 2013), as a legislative driver, requires local munici-
palities to do wall-to-wall land-use zoning of their respective
wards (RSA 2013). Long-term agricultural sustainability will
therefore be dependent on the identification of areas with
better soils, climate and grazing for agricultural land use so
as to guide non-agricultural development away from these
areas. Furthermore, the draft Preservation and Development
of Agricultural Land Framework Bill (PDALFA; DAFF 2013)
obligates the State to protect agricultural land, especially
high-value agricultural land in situ for agricultural production
in perpetuity. This suggested draft legislation seeks to retain
high-value agricultural land by placing constraints on the
subdivision and rezoning of high-value cropping and grazing
land. The implementation of the above legislative frameworks
is therefore largely dependent on high-quality agricultural
resource data sets including soil properties, which in turn is
reliant on a comprehensive soil profile database.
Many organisations collect soil and terrain data. This is
done at various scales and using different sampling methods
dependent on the objectives of the survey (Le Roux et
al. 1999). Unfortunately, an absence of international
standards in soil survey techniques and sample analysis is
also responsible for problems with compatibility between
and sometimes within databases from different organi-
sations and with the integration of legacy data (Rossiter
2004). Legacy data sets are furthermore often plagued by
the absence of or inadequate metadata, especially quanti-
tative statements on data quality, survey accuracy and error
reporting. Hunter et al. (2009) report that even contemporary
databases are still inadequate at keeping track of error,
communicating how this influences data integrity at different
scales and its practical implications for users. Globally and
locally, progress towards amalgamated soil databases
is further hamstrung by sentiments of apprehension when
data ownership, intellectual property rights, royalties and
client confidentiality are concerned (Kabel 2000). In South
Africa, with its low level of skills development per capita,
stakeholders will need to collaborate in order to traverse
these universal pitfalls that prevent the formation of a
functional national soil database.
Collaborative opportunities do present themselves
through common vision. The South African Soil Surveyors
Organization (SASSO) is a non-profit organisation for soil
surveyors and comprises a skilled group of professionals
with a variety of competencies ranging from academia,
practitioners, service providers and end users who share
a common interest of relating soil properties to land use.
SASSO holds quarterly workshops throughout South Africa
by which its members can gain experience with soil survey-
related matters in areas not commonly visited by them. The
members represent a large group of the soil surveyors that
could potentially contribute to a national soil database.
The hypothesis expressed in this study is that a larger
soil point database will allow for more accurate products
to be derived from that database, provided that the added
points are reliable. The aims were to merge 10 data sets
into one central database, while ensuring that each data
entry is reliable. Secondly, unreliable data points are to
be identified and recommendations on how to deal with
such entries should be provided. Lastly, a soil map will be
created with the merged database and compared to a soil
map created from a smaller previously collected database.
Site description
The study area (Figure 1) comprised the Cathedral Peak
Catchments 4, 5, 6 and 7, situated approximately 30 km
south of the town Bergville in the Ukhahlamba World
Heritage Site of the KwaZulu-Natal Drakensberg at latitude
28.994° S and longitude 29.248° E. Research in these
catchments was historically focused on examining the
influence of various management practices on the water
yield of local mountain catchment areas (de Villiers 1970).
Recent additional research includes atmospheric and
biodiversity-related climate-change adaptation monitoring
(Jansen van Rensburg 2012). The catchments are located
between 1 740 and 2 220 m above sea level, on a flat
terrace known as the ‘Little’ Berg or foothills, which occurs
below the main Drakensberg Escarpment (Hill 1996).
The climate can be classified as Cwb type, areas with
long dry and cool winters (Köppen 1931). The mean
annual precipitation is 1 198 mm with the majority of the
rainfall occurring during the spring and summer months.
The mean annual daily temperature is 14 °C with a mean
maximum temperature of 20.9 °C and a mean minimum of
7.1 °C. The area receives heavy frosts from May to August
every year and medium snowfalls (Killick 1961), which is an
important source of soil moisture during the dry winter and
acts as an insulating blanket protecting soil and plants from
excessively cold temperatures.
The underlying geology is basaltic lavas of the
Drakensberg formation (Everson 1985), while the vegeta-
tion of the study area falls into the Subalpine belt of the
Natal Drakensberg as identified by Killick (1963). Acocks
(1953) described it as Highland Sourveld and Camp (1999)
as Montane Veld.
Materials and methods
Soil survey
During the September 2014 (SASSO) workshop at Cathedral
Peak, soil point data were gathered for the mapping of the
soils of the area. Fifty participants attended this workshop,
representing soils surveyors from industry, academia
and government institutions. As the SASSO workshop
participants are a good representation of the soil surveyors
in South Africa, by which a national database would be
populated, it was deemed that this workshop provided the
ideal situation to test the merging of databases at a small
scale. The participants were subdivided into 10 groups and
tasked to collect soil data and samples within a section of the
long-term researched catchments. Each group had to identify
and describe at least five soil profiles from their designated
area. In total 61 soil profiles were described, of which 60
South African Journal of Plant and Soil 2016: 1–8
AFRICA
ATLANTIC OCEAN
INDIAN
OCEAN
South
Namibia
Africa
29°14′30″E 29°15′0″E
28°59′0″S
28°59′30″S
CPVI
CPV
CPIV
29°0′0″S
0 195 390
Figure 1: The study site, showing the four different research
catchments surveyed. CPIV, CPV, CPVI and CPVII denote the
different long-term Cathedral Peak research catchments that were
included in the present study
were used for mapping. Soils were classified according to the
Soil Classification Working Group (SCWG 1991). Each group
was equipped with a GPS, a soil auger, the South African
soil classification system (SCWG 1991) and sampling boxes.
Each GPS contained a data dictionary into which the groups
could input the soil data. Between the groups, four different
data dictionaries were used, as these were preloaded on the
GPSs of the various institutions who provided them. Data
dictionaries allow for data entries to be made directly onto a
GPS, allowing for easy capture of georeferenced point data.
Samples were taken at the groups’ discretion.
Data analysis
The 61 soil profile descriptions were sent to a central
location and merged into one soil database. Each group’s
data are viewed as a separate data set for this paper.
Samples were analysed at the Cedara Laboratory of
the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development, with the use of the mid-infra-red (MIR)
spectroscopy. Two soil maps were created. The first was
created with 18 soil profile descriptions made previously on
this site, whereas for the second map a training data set of
44 observations from the SASSO database was used. The
maps were created using the methodology of van Zijl et al.
(2014). Sixteen observations from the SASSO database
were used as an independent validation data set for both
3
maps. A one-pixel buffer was included around soil mapping
units. Thus the accuracy shows the percentage of soil
observations that occur within 20 m (one pixel) of the same
soil mapping unit. Laboratory analysis results of the SASSO
database and the previous work done in Cathedral Peak
SOUTH Cathedral
Peak were also compared.
AFRICA
Results and discussion
To ensure easy following of the arguments expressed in
29°15′30″E this paper, the soil forms that are discussed in this paper
are summarised in Table 1, and the relevant diagnostic
criteria for the different horizons are given in Table 2.
Diagnostic horizons are also italicised for easy identification.
Pitfalls identified with soil classification
CPVII Correct soil classification is important as new users of
soil data often rely on classifications to guide them as
to the soil properties, and seldom look at the actual soil
profile descriptions. Therefore incorrect soil classifica-
tions must be identified and corrected before inclusion in
a soil database. Numerous pitfalls were identified while
integrating the 10 databases collected during the SASSO
workshop. These can be grouped into three groups, namely
problems associated with a lack of laboratory analysis,
Study Site those associated with erroneous classification and those
associated with procedural failure.
780 1 170 1 560
Metres The data sets exhibited two examples where the classifi-
cation of the soil form needed to be rectified after applying
the laboratory data to the soil classification system. The first
was a soil profile that was classified as a Champagne soil
form. This soil form is characterised by having an organic
O horizon as topsoil horizon. Such topsoil must show signs
of being imperfectly drained and possess more than 10%
organic carbon. The mentioned profile was deemed to
be carbon rich and was overlying a G horizon. Therefore
the soil was classified as a Champagne soil. The Cedara
laboratory results, however, showed that the topsoil only
had 8% organic carbon and thus it failed to meet the criteria
of an organic O horizon. The correct classification was thus
that of a Katspruit soil form.
Two of the groups misidentified the topsoils of 13 soil
observations. The topsoils were classified as orthic A
horizons, when laboratory analysis showed that they should
have been humic A horizons. The difference between the
two horizons lies again in the organic carbon percentage. A
humic A horizon must contain at least 1.8% organic carbon.
Of all the soil samples analysed, the lowest topsoil organic
carbon value was 4.53%. Therefore it is safe to say that all
topsoils at this site contain enough organic carbon to meet
the humic A horizon criteria. A further laboratory require-
ment for humic A horizons is that they must have less than
4 cmol(+) base cations per kilogram clay. Unfortunately,
sodium (Na) was not determined in the laboratory, which
made it impossible to use base status as a further laboratory
indicator. Insufficient laboratory analysis is a situation
commonly encountered by soil surveyors in the field.
Such ‘mistakes’ are common in soil surveying, as it is very
difficult to identify all soil properties diagnostic for classifi-
cation in-field. Especially when soil surveyors work outside
their normal geographical area, they could encounter
4 van Zijl and Botha

unfamiliar soil properties and misinterpret the morphological area. Further, soil data sets in their metadata could include
indicators. Soil surveyors thus rely on laboratory analysis for a skills index whereby a surveyor is rated for a specific
the quantification of certain parameters. When laboratory geographic area based on his/her experience at identifying
information is collected, the surveyor will generally correct soil properties within this area. This skills index of the
in-field mistakes and the data set will be corrected. surveyor could then in turn be used as a quality statement
However, not all soil surveys require laboratory analysis, when communicating the value of the data set.
and thus the surveyor will include the incorrect data into the Additional discrepancies in the database stemmed from
data set. Data users should be made aware of data sets inconsistencies between profile description, classification
where field observations are not substantiated by laboratory and plausible genetic origin. An example of this occurred
analysis. A remedy for this dilemma is to compare the data when one group classified a soil as a Tukulu soil form.
one has with other soil properties collected in the same The specific horizon designation was organic, neocutanic
and unspecified material with signs of wetness. A sample
for this horizon was not sent for laboratory analysis and
Table 1: Soil forms discussed in the paper therefore we cannot know the specific amount of organic
carbon in the sample. However, within this area the highest
Soil form
Diagnostic Field Database amount of carbon measured in a sample with the MIR at
horizons observations observations the Cedara laboratory is 9.2% carbon. Thus it is unlikely
Champagne Organic O 2 0 to contain enough carbon within this sample for it to be
Unspecified an organic O horizon. The profile also does not lie within
Magwa Humic A 13 13
a drainage line, where one would expect to find organic
Yellow Brown Apedal B
O horizons. It is also unlikely that a neocutanic B horizon
Kranskop Humic A 10 10
Yellow Brown Apedal B
is present. This is the only observation that shows this,
Red Apedal B whereas there were 43 observations that have apedal
Inanda Humic A 17 23 horizons. Neocutanic B horizons are differentiated from red-
Red Apedal B and yellow brown apedal B horizons due to their coloura-
Nomanci Humic A 5 6 tion. While the colour of apedal horizons is uniform, that
Lithocutanic B of the neocutanic B horizon is not, due to the colluvium in
Mispah Orthic A 6 6 which it forms. Although there is a lively current debate at
Hard Rock SASSO workshops regarding the extent to which apedal
Glenrosa Orthic A 1 0 horizons should be uniform and neocutanic B horizons be
Lithocutanic B
non-uniform it is unlikely that the conditions giving rise to
Katspruit Orthic A 0 2
G
neocutanic B horizons would occur here outside of a stream
Hutton Orthic A 6 0 channel. The heterogeneous colour observed was more
Red Apedal B likely the result of the mixing of soil layers in the soil auger
Tukulu Orthic A 1 0 to give the impression of colour variation. Lastly, other than
Neocutanic B in the stream channels, there were no signs of wetness
Unspecified material observed in this area, as the soils derived from the basalt
with signs of wetness tend to be well drained. Therefore it is also unlikely that

Table 2: Relevant diagnostic criteria of the diagnostic horizons discussed in the paper

Diagnostic horizons Relevant diagnostic criteria (direct quotations from SCWG [1991] are shown in italics)
Topsoils
Organic O ...has sufficient organic carbon to ensure an average content of at least 10% throughout a vertical distance of 200 mm
...is saturated with water for long periods in most years unless drained (evidence of wetness is invariably present in
the subsoil)
Humic A Contains in some part, more than 1.8% organic carbon
Orthic A ...is a surface horizon that does not qualify as an organic, humic, vertic or melanic topsoil although it may have
been darkened by organic matter.
Subsoils
Red Apedal B Uniform red colour. Although colour must be substantially uniform, some variability is permitted, for example red
mottles in a red matrix
Yellow Brown Apedal B Uniform yellow colour. Although colour must be substantially uniform, some variability is permitted, for example
mottles or concretions which are insufficient to qualify as a diagnostic plinthic B; Faunal reworking may also result
in acceptable colour variations
Neocutanic B ...occurs in unconsolidated material, usually transported, which has undergone pedogenesis to the extent which
excludes the horizon from stratified alluvium, regic sand, and manmade soil deposit, but pedogenesis has been
insufficient to produce any other diagnostic horizon
Example: Non uniform colour by virtue of the presence of cutans and channel infillings sufficient to prevent the
horizon qualifying as a diagnostic red apedal or yellow brown apedal horizon
Unspecified material with ...has grey, low chroma matrix colours, due to reduction and iron loss, that have been caused by wetness; if
signs of wetness present, sesquioxide mottling may be yellowish brown, olive brown, red or black
 South African Journal of Plant and Soil 2016: 1–8
the third horizon could be unspecified material with signs
of wetness. After evaluating the evidence, it is clear that
this observation was misclassified and should be rejected
from the data set. The laboratory analysis of these horizons
could still be used, as it does not rely on soil classification.
Such erroneous data entries can be identified by
comparing soil profile data to other soil profile data located
in the same area, preferably from different soil surveyors.
Data that can be identified as erroneous should be deleted
from the database. Sometimes it is possible to correct the
data. For instance, if in the example above the horizon
sequence was humic A on neocutanic B on saprolite, one
could with a reasonable amount of confidence change the
neocutanic B horizon to a red- or yellow brown apedal
horizon, depending on the horizons colour, as this is in
line with the other soil profiles described in the area. There
could be a variety of different reasons as to why this soil
profile was classified as it was, ranging from inexperience
on the part of the soil surveyors or issues related to the
data dictionary. Errors related to the data dictionary could
include making a test observation, but not marking it as
such, or clicking the wrong option in a drop-down menu.
The surveyors should double check their entries, while the
analysts should be sensitive to the possibility of such errors
occurring. Improved skills and experience in specific biocli-
matic regions within the pedological fraternity will over time
reduce similar inconsistencies due to inexperience.
Figure 2 shows additional examples of possible
inconsistencies in classification due to soil profile descrip-
tion methodology. The category on the x-axis is the
different groups from which data were received. The y-axis
shows the average number of horizons per group for all
observations deeper than 0.5 m. This depth was chosen
to differentiate deep soils from shallow soils, where one
would expect to only find two soil horizons. Group 10 did
not have any deep soil observations. Results for Group
1 indicate that all of the deep soil observations had only
two horizons. However, when looking at all of the groups,
there were 32 deep soil profiles, of which six had only two
horizons. The question therefore arises whether Group
1 did not recognise a third horizon or whether it was
absent. From what is known from the area it is possible
AVERAGE NO. OF HORIZONS
FOR SOILS >500 MM
4 correction factor to standardise the data into one specific
3
2 captured with different data dictionaries into one standard
1 Table 3: Carbon values for topsoils determined in the study area
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SURVEY GROUP
Figure 2: Average number of soil horizons per survey group for soil
profiles deeper than 0.5 m. Error bars denote the SE per group
5
that Group 1 described the thin yellow brown apedal
B horizon, which often occurs in the Kranskop soil form
in this area, as a transition between the humic A and
the red apedal B horizon, thus making the soil form an
Inanda rather than a Kranskop. Although this is a common
classification problem when encountering thin diagnostic
horizons, the leading question should be regarding the
usefulness of the data for the particular database. Soil
maps are almost exclusively created for a specific usage.
When the intended land use depends only on specific soil
properties, a reliable soil map could still be produced with
soil class data that exhibits inconsistencies. An example
of such a case is when the cropping potential of the
area is determined. Texture and soil depth are the main
drivers of cropping potential, and they will remain largely
constant between the Inanda and Kranskop soil forms
of Cathedral Peak.
Laboratory issues
Table 3 shows the average values for organic carbon for
humic soil horizons determined by the UFS laboratory, the
Cedara laboratory and a study by Manson et al. (2007)
also in the Cathedral Peak vicinity. It is clear that the three
sources differ from each other, with a significant difference
between the UFS laboratory values and the Cedara
laboratory values with significance at p < 0.001. There are
a number of very good possible reasons for this, including
seasonal variation (Flanagan et al. 2002) and different
laboratory methods (Walkley–Black for UFS, MIR for
Cedara, dry combustion for Manson et al. 2007) (McCarty
et al. 2010). During the growing season carbon values
are generally higher than during the non-growing season
(Flanagan et al. 2002), while carbon values determined
with the Walkley–Black method should be corrected with a
factor of 1.21 (Sanderman et al. 2010) as it only accounts
for the easily oxidised C. This raises the question why the
carbon values determined with the Walkley–Black method
are higher than the MIR-determined values, although
they are nearer to the dry combustion values. The reason
is unclear, but it does make the point that one should
take diligent caution when adding laboratory data from
different sources into one database. Metadata should
accompany the soil database, showing the date on which
the data were collected, which laboratory did the analysis
and which method was used. This will allow the user of
the database to use the data, possibly with some kind of
norm. Without the metadata, this will be impossible.
Data dictionaries
Considerable time was spent in combining the data
Average C
Source Method used SE
value (%)
UFS Walkley–Black 9.0 0.3
SASSO Mid-infra-red spectroscopy 6.9 0.2
Manson et al. Automated Dumas dry 11.4 1.0
(2007) combustion
6 van Zijl and Botha

data set. For instance, in a certain data dictionary the SASSO Soil Map
horizon thickness in ranges (e.g. 100–200 mm) was Soil Form
Katspruit
required rather than the exact depth of each horizon. Magwa
This created the problem that one could not accurately Kranskop
determine the soil depth of each horizon resulting in a Inanda
potential depth error of half of the range. Thus, for a Nomanci
specific soil profile, the effective soil depth could easily be Mispah
out by at least 200–300 mm when adding the means of the
ranges. Such an approximation could have an effect on
pedotransfer functions where depth plays a large role, such
as production potential.
A second example where different data dictionaries
required different information was regarding colour. Some
required the Munsell colour as input, whilst others just
asked for a descriptive name, such as yellow or red. This
did not pose a large problem when combining the database,
but it did require that there be extra columns added to the
combined database, and that there were many no-data
values in the database. 0 125 150 500 750 1 000
Metres

Products created
UFS Soil Map
The two soil maps created can be seen in Figure 3. The Soil Form
map created from the UFS data set only achieved a point Champagne
accuracy of 38%, whereas the map created from the Magwa
SASSO data set was substantially more accurate with 63%. Kranskop
The hypothesis that the products derived from a larger Nomanci
reliable soil data set will be more accurate than products Mispah
derived from a smaller data set in the same area can
therefore be accepted, and thus confirms the need for a
more comprehensive national soil database.
A major difference in accuracy between the two maps
is the absence of the Inanda soil form from observations
that comprise the UFS data set. Of the 18 observations
included in the UFS data set, not one was classified as
an Inanda. In relation to this, 23 of the 61 (38%) observa-
tions in the SASSO data set were classified as an Inanda.
It is plausible that the UFS survey missed all the Inanda soil
form locations, due to being too small a sample size. This
confirms the need for data sets that are adequate in size for
0 125 150 500 750 1 000
their specific use, in this case the mapping of the area. A Metres
second difference is the Katspruit soil form on the SASSO
soil map, which corresponds to the Champagne soil form
on the UFS soil map. This is due to the difference in carbon Figure 3: The soil maps created with the different data sets
values from the different laboratories, which strengthens the
argument for metadata to accompany soil point data sets.
Recommendations
Conclusions
Wrong soil classifications could be identified (and
A larger source of reliable soil point data will improve sometimes rectified) by comparing the field observations of
the accuracy of the products created with the database. a soil profile to its laboratory values. When a specific data
However, care should be taken to ensure that the data set does not have laboratory values, those from other soil
being entered into the database are reliable. data within the same area could be used for comparison.
From this case study the following reasons for unreliable To identify incorrect profile classifications due to wrong
soil class data emerged: misclassification of soil forms morphological description, one should also compare the
due to incomplete laboratory data, misclassification of soil observations in question with soil observations made in the
forms due to wrong description of the soil morphology and same area, preferably by a different soil surveyor. When
misclassification of soil forms due to wrong soil description misclassification due to wrong methodology is suspected,
methodology followed. Further pitfalls identified include soil one should compare the data set in question to data sets
properties measured by different laboratories using different created by other soil surveyors within the same area.
methods giving vastly different results, as well as different Landscape position could also be used to verify point data.
data dictionaries requiring the input of different parameters. Where there is a logical explanation, corrections to the
South African Journal of Plant and Soil 2016: 1–8
database could be made. If there is no logical alternative
to classifications in doubt, the laboratory determined
properties could be retained, but the soil classes should
be flagged as ‘in question’. This will enable users of the
database to use the data entries for some applications,
where exact classifications are not required, but where the
use of the soil map depends on certain soil properties.
A minimum set of requirements should be met for each
entry into a national database, a need also identified by
Paterson et al. (2015). The minimum requirements of
metadata for data entry into a national database should be:
a date, the name of the soil surveyor, the latitude–longitude
location and some piece of soil information, which could be
a morphological description or a laboratory measurement.
When laboratory data is added, the laboratory responsible
and the method used with its standard error should be
included as well. This will enable the capturing of all collected
soil information, whilst keeping a reasonable amount of
quality control. If for argument’s sake one increases the
quality control by insisting on laboratory values only from
certain laboratories, a lot of potential useful soil data would
be lost. One should consider that the data collected today
could be very useful in the future for uses yet unknown. As
an example, a topsoil colour inventory created in the 1950s
would have had very limited application then. However,
with the advent of remote sensing technology in the 1980s
such a data set would be very valuable in the calibration and
validation of satellite images.
Acknowledgements — We would like to acknowledge the manage-
ment of SASSO for allowing the data from the workshop to be
used for this publication, as well as Alan Manson, Janet Taylor and
Kurt Barichievy from the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development for help with combining the different data
sets and doing the laboratory analysis. Appreciation should also
be extended to Jaco Le Roux for collecting the data for the first
soil map and to Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the Grassland Node of
SAEON for access to the Cathedral Peak catchments. Lastly, we
are grateful to the reviewers whose input lifted the standard of the
paper considerably.
References
Acocks JPH. 1953. Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the
Botanical Survey of South Africa 28: 1–192.
Arrouays D, McKenzie N, Hempel J, Richer de Forges AC,
McBratney AB (eds). 2014. GlobalSoilMap: basis of the global
spatial soil information system. Leiden: CRC Press.
Camp KGT. 1999. The bioresource groups of KwaZulu-Natal.
Cedara Report N/A/99/15. Pietermaritzburg: KwaZulu-Natal
Department of Agriculture.
DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). 2013.
Draft policy document on the preservation and development of
agricultural land. Pretoria: DAFF.
Deckers J, Spaargaren O, Dondeyne S. 2004. Soil survey as a
basis for land evaluation. In: Verheye WH (ed.), Land use, land
cover and soil sciences, vol. II: Land evaluation. Encyclopedia of
Life Support Systems. Paris: UNESCO, Eolss Publishers. n. pag.
Available at http://www.eolss.net.
de Villiers AM. 1970. The early history of Cathedral Peak Research
Station. South African Forestry Journal 72: 12–16.
DeWitte O, Jones A, Spaargaren O, Breuning-Madsen H, Brossard
M, Dampha A, Deckers J, Gallali T, Hallett S, Jones R, Kilasara
M, Le Roux P, Michéli E, Montanarella L, Thiombiano L, van
7
Ranst E, Yemefack M, Zougmore R. 2013. Harmonisation of the
soil map of Africa at the continental scale. Geoderma 211–212:
138–153.
Everson CS. 1985. Ecological effects of fire in the montane grass-
lands of Natal. PhD thesis, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg,
South Africa.
FAO-ISRIC. 2003. Soil and terrain database for southern Africa
(1:2 million scale). FAO Land and Water Digital Series 25.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(CD-ROM).
Flanagan LB, Wever LA, Carlson PJ. 2002. Seasonal and
interannual variation in carbon dioxide exchange and carbon
balance in a northern temperate grassland. Global Change
Biology 8: 599–615.
Gray JM, Humphreys GS, Deckers JA. 2009. Relantionships in soil
distribution as revealed by a global soil database. Geoderma
150: 309–323.
Hengl T, Mendes De Jesus J, MacMillan RA, Batjes NH, Heuvelink
GBM, Ribeiro EC, Samuel-Rosa A, Kempen B, Leenaars
JGB, Walsh MG, Gonzalez MR. 2014. SoilGrids1 km – Global
soil information based on automated mapping. PLoS ONE 9:
e105992.
Hill T. 1996. Description, classification and ordination of the
dominant vegetation communities, Cathedral Peak, KwaZulu-
Natal Drakensberg. South African Journal of Botany 62: 263–269.
Hunter GJ, Bregt AK, Heuvelink GBM, de Bruin S, Virrantaus, K.
2009. Spatial data quality: problems and prospects. In: Navratil
G (ed.), Research trends in geographic information science.
Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. pp 101–121.
Jansen van Rensburg S. 2012. Action on the hill: working towards
the Cathedral Peak research catchments as a sentinel site for
SAEON. Available at http://www.saeon.ac.za/enewsletter/
archives/2012/june2012/doc01 [accessed 1 June 2015]
Kabel J. 2000. GDI from a legal perspective. In: Groot R,
McLaughlin J (eds), Geospatial data infrastructure: concepts,
cases, and good practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pp 25–38.
Killick DJB. 1961. An account of the plant ecology of the Cathedral
Peak area of the Natal Drakensberg. PhD thesis, University of
Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Killick DJB. 1963. An account of the plant ecology of the Cathedral
Peak area of the Natal Drakensberg. Memoirs of the Botanical
Society of South Africa 34: 1–178.
Köppen WP. 1931. Grundriss der Klimakunde. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Land Type Survey Staff. 1972–2006. Land types of South Africa:
digital map (1:250 000 scale) and soil inventory databases.
Pretoria: ARC–Institute for Soil, Climate and Water.
Leenaars JGB, van Oostrum AJM, Ruiperez Gonzalez M. 2014.
Africa Soil Profiles Database, version 1.2. A compilation of
geo-referenced and standardised legacy soil profile data for
Sub-Saharan Africa (with dataset). ISRIC report 2014/01. Africa
Soil Information Service (AfSIS) project. Wageningen: ISRIC –
World Soil Information.
Le Roux PAL, Ellis F, Merryweather FR, Schoeman JL, Snyman K,
van Deventer PW, Verster E. 1999. Guidelines for the mapping
and interpretation of the soils of South Africa. Bloemfontein:
University of the Free State.
Manson AD, Jewitt D, Short AD. 2007. Effects of season and
frequency of burning on soils and landscape functioning in a
moist montane grassland. African Journal of Range and Forage
Science 24: 9–18.
McBratney AB, Mendoça Santos ML, Minasny B. 2003. On digital
soil mapping. Geoderma 117: 3–52.
McCarty GW, Reeves JB III, Doraiswamy PC, Doumbia M. 2010.
Evaluation of methods for measuring soil organic carbon in
8 van Zijl and Botha
West African soils. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5:
2169–2177.
Mokhema T. 2015. South African 2015 corn crop seen shrinking
to four-year low. Bloomberg Business, 20 February. Available
at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-20/
south-africa-s-2015-corn-crop-seen-shrinking-to-four-year-low
[accessed 20 February 2015].
Paterson G, Turner D, Wiese L, van Zijl G, Clarke C, van Tol J.
2015. Spatial soil information in South Africa: situational analysis,
limitations and challenges. South African Journal of Science
111(5/6): 1–7, Art. #2014-0178.
Rossiter DG. 2004. Digital soil resource inventories: status and
prospects. Soil Use and Management 20: 296–301.
RSA (Republic of South Africa). 2013. Spatial Planning and Land
Use Management Act no 16 of 2013. Available at http://www.
polity.org.za/article/spatial-planning-and-land-use-management-
act-act-no-16-of-2013-2013-08-05 [accessed 12 February 2014].
Sanchez PA, Ahamed S, Carré F, Hartemink AE, Hempel J,
Huising J, Lagacherie P, McBratney AB, McKenzie NJ, de
Mendonça-Santos ML, Minasny B, Montanarella L, Okoth P,
Palm CA, Sachs JD, Shepherd KD, Vågen T-G, Vanlauwe B,
Walsh MG, Winowiecki LA, Zhang G-L. 2009. Digital soil map of
the world. Science 325: 680–681.
Received 24 July 2015, revised 26 November 2015, accepted 14 December 2015
View publication stats
Sanderman J, Farquharson R, Baldock J. 2010. Soil carbon
sequestration potential: a review for Australian agriculture.
Report prepared for Department of Climate Change and Energy
Efficiency, CSIRO, Canberra.
SA Weather Service. 2015. Long-term average rainfall data.
Available at http://www.weathersa.co.za [accessed 15 May
2015].
SCWG (Soil Classification Working Group). 1991. Soil classifica-
tion: a taxonomic system for South Africa. Pretoria: Department
of Agricultural Development.
Selvaradjou S-K, Montanarella L, Spaargaren O, Dent D. 2005.
European Digital Archive of Soil Maps (EuDASM): soil maps
of Africa. EUR 21657 EN. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities.
Shangguan W, Dai Y, Duan Q, Liu B, Yuan H. 2014, A global soil
data set for earth system modelling. Journal of Advances in
Modelling Earth Systems 6: 249–263.
Vågen T-G, Winowiecki LA, Tondoh, JE, Desta LT. 2013. Africa Soil
Information Service (AfSIS) – Soil Health Mapping V2. Available
at http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/19793 [accessed 1 June 2015].
van Zijl GM, Bouwer D, van Tol JJ, Le Roux PAL. 2014. Functional
digital soil mapping: a case study from Namarroi, Mozambique.
Geoderma 219–220: 155–161.
Associate Editor: Sunette Laurie