A Large Scale GIS Geodatabase of Soil Parameters Supporting the Modeling of Conservation Practice Alternatives in the United States
- 1 Blackland Research Center, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Temple, Texas, USA
- 2 Grassland Research Center, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas, USA
- 3 Grassland Research Center, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas, USA
- 4 Blackland Research Center, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Temple, Texas, USA
- 5 Grassland Research Center, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas, USA
Abstract
Water quality modeling requires across-scale support of combined digital soil elements and simulation parameters. This paper presents the unprecedented development of a large spatial scale (1:250,000) ArcGIS geodatabase coverage designed as a functional repository of soil-parameters for modeling and comparison of water quality outcomes in the United States. The set of target models include: SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool), APEX (Agricultural Policy Environmental Extender), and ALMANAC (Agricultural Land Management Alternatives with Numerical Assessment Criteria). This development relies on the Digital General Soil Map (DGSM) as the source of soil information, and leverages on architectural design and associated tools created for a companion product at higher resolution from which also was extended a procedure for refilling a large number of missing derived parameters. Outlined by regional watershed layouts and supported by GIS land use layers, the core product is developed using the File Geodatabase (FGDB) data structure, which brings, via customized Python-based tools, the data directly into geoprocessing workflows. The FGDB implement efficiently stores spatial soil features, tabular model elements and linked relationships, while seamlessly providing the environment for the extraction, spatial analysis, and mapping of the models’ parameters. As an alternative, the composing spatial elements, polygons and multi-resolution rasters, and the models’ elements are offered as a file-folder system of data with completely Open Source formats. Finally, this geographic database coverage provides support for the traditional large-scale and harmonized application of the models as well as an alternative to the higher resolution companion for areas where this information is still under development.
- USDA-NRCS (2016) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington DC, USA. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov
- Anderson, R.M., Koren, V.I. and Reed, S.M. (2006) Using SSURGO Data to Improve Sacramento Model a Priori Parameter Estimates. Journal of Hydrology, 320, 103-116.
- Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Reed, S. and Koren, V. (2011) An Enhanced and Automated Approach for Deriving a Priori SAC-SMA Parameters from the Soil Survey Geographic Database. Computers and Geosciences, 37, 219-231.
- Mednick, A.C., Sullivan, J. and Watermolen, D.J. (2008) Comparing the Use of STATSGO and SSURGO Soils Data in Water Quality Modeling: A Literature Review. Research/Management Findings, 60, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bureau of Science Services, Madison, WI.
- (2017) Status Map of Soil Surveys Available from the Web Soil Survey. http://Websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/DataAvailability/SoilDataAvailabilityMap.pdf
- Peschel, J.M., Haan, P.K. and Lacey, R.E. (2006) Influences of Soil Dataset Resolution on Hydrologic Modeling. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 42, 1371-1389.
- Geza, M. and McCray, J.E. (2008) Effects of Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Stream Flow and Water Quality Predictions. Journal of Environmental Management, 88, 393-406.
- Kumar, S. and Venkatesh, M. (2009) Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45, 1179-1196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x
- Mednick, A.C. (2010) Does Soil Data Resolution Matter? State Soil Geographic Database versus Soil Survey Geographic Database in Rainfall-Runoff Modeling across Wisconsin. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 65, 190-199. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.65.3.190
- Sheshukov, A.Y., Daggupati, P., Douglas-Mankin, K.R. and Lee, M. (2011) High Spatial Resolution Soil Data for Watershed Modeling: 2. Assessing Impacts on Watershed Hydrologic Response. Journal of Natural and Environmental Sciences, 2, 32-41.
- Williamson, T.N., Taylor, C.J. and Newson J.K. (2013) Significance of Exchanging SSURGO and STATSGO Data When Modeling Hydrology in Diverse Physiographic Terranes. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77, 877-889. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2012.0069
- USDA-SCS (1994) State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database. Publication No. 1492. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Washington DC, USA.