1 / 13

VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV

VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV. Ispra - February 6-7, 2006. LACK OF HARMONISATION POSSIBILITIES. The first to fill in the exchange format in order to provide an example. Austria-Veneto pilot areas are not cross-border. EXCURSIONS.

evette
Download Presentation

VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VENETO REGION PILOT AREASilvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV Ispra - February6-7, 2006

  2. LACK OF HARMONISATION POSSIBILITIES • The first to fill in the exchange format in order to provide an example • Austria-Veneto pilot areas are not cross-border

  3. EXCURSIONS • Austria-Veneto: very different environments. High interest but low correlation possibilities • Humus forms could have been discussed more, during all excursions (important for OC) • Friuli-Slovenia: good examples of harmonisation. A single pilot area, already harmonised.

  4. EXCURSIONS • Similar interpretations of pedogenetic processes (es: Bs/Bw horizons in Lombardy or Switzerland) • This should lead to similar classifications, with few problems of different soil classifications on the borderline (U. Wolf)

  5. CLASSIFICATION • Italy seems confident using WRB classification (no national classification) • Countries with national classifications tend to “translate” their classifications to WRB (single WRB adjective)

  6. PIXEL TABLE STU-TOT (pixel table) Total STU coverage (%), sum of all STUs coverage. STU-TOT+NON SOIL should be 100%, exept for border pixels. Was the interpretation of the parameter the same for everyone? Is it coherent with the 1:1M DB? Problem: NON SOIL (SUR-BARE+SUR-URB+W-BODY) and STU_TOT come from different DB

  7. PIXEL TABLE SUR-BARE+SUR-URB+W-BODY: Should everybody use Corine 2000 to have the same definition of NON-Soil or should they use local sources and describe them in metadata? Which is the source for non-soil for the 1:1M DB?

  8. PIXEL TABLE PX-CFL: Confidence level of pixel description PX-AVLB: Soil data availability PX-OBS: Number of total observations in the pixel N-PROF: Number of profiles in the pixel There is no reason not to fill in these parameters.

  9. PIXEL TABLE CO-HUM: organic carbon content of holorganic layers in the pixel (t/ha) Is the value “0” of some pilot area for missing data or for no holorganic layers presence? (es: agricultural sites, vineyards, ecc..)

  10. PIXEL TABLE S-LOSS: Actual soil loss in the pixel (t/ha/year) some pilot areas have filled the DB with the interval of the classes of t/ha (ES: 10-40)

  11. DOMINANT STU TABLE STU-DOM Dominant STU coverage (%). It should have been calculated as percentage of the STU-TOT Was the interpretation of the parameter the same for everyone? Is it coherent with the 1:1M DB?

  12. DOMINANT STU TABLE TOP-DEPTH : depth of topsoil (cm) It gives precision and accuracy to the data, it helps to characterise mountain and agricultural soils Should bulk density and organic carbon content of TOP-DEPTH be added to check the data of 1:1M DB?

  13. METADATA TABLE Very important to be filled in. Has it been filled by all partners? If not, why not?

More Related