slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 13

VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 119 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' VENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV' - evette


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide2

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
slide3

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.
slide4

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)
slide5

CLASSIFICATION

  • Italy seems confident using WRB classification (no national classification)
  • Countries with national classifications tend to “translate” their classifications to WRB (single WRB adjective)
slide6

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

slide7

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?

slide8

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.

slide9

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..)

slide10

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)

slide11

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?

slide12

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?

slide13

METADATA TABLE

Very important to be filled in.

Has it been filled by all partners?

If not, why not?

ad