slide1 n.
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


Download Now 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?