MCCN Case Study 2 - Spatial projection via modelled data by Donald Hobern (21435904)

“…</p><h4><b>Data sources</b></h4><ul><li><b>BradGinns_SOIL2004_SoilData.csv</b> - Soil measurements from the University of Sydney Llara Campey farm site from 2004, corresponding to sites L1, L3 and L4 describing mid-depth, soil apparent electrical conductivity (ECa), GammaK, Clay, Silt, Sand, pH and soil electrical conductivity (EC)</li><li><b>Llara_Campey_field_boundaries_poly.shp</b> - Field boundary shapes for the University of Sydney Llara Campey farm site</li></ul><h4><b>Dependencies</b></h4><ul><li>This notebook requires Python 3.10 or higher</li><li>Install relevant Python libraries with: <b>pip install mccn-engine rocrate rioxarray pykrige</b></li><li>Installing mccn-engine will install other dependencies</li></ul><h4><b>Overview</b></h4><ol><li>Select soil sample measurements for pH or EC at 45 cm depth</li><li>Split sample measurements into 80% subset to model interpolated layers and 20% to test interpolated layers</li><li>Generate STAC metadata for layers</li><li>Load data cube</li><li>Interpolate pH and EC across site using the 80% subset and three different 2D interpolation methods from rioxarray (nearest, linear and cubic) and one from pykrige (linear)</li><li>Calculate the error between each layer of interpolated values and measured values for the 20% setaside for testing</li><li>Compare the mean and standard deviation of the errors for each interpolation method</li><li>Clean up and package results as RO-Crate</li></ol><h4><b>Notes</b></h4><ul><li>The granularity of variability in soil data significantly compromises all methods</li><li>Depending on the 80/20 split, different methods may appear more reliable, but the pykrige linear method is most often best</li></ul><p><br></p>…”