Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 8 – uploaded by Marta Fuchs

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
* Ranked based on distance, closest first. Possible correlation of HBFS types to related WRB RSGs according to the results of the applied methods compared with expert based previous studies (Michéli et al., 2006). Table 8

Table 8 * Ranked based on distance, closest first. Possible correlation of HBFS types to related WRB RSGs according to the results of the applied methods compared with expert based previous studies (Michéli et al., 2006). Table 8

Related Figures (10)

Dominant identifiers and derived centroids defined based on the dominant soil forming factors and processes of the studied soil types. Table 1
Dominant identifiers and derived centroids defined based on the dominant soil forming factors and processes of the studied soil types. Table 1
Description of codes applied to characterize soil groups based on selected identifiers.
Description of codes applied to characterize soil groups based on selected identifiers.
Number of HBFS and WRB RSG profiles, applied for the calculations of the centroids.
Number of HBFS and WRB RSG profiles, applied for the calculations of the centroids.
Calculated centroid values for the selected WRB and HBFS units. Table 5
Calculated centroid values for the selected WRB and HBFS units. Table 5
The matrix of 19 soil groups matched and coded with the selected dominant identifiers. Table 4
The matrix of 19 soil groups matched and coded with the selected dominant identifiers. Table 4
Fig. 1. Calculated taxonomic distances plotted on shaded distance matrices based on the concept-based (a) and the centroid-based (b) approach.
Fig. 1. Calculated taxonomic distances plotted on shaded distance matrices based on the concept-based (a) and the centroid-based (b) approach.
Fig. 2. WRB RSGs and HBFS types plotted along the two principal coordinates based on the concept-based (a) and the centroid-based (b) approach (inset shows the first four principal ‘oordinates).
Fig. 2. WRB RSGs and HBFS types plotted along the two principal coordinates based on the concept-based (a) and the centroid-based (b) approach (inset shows the first four principal ‘oordinates).
Calculated distances between the BFS types and the WRB RSGs, according to the concept-based approach. Table 6
Calculated distances between the BFS types and the WRB RSGs, according to the concept-based approach. Table 6
Calculated distances between the BFS types and the WRB RSGs, according to the centroid-based approach. Table 7
Calculated distances between the BFS types and the WRB RSGs, according to the centroid-based approach. Table 7
Related topics:
MathematicsSoil ScienceSoil Classification
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved