VENETO REGION PILOT AREAVENETO REGION PILOT AREA Silvia Obber Silvia Obber

Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV

Ispra - February 6-7, 2006

• The first to fill in the exchange format in order to provide an example

• Austria-Veneto pilot areas are not cross-border

LACK OF HARMONISATION POSSIBILITIES

• 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.

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)

EXCURSIONS

• Italy seems confident using WRB classification (no national classification)

• Countries with national classifications tend to “translate” their classifications to WRB (single WRB adjective)

CLASSIFICATION

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

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?

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.

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..)

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)

PIXEL 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?

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?

DOMINANT STU TABLE

Very important to be filled in.

Has it been filled by all partners?

If not, why not?

METADATA TABLE