Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and biological activity (Bouma et al., 1977; RingroseVoase, 1987; Pagliai and De Nobili, 1993). The selection
and interpretation of the morphological parameters of
soil pores that best characterize soil structure, however,
is still a subject of research (Droogers et al., 1998;
Holden, 2001). Statistical methods of characterization
of pore-solid arrangement from images emphasize the
spatial structure of pores with the advantage of being
more amenable to modeling soil structure and processes
(Dexter 1976, 1977; Moran and McBratney, 1997; Garboczi et al., 1999; Horgan, 1999; Vogel and Roth, 2001).
Among the statistical methods used to characterize
soil structure, fractal techniques are relatively common
in soil science (Anderson et al., 1996; Pachepsky et al.,
1996; Gimenez et al., 1997). Fractal geometry assumes
that the dependence of the properties of a system with
scale (scaling) can be represented with a power law,
with the exponent being typically a function of a fractal
dimension. However, it has become increasingly evident
that knowledge on the fractal dimension of a set is
insufficient to characterize its geometry (Loehle and
Li, 1996). The fractal dimension, D, characterizes the
average properties of a set and cannot provide information on deviations from the average behavior of a power
law. For example, the box-counting technique is used
to estimate D from images of pore systems by covering
them with a grid of boxes of various sizes. The technique ignores the variations in pore density within a
box other than categorizing boxes as empty or occupied
(Vicsek, 1992). As a result, sets with different appearance or textures may have similar fractal dimensions
(Mandelbrot, 1982; Voss, 1988). On the other hand, a
multifractal analysis captures the inner variations in a
system by resolving local densities and expresses them
in the shape of a multifractal spectrum (Hentschel and
Procaccia, 1983; Frisch and Parisi, 1985; Halsey et al.,
1986; Chhabra et al., 1989; Chhabra and Jensen, 1989).
The multifractal concept has been useful in studies of
spatial arrangement of physical and chemical quantities
(Stanley and Meakin, 1988; Feder, 1988; Evertsz and
Mandelbrot, 1992; Cheng and Agterberg, 1996), turbulence (Meneveau and Sreenivasan, 1991), and geology
(Muller and McCauley, 1992; Cheng, 1999). In soil science, multifractal techniques have been applied to the
characterization of particle- and pore-size distributions
(Grout et al., 1998; Caniego et al., 2001; Posadas et
al., 2001; Martn and Montero, 2002), surface strength
(Folorunso et al., 1994), and spatial variability of soil
properties (Kravchenko et al., 1999). The only published
report on the application of a multifractal method to
soil pores is an analysis of the histogram of pore area
1361
1362
Table 1. Soil classification and selected properties of the studied soil horizons.
Horizon
Group
1
2
3
Soil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Soil classification
Spodosol
Argiaquic Argialboll
Typic Haplorthox
Typic Haplorthox
Inceptisol
Orthoxic Tropudult
Mollic Albaqualf
Petric Plinthudult
Entisol
Entisol
Type
Depth
C
B
B
B
C
B
B
A
BC
B
cm
6573
3440
3038
7078
2025
3340
4752
18
2032
614
Organic
matter
Sand
Silt
Clay
15.0
66.2
22.0
6.0
4.9
21.0
67.1
51.0
63.5
65.2
31.0
25.1
58.0
72.0
0.4
31.0
30.2
37.0
33.8
33.4
%
0.1
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.7
1.3
1.1
54.0
3.1
20.0
22.0
94.6
48.0
2.7
12.0
2.7
1.4
Fractal dimensions offer a systematic approach to quantifying irregular patterns that contain an internal structure repeated over a range of scales (Meakin, 1991). For a fractal
object the number of features of a certain size , N(), varies as:
[1]
logN(L)
D0 lim
L0 log(1/L)
[2]
Using Eq. [2], the box-counting dimension D0 can be determined as the negative slope of log N(L ) versus log(L ) measured over a range of box sizes. The disadvantage of the boxcounting technique is that the process does not consider the
amount of mass inside a box Ni (L ) and is, therefore, not able
to resolve regions with high or low density of mass. Multifractal
methods are suited for characterizing complex spatial arrangement of mass because they can resolve local densities (Vicsek,
1992). In practice, a way to quantify local densities is by estimating the mass probability in the ith box as:
Pi(L) Ni(L)/NT
[4]
where i is the Lipschitz-Holder exponent characterizing scaling in the ith region or spatial location (Halsey et al., 1986).
In our case, these exponents reflect the local behavior of the
measure Pi (L ) around the center of a box with diameter
L, and can be estimated from Eq. [4] as i log Pi (L )/
log(L )(Fig. 1d and 1e). Note that similar i values are found
at different positions in an image. The number of boxes N()
where the probability Pi has exponent values between and
d is found to scale as (Chhabra et al., 1989; Halsey et
al., 1986):
N() Lf()
THEORY
N() D
Pi(L) Li
[3]
[5]
i1
P iq(L) L(q1)Dq
[6]
Dq lim
L0
1
q1
log P iq(L)
i1
logL
[7]
(q) (q 1) Dq
[8]
From Eq. [7] we see than when q 0 all the boxes have
a weight of unity, the numerator becomes N(L ), and Dq becomes the capacity dimension, D0 (Eq. [2]). Similarly, when
all the boxes have the same probability, that is, Pi 1/N, Dq
D0 for all values of q and (q ) becomes a linear function of
q (homogeneous fractal). Two other special cases are for q 1
and q 2. The values D1 and D2 are known as the entropy
dimension and the correlation dimension, respectively. The
entropy dimension is related to the information entropy of
Shannon and Weaver (1949), which quantifies the decrease in
information as the size of the boxes increases. The correlation
dimension D2 is mathematically associated with the correlation
function and computes the correlation of measures contained
in a box of size L.
The connection between the power exponents f() (Eq. [5])
and (q ) (Eq. [8]) is made via the Legendre transformation
(Callen, 1985; Halsey et al., 1986; Chhabra and Jensen, 1989):
1363
Fig. 1. Illustration of multifractal theory applied to a binary image. (a) binary image of Soil 7 (500 750 pixels), spatial pattern of probabilities
Pi(L ) calculated with Eq. [3] using (b) L 10 and (c) L 50 pixels, and spatial pattern of the exponent i estimated with Eq. [4] using (d)
L 10 and (e) L 50 pixels.
[9a]
and
(q)
d(q)
dq
[9b]
4A
P2
[10]
1364
N(L)
(q) lim
L0
Fig. 2. Examples of application of (a) Eq. [12], and (b) Eq. [13] to
the binary image of Soil 7 for selected q values. Values of f(q )
and (q ) were obtained from the slope of plots similar to those
in (a) and in (b), respectively. The plot of (q 1.0) illustrates
data that resulted in R2 0.88, one of the lowest found in this
study (R2 for the rest of the plots can be found in Table 3).
i(q,L)
P iq(L)
N(L)
[11]
P iq(L)
i1
f(q) lim
L0
i1
i(q,L)log[i(q,L)]
logL
[12]
i1
i(q,L) log[Pi(L)]
logL
[13]
1365
structural units are elongated in shape and interconnected (Bouma et al., 1977; Ringrose-Voase and Bullock, 1984). Except for Soil 9 and Soil 10, between 50
and 74% of the total porosity contributed by pores with
area larger than 0.27 106 m2 was formed by elongated
pores suggesting that pedogenetic processes were active
in these soils (Table 2).
Three groups of soils were distinguished using the
values of porosity and MAU. Soils in Group 1 (Soil 1
Multifractal Analysis
A crucial step in multifractal analysis is to determine
the range of both L and (negative and positive) moments of order q over which a multifractal method is
Table 2. Total porosity, mean pore area of the lower (MAL) and upper (MAU) one-half cumulative distribution of this property, and
pore shape classes (expressed as percentage of total porosity) measured from binary images.
Pore-shape classes
Group
1
2
3
Soil
Total
porosity
MAL
106m2
MAU
106m2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.17
0.15
0.20
0.16
0.21
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.06
0.06
0.051
0.046
0.068
0.037
0.066
0.053
0.054
0.083
0.025
0.034
5.049
3.832
3.204
0.899
1.770
8.608
77.646
12.699
0.345
0.692
F 0.2
0.2 F 0.5
F 0.5
% Total porosity
50.2
55.2
49.8
34.9
51.7
61.6
73.5
67.4
11.7
13.2
18.6
11.4
23.8
16.9
17.1
13.3
3.35
9.5
18.3
28.1
1.7
2.3
1.9
2.4
1.2
3.0
2.8
4.2
2.4
8.8
1366
Table 3. Selected multifractal parameters the residual error of the estimates from the analysis of binary images. Also shown are the
values of the coefficients of determination of the fits (R2).
q
Group
1
2
3
Soil
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.3
2.8
3.5
3.0
5.0
1.3
1.0
1.4
2.4
4.0
R2
D0
1.75
1.73
1.79
1.78
1.82
1.58
1.64
1.65
1.53
1.56
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.98
0.98
R2
D1
1.70
1.67
1.73
1.72
1.77
1.56
1.63
1.63
1.49
1.50
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.04
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
f [(1)]
R2
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.70
1.66
1.73
1.71
1.74
1.57
1.62
1.64
1.51
1.52
0.18
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.16
0.17
0.12
(0)
R2
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.97
0.96
1.81
1.80
1.85
1.84
1.88
1.61
1.67
1.68
1.59
1.63
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
max
R2
0.88
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.85
0.87
0.85
0.85
0.87
1.94
2.01
2.00
2.03
2.06
1.65
1.74
1.72
1.65
1.77
1.30
1.40
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.30
1.20
1.30
1.10
1.40
min
R2
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.67
1.60
1.67
1.65
1.66
1.56
1.63
1.63
1.44
1.36
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.10
0.05
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.16
D0, D1, and f [(1)] are fractal dimensions at q 0, q 1, and q 1, respectively; (0), max, and min are the values of the Lipschitz-holder exponent
at q 0, and at the most negative (q) and most positive (q) values that defined the range q over which the multifractal method was applied.
1367
CONCLUSIONS
Fig. 6. f()-spectra for soils in (a) Group 1, (b) Group 2, and (c)
Group 3, as shown in Fig. 4.
1368
Table 4. Correlation coefficients between selected multifractal parameters and pore properties measured in thin sections (total porosity,
log MAL, and log MAU) or on different soil samples (organic matter, sand, silt, and clay contents).
Multifractal
parameters
D0
D1
(0)
max
min
q
q
Total porosity
log MAL
log MAU
Organic matter
Sand
Silt
Clay
0.940***
0.987***
0.940***
0.844**
0.505
0.118
0.368
0.493
0.613
0.387
0.189
0.062
0.446
0.237
0.039
0.196
0.079
0.225
0.016
0.350
0.715*
0.335
0.364
0.321
0.323
0.666
0.139
0.022
0.520
0.547
0.492
0.403
0.351
0.281
0.407
0.669*
0.669*
0.641*
0.544
0.438
0.147
0.342
0.090
0.050
0.086
0.084
0.045
0.181
0.181
Fig. 7. Plots of (a) (0) vs. D0 and (b) widths of -intervals: (0) (qi,) vs. (qi,) (0) for soils in the three groups considered. The
numerical values of qi, and qi, were the same and equal to the smallest of the two values defining a q interval (see Table 3). Proximity
to the 1:1 line implies (a) more homogeneous distributions, or (b) more symmetric f()-spectra. In plot (b) two soils of Group 2 had identical
values and show as one point in the graph.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Prof. Richard Protz passed away suddenly on 17 Nov. 2001
without being able to participate in the preparation of this
paper. We gratefully acknowledge his active and valuable contributions throughout the duration of this project. The authors
are grateful to Dr. Ana Mara Tarquis for useful discussions
on multifractal theory, and to the reviewers for their helpful
and constructive comments.
REFERENCES
Anderson, A.N., A.B. McBratney, and E.A. FitzPatrick. 1996. Soil
mass, surface, and spectral fractal dimensions estimated from thin
section photographs. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:962969.
Bouma, J., A. Jongerius, O. Boersma, A. Jager, and D. Schoonderbeek. 1977. The function of different types of macropores during
saturated flow through four swelling soil horizons. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 41:945950.
Brewer, R. 1979. Relationships between particle size, fabric and other
factors in some Australian soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 17:2941.
Callen, H.B. 1985. Thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Caniego, F.J., M.A. Martn, and F. San Jose. 2001. Singularity features
of pore-size soil distribution: Singularity strength analysis and entropy spectrum. Fractals 9:305316.
Cheng, Q., and F.P. Agterberg. 1996. Multifractal modeling and spatial
statistics. Math. Geol. 28:116.
Cheng, Q. 1999. Multifractality and spatial statistics. Comput.
Geosci. 25:949961.
Chhabra, A.B., C. Meneveu, R.V. Jensen, and K.R. Sreenivasan.
1989. Direct determination of the f () singularity spectrum and
its application to fully developed turbulence. Phys. Rev. A 40:
52845294.
Chhabra, A.B., and R.V. Jensen. 1989. Direct determination of the
f() singularity spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62:13271330.
Dexter, A.R. 1976. Internal structure of tilled soil. J. Soil Sci. 27:
267278.
Dexter, A.R. 1977. A statistical measure of the structure of tilled soil.
J. Agric. Eng. Res. 22:101104.
Droogers, P., A. Stein, J. Bouma, and G. de Boer. 1998. Parameters
for describing soil macroporosity derived from staining patterns.
Geoderma 83:293308.
Eswaran, H., and C. Banos. 1976. Related distribution patterns in
soils and their significance. An. Edaf. Agriobiol. 35:3345.
Evertsz, C.J.G., and B.B. Mandelbrot. 1992. Multifractal measures.
p. 921953. In H.-O. Peitgen et al. (ed.). Chaos and Fractals. New
Frontiers of Science. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Feder, J. 1988. Fractals. Plenum Press, New York.
Folorunso, O.A., C.E. Puente, D.E. Rolston, and J.E. Pinzon. 1994.
Statistical and fractal evaluation of the spatial characteristics of
soil surface strength. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:284294.
Frisch, U., and G. Parisi. 1985. Fully developed turbulence and intermittency. p. 84. In M. Ghil et al. (ed.). Turbulence and preditability
in geophysical flows and climate dynamics. North-Holland, NY.
Garboczi, E.J., D.P. Bentz, and N.S. Martys. 1999. Digital images and
computer modelling. p. 141. In P-Z Wong (ed.). Experimental
methods for porous media. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Gimenez, D., R.R. Allmaras, E.A. Nater, and D.R. Huggins. 1997.
Fractal dimensions for volume and surface of interaggregate
poresScale effects. Geoderma 77:1938.
Goenadi, D.H., and K.H. Tan. 1989. Relationship of soil fabric and
particle-size distribution in a Davison soil. Soil Sci. 147:264269.
Grout, H., A.M. Tarquis, and M.R. Wiesner. 1998. Multifractal analysis of particle size distributions in soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:
11761182.
Halsey, T.C., M.H. Jensen, L.P. Kadanoff, I. Procaccia, and B.I. Shrai-
1369
man. 1986. Fractal measures and their singularities: The characterization of strange sets. Phys. Rev. A 33:11411151.
Hentschel, H.G.E., and I. Procaccia. 1983. The infinite number of
generalized dimensions of fractals and strange attractors.
Physica D 8:435444.
Holden, N.M. 2001. Description and classification of soil structure
using distance transform data. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52:529545.
Horgan, G.W. 1998. Mathematical morphology for analysing soil
structure from images. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 49:161173.
Horgan, G.W. 1999. An investigation on the geometric influences on
pore space diffusion. Geoderma 88:5571.
Jim, C.Y. 1988. A classification of soil microfabrics. Geoderma 41:
315325.
Korvin, G. 1992. Fractal methods in the earth science. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Kravchenko, A., C.W. Boast, and D.G. Bullock. 1999. Multifractal
analysis of soil spatial variability. Agron. J. 91:10331041.
Lipiec, J., R. Hatano, and A. Słowinska-Jurkiewicz. 1998. The
fractal dimension of pore distribution patterns in variously-compacted soils. Soil Tillage Res. 47:6166.
Loehle, C., and B.-L. Li. 1996. Statistical properties of ecological and
geological fractals. Ecol. Modell. 85:271284.
Mandelbrot, B.B. 1982. The fractal geometry of nature. 2nd ed. W.H.
Freeman and Co., New York.
Martn, M.A., and E. Montero. 2002. Laser diffraction and multifractal
analysis for the characterization of dry soil volume-size distribution.
Soil Tillage Res. 64:113123.
Meakin, P. 1991. Fractal aggregates in geophysics. Rev. Geophys.
29:317354.
Meneveau, C., and K.R. Sreenivasan. 1991. The multifractal nature
of turbulent energy dissipation. J. Fluid Mech. 224:429484.
Moran, C.J., and A.B. McBratney. 1997. A two-dimensional fuzzy
random model of soil pore structure. Math. Geol. 29:755777.
Muller, J., and J.L. McCauley. 1992. Implication of fractal geometry
for fluid flow properties of sedimentary rocks. Transp. Porous
Media 8:133147.
Pachepsky, Ya., V. Yakovchenko, M.C. Rabenhorst, C. Pooley, and
L.J. Sikora. 1996. Fractal parameters of pore surfaces as derived
from micromorphological data: Effect of long term management
practices. Geoderma 74:305319.
Pagliai, M., and M. De Nobili. 1993. Relationships between soil porosity, root development and soil enzyme activity in cultivated soils.
Geoderma 56:243256.
Posadas, A., D. Gimenez, M. Bittelli, C.M.P. Vaz, and M. Flury. 2001.
Multifractal characterization of soil particle-size distributions. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:13611367.
Rasband, W. 1993. NIH-Image v. 1.52. An image processing system
for the Macintosh. U.S. National Institute of Health, NTIS, Springfield, VA.
Ringrose-Voase, A.J. 1987. A scheme for the quantitative description
of soil macrostructure by image analysis. J. Soil Sci. 38:343356.
Ringrose-Voase, A.J., and P. Bullock. 1984. The automatic recognition
and measurement of soil pore types by image analysis and computer
programs. J. Soil Sci. 35:673684.
Saucier, A., and J. Muller. 1999. Textural analysis of disordered materials with multifractals. Physica A 267:221238.
Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of
Communication. University of Illinois Press. Urbana, IL.
Stanley, H.E., and P. Meakin. 1988. Multifractal phenomena in physics
and chemistry. Nature 335:405409.
VandenBygaart, A.J., and R. Protz. 1999. The representative elementary area (REA) in studies of quantitative soil micromorphology.
Geoderma 89:333346.
Vicsek, T. 1992. Fractal growth phenomena. 2nd ed. Word Scientific
Publishing Co., Singapore.
Vogel, H.-J., and K. Roth. 2001. Quantitative morphology and network representation of soil pore structure. Adv. Water Resour.
24:233242.
Voss, R.F. 1988. Fractals in nature: From characterization to simulation. p. 2169. In H.-O. Peitgen and D. Saupe (ed.). The Science
of Fractal Images. Springer-Verlag, New York.