1. EXCHANGE FORMAT Ialina Vinci EXCHANGE FORMAT Ialina Vinci Osservatorio Regionale Suolo - ARPAV Ispra 3-4 February 2005

2. 3 tables: STU table, PIXEL table and METADATA table DOM_STU added dominant STU coverage (%) also if non soil % > dominant STU %, dom. STU has to be considered for pixel filling in STU_TOT added as sum of all STU coverage (should be 100% with SUR-BARE, SUR-URB, W- BODY) PX-CFL, PX-AVLB, PX-SCALE, PX-OBS, PX- NPROF added to pixel table as data quality indicators NEW VERSION of the exchange format - 1

3. OC-S-30 OC content in the pixel (t/ha), 0-30 cm from the mineral soil surface OC-HUM OC content in the pixel (t/ha), holorganic layers OC-S-100 OC content in the pixel (t/ha), 0-100 cm from the mineral soil surface (not mandatory) S-LOSS actual soil loss in the pixel (t/ha/year) estimated through models (CORINE Erosion?) NEW VERSION of the exchange format - 2

4. CORINE EROSION

5. GENERAL REMARKS – geographical

6. GENERAL REMARKS – 1 Collection of the Projection files used by each partner Collection of the different approaches-tools and documents (modules, moulinette, ISO standards). Data treatment. Re-projection or a common method? From INSPIRE grid towards national local projection systems 1) re-projection of shapefiles (soil maps, land use maps, etc.), and then work in INSPIRE projection system. 2) use own projection system and at the end convert results in INSPIRE projection system. Who is responsible for filling the shared (cross border) pixels? Shared pixel: Fill together (the 2 partners agree on the value of the pixel) 1) both the partners fill the pixel 2) assign pixels on the basis of majority of the area

7. GENERAL REMARKS – 2 Loss of information: What will happen for cases where the dominant STU has a percentage less than 30%. Should we use a limit? Possibility to use the other Typological unit and not only the Dominant ones. Possibility to describe all the typological units in pixel? We are trying to set up and test a methodology; in the future it could be added information by means of: adding to the DOM-STU info. on the more limiting one, or for each parameter (in class) add the average value (the more frequent) among those of the STUs occurring in the pixel (as in the 1:1 M raster database) Add OC content and Soil Loss also for dominant STU Harmonization: Different interpretations of harmonization from different local sources We should try to set as clearly as possible rules for filling in the pixels, but each partner has to deal with available data, and need some degree of freedom (metadata table)

8. GENERAL REMARKS - 3 Is the 1Km x 1Km a simplified approach? Should it be more detailed? Should it be tested in 100m or 500m? Every partner is free to test more detailed grid, but standard grid is set to 1 km, as we are testing a methodology thought to be worked out for the whole alpine territory which pixel size is the more suitable? Depends from data sources and the purposes: For analysis: small pixels For description/reporting: depending on the final user Variability of the Alpine soil database should be high? Enlarge the attribute table with more data fields? Add fields in order to keep the compatibility with 1M database. Suggestions for the future: - add coarse fragments of TOPSOIL (MOP) - delete TEXT-TOP-SEC and TEXT-SUB-SEC - add some items in WM for mountain soils (now) - shift WM1 and 2 to PIXEL table Corine LandCover – what is Urban area? Sources of LandCover information. Use of same data source

9. REMARKS on EXCHANGE FORMAT Agricultural use definition Water Management – Agricultural use: How do we make the filling of the pixel? Limitation in the possible values for Impermeable Layer Use of more specified textural classes? Water Management – Agricultural use: How do we make the filling of the pixel? Limitation in the possible values for Impermeable Layer Soil land scape model definition? What is the Soil landscape model? (Confidence level of pixel) Parameter Px: number of observations per pixel? What is observation? Organic Carbon and Erosion. How to calculate those parameters? Common methodology needed in order to have similar results Metadata description table (how to describe the relevant metadata) Exchange Format: If there is no information or attribute in the regional database, how this attribute will be reported?

10. Future of the project? Future funds? Future of the Alpine Database? How will be the final package of the whole project? The JRC is supporting this project! The JRC is in favour in the continuation of the project Get out a Methodology-Procedure of how to make an Alpine Soil Database(added value). This can be applied in an operational project in other regions-areas. Common Manual of procedures FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

11. AGRI-USE pasture is considered agricultural use? AGLIM code for poorly drained is missing (19?) ROO class 5 (0-80 cm)? PAR-MAT origin and lithology of parent material are considered together (slope deposits 5800, dolomite 2120) WR correspondence of 1 with well drained- excessively drained WRB-FULL better as first, before adjectives PROBLEMS in filling in the STU exchange format

12. How to fill in STU table

13. PROBLEMS in filling in the STU exchange format - MODULES

14. How to fill in PIXEL table

15. How to fill in METADATA table

17. SOIL DATABASE of the Veneto Region