Data evaluation of LUCAS soil survey laboratory data : survey 2009, 2012 and 2015.
Date: 2020-02-06
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: data processing, database, earth sciences, geography, land use, research report, sampling, soil analysis, soil science, soil type

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil
Survey Laboratory Data

Survey 2009, 2012 and
2015

Hiederer, R.

2020

This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science
and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking
process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission.
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the
use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the
data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users
should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the
maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries.

Contact information
Name: 
Address: 
Email: 
Tel.: 

Roland Hiederer
Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 440, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
roland.hiederer@ec.europa.eu
+39 0332 78 57 98

EU Science Hub
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc

JRC119881
EUR 30092 EN

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-15648-2

ISSN 1831-9424

doi:10.2760/791714

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020
© European Union, 2020

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of
12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise
noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed
provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or
other material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

All content © European Union 2020.

How to cite this report: R. Hiederer, Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory 2009 to 2015 Data,
EUR 30092 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-15648-2,
doi:10.2760/791714, JRC119881.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................ v

1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1

2 Data Evaluation ............................................................................. 2

2.1 Evaluation Principle .................................................................... 2

2.2 Scope of Data Evaluation............................................................. 3

2.3 Data Sources ............................................................................. 4

2.3.1 LUCAS Soil Survey 2009 ........................................................ 4

2.3.2 LUCAS Soil Survey 2012 ........................................................ 5

2.3.3 LUCAS Soil Survey 2015 ........................................................ 6

2.4 Implementation: Evaluation Database ........................................... 6

2.4.1 Data Import Form................................................................. 7

2.4.2 Data Evaluation Form............................................................ 8

2.4.3 Data Standardisation Form .................................................... 9

3 Evaluation Checks........................................................................ 11

3.1 Compliance Checks....................................................................11

3.1.1 Specifications of Compliance Checks of 2009 Data ...................12

3.1.2 Formal Data Specifications 2012 ............................................15

3.1.3 Formal Data Specifications 2015 ............................................16

3.2 Conformity Checks ....................................................................19

3.2.1 Section 1: Data Structure .....................................................20

3.2.2 Section 2: Data Status .........................................................20

3.3 Uniformity Checks .....................................................................27

3.3.1 Section 1: Multi-parameter, Single Survey ..............................28

3.3.2 Section 2: Single Parameter, Multiple Surveys .........................29

4 Data Evaluation Results ............................................................... 31

4.1 Compliance Checks....................................................................31

4.1.1 Compliance Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Surveys ...........31

4.1.2 Compliance Check Results for 2012 LUCAS Soil Survey .............34

4.1.3 Compliance Check Results for 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey .............37

4.2 Conformity Checks ....................................................................40

4.2.1 Conformity Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Surveys ............40

4.2.2 Conformity Check Results for 2012 LUCAS Soil Surveys ............44

i

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

4.2.3 Conformity Check Results for 2015 LUCAS Soil Surveys ............46

4.3 Uniformity Checks .....................................................................54

4.3.1 Section 1: Multi-parameter, Single Survey ..............................55

4.3.2 Section 2: Single Parameter, Multiple Survey ..........................56

5 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................... 74

5.1 Compliance ..............................................................................74

5.2 Conformity ...............................................................................78

5.2.1 Section 1: Data Structure .....................................................78

5.2.2 Section 2: Data Status .........................................................83

5.3 Uniformity ................................................................................85

5.3.1 Section 1: Multi-parameter, Single-survey ..............................85

5.3.2 Section 2: Single Parameter, Multiple Surveys .........................86

5.4 Link of Soil Data to LUCAS Main Survey Point Data ........................88

5.5 Conclusions ..............................................................................90

References...................................................................................... 92

List of abbreviations and definitions............................................... 94

List of figures ................................................................................. 96

List of tables ................................................................................... 98

Annex I......................................................................................... 100

Annex II ....................................................................................... 106

ii

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Acknowledgements

The  author  would  like  to  thank  Oihane  Fernández-Ugalde  (JRC)  and  Arwyn
Jones (JRC) for providing interim and final data of the LUCAS 2015 Soil survey
and  Eurostat  for  making  the  data  of  their  Data  Management  Tool  available.
Many thanks to Bernd Gawlik (JRC) for his explanations of laboratory methods
and particularities associated with the analysis of soil carbon.

Author

Hiederer, Roland

iii

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

iv

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Abstract

In  2015  topsoil  samples  were  collected  in  all  28  Member  States  of  the
European Union under the Soil module of the LUCAS survey. Previous surveys
were  performed  in  2009  and  2012,  but  with  restricted  coverage.  All  soil
samples  were  analysed  by  a  central  laboratory  using  standard  methods.  The
results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  were  evaluated  for  their  practicality  to
characterise the status and changes of European topsoil physical and chemical
conditions. The evaluation covers aspects of data compliance to specifications,
conformity  to  data  structures  and  value  ranges,  consistency  between
parameters  and  surveys.  The  parameters  evaluated  were:  coarse  fragments,
clay  silt  and  sand  content,  pH  in  CaCl2  and  H2O,  organic  carbon,  calcium
carbonate, total nitrogen, soluble phosphor, extractable potassium and cation
exchange capacity.

Despite  general  common  characteristics  the  reported  laboratory  results  from
the  various  soil  surveys  also  display  some  notable  differences.  For  laboratory
methods  and  delivery  of  results  from  the  2009  and  2015  survey  detailed
specifications  were  available.  No  such  specifications  were  available  for  the
methods and delivery of the 2012 laboratory results. The data largely comply
to  the  specifications  for  file  format  and  content.  Low  adherence  to  the
specifications  was  noted  for  parameter  position  in  the  file.  This  is  potentially
problematic when parameters with a similar range of values are interchanged,
as for silt and sand or pH(CaCl2) and pH(H2O). For the 2012 survey the values
for  total  nitrogen  were  reported  in  the  wrong  unit,  which  in  the  absence  of
specifications for the data may not be obvious.

The checks of conformity found incompatible data types and duplicates for the
key field containing the sample identifier. This reduces the number of samples
that can be unambiguously assigned to LUCAS points for a geographic location
by  up  to  10%  (2009).  The  codes  indicating  measurements  below  the  limit  of
detection and the values used differed between documents and years. In data
for the 2012 and 2015 results numeric entries were used, which is a potential
source  of  error  when  analysing  the  data.  The  evaluation  of  consistency
between  parameters  of  a  survey  showed  few  cases  outside  the  expected
range.  However,  the  temporal  consistency  of  a  parameter  with  repeated
samples shows a degree of variability that is several times higher than for the
repeated laboratory analysis of a sample and viable unfeasible for 15% of the
samples from soils high in organic material. This indicates a sizable variability
in  soil  conditions  between  repeated  samples.  Uncertainties  in  the  data  were
identified  for  CaCO3  and  soluble  phosphor  at  low  concentrations.  The  values
for  cation  exchange  capacity  would  appear  to  be  highly  variable  and  to  be
used with particular caution, if at all.

The  evaluation  found  that  the  results  from  the  laboratory  analysis  of  the
LUCAS Soil survey are valuable to characterise European topsoil conditions. A
change  in  data  delivery  format  would  ease  some  of  the  format  issues  found.
Including  the  analysis  of  texture  parameters  in  revisited  sample  locations
would  help  in  the  identification  of  problems  in  the  stability  of  repeated
samples.

v

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

vi

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

1 Introduction

Since 2006 the Land Use and Coverage Area frame Survey (LUCAS) is carried out
at  3-year  intervals  in  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  (EU)  to  collect
statistical  information  on  land  use  and  land  cover  over  the  territory  of  the  EU1.
The survey follows a stratified sample design where data are collected by direct
observations  of  about  340,000  points  (2015  LUCAS  survey)  made  by  surveyors
on the ground information (in situ).

In 2009 a LUCAS Soil Component (LUCAS Soil) was added to the survey on land
use/cover  (LUCAS  LUC).  The  initial  motive  for  the  LUCAS  Soil  survey  was  to
collect  data  on  soil  organic  carbon  (SOC),  with  emphasis  on  agricultural  soils.
The aim of the survey was to provide the basis for an assessment of SOC content
and,  with  repeated  surveys,  an  appraisal  of  soils  acting  as  sources  or  sinks  of
atmospheric CO2, which stems from changes in SOC. Over time the scope of the
LUCAS Soil survey was broadened and additional parameters were collected and
analysed2.

The  2009  LUCAS  Soil  survey  includes  data  from  23  EU  Member  States3.  In
addition,  soil  data  were  collected  in  Cyprus  for  LUCAS  points,  but  without
collection  land  use  /  cover  data.  The  2009  soil  survey  in  Malta  was  financed  by
national funds and includes basic observations on land cover and use. The LUCAS
Soil survey of 2012 covers Bulgaria and Romania. In 2015 the LUCAS Soil survey
was repeated for EU28, with Croatia included for the first time. The 2015 LUCAS
Soil  survey  probably  provides  the  most  exhaustive  data  on  topsoil  (0  -  20  cm)
properties collected under standard conditions at European level (Orgiazzi, et al.,
2017).

With the availability of the 2015 LUCAS Soil laboratory data the status of topsoils
can  be  appraised  from  in-situ  data  for  all  28  Member  States  of  the  European
Union and, based on repeatedly collected soil samples, changes in soil properties
deducted.  The  appraisal  of  the  topsoil  status  and  temporal  changes  in  a
parameter  require  that  data  for  a  survey  be  reliable  and  consistent  between
surveys.  To  this  purpose  the  results  of  the  sample  analysis  reported  by  the
central laboratory LUCAS soil samples was evaluated for all surveys. Due to the
significance of assessing soil organic carbon the soil property was evaluated first
and in relation to land use and land use changes (Hiederer, 2018). The method
used, the processing performed and the results obtained for a general evaluation
of the LUCAS Soil Component laboratory data are presented in this report.

1 URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lucas
2 URL: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/lucas
3 URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lucas/data/primary-data/2009

1

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

2 Data Evaluation

A  data  evaluation  is  the  first  step  in  an  assessment  of  data  quality.  The  data
evaluation  was  applied  to  the  results  delivered  by  the  central  laboratory  for  all
LUCAS  Soil  surveys  and  the  exclusive  soil  survey  for  Malta  in  2009.  The  data
delivered were examined according to a set of rules and a indicator of the result
of the check is assigned to each item evaluated.

2.1 Evaluation Principle

The  evaluation  is  based  on  the  principle  that  the  data  on  the  results  of  the
laboratory  analysis  cannot  be  verified  and  checked  for  correctness.  Such  an
exercise  requires  a  comparison  to  a  reference  data  set  with  accurately-defined
properties  for  all  aspects  of  the  sample  collected4.  Instead,  it  is  possible  to
assess  the  likelihood  that  data  are  not  incorrect  and  whether  data  are  within  a
credible range of values. Hence, the evaluation uses a process of rating data for
being  excluded  from  analysis,  not  included.  This  process  is  implemented  as  a
series  of  checks,  which  have  to  be  performed  in  sequential  order.  The  starting
point is set by checks that objectively mark a data value or property as invalid.
These are cases where data are outside the range of the reporting units, such as
percentages  >  100%  or  pH  >  14.  Subsequent  checks  increase  in  complexity  of
the rules applied and decrease in the distinctness of the results obtained.

The method for data evaluation follows the steps developed and applied as part
of  the  quality  checks  of  the  soil  data  from  other  pan-European  soil  data  sets,
such  as  ForestFocus  (Hiederer,  et  al.,  2008)  and  the  BioSoil  Demonstration
Project  (Hiederer,  et  al.,  2011).  A  comparable  method  was  adapted  for  the
quality assurance and control in laboratories for data sampled under ICP Forests
(UNECE, 2016)5.

The evaluation is divided into three distinct steps of data compliance, conformity
and  uniformity  that  address  different  aspects  of  the  results  obtained  from  the
laboratory  analysis  of  the  soil  samples  and  links  to  the  main  LUCAS  survey.
These steps are performed in sequence, as graphically presented in Figure 1.

4 Soil reference material is used by the central laboratory to verify the methods.
5 URL: http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/manual/2016/ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf

2

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Figure 1: Evaluation Steps of Compliance, Conformity and Uniformity
Checks

The steps concern data formats, range of values and consistency, either as part
of  repeated  surveys  or  compared  to  results  from  other  surveys.  With  the
evaluation  the  complexity  of  the  checks  increases  and  the  distinctness  of  the
results become more dependent on the context and, therefore, less distinct.

2.2 Scope of Data Evaluation

The evaluation checks query data, but data are not modified. Rather, the results
of the checks are treated as attributes of the data or item evaluated and stored
as such in the database. Based on the results data may be excluded from being
evaluated  in  a  subsequent  check  when.  Such  restrictions  may  apply  when
evaluating  aspects  of  consistency,  such  as  the  use  of  a  common  value  for  the
limit  of  detection  or  limiting  the  comparison  of  repeated  samples  to  a  specific
distance between locations.

In line with the concept of retaining the data in the original state any aspects of
data cleaning are limited. Potential items considered for data cleaning are:

 Missing data: identified, but no estimates are introduced.

 Outliers: identified and highlighted, but not removed.



Inconsistencies: identified and highlighted, but not removed.

No  measures  are  taken  to  directly  reduce  noise  in  the  data.  Other  aspects  of  a
data  quality,  such  as  timeliness,  believability  or  interpretability,  are  not
considered relevant to the aim of the task.

As  a  separate  step  and  at  the  end  of  the  evaluation  process  a  data  set  is
generated, where some data are modified or removed to compile with standard
codes and a consistent structure.

3

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

2.3 Data Sources

The  data  used  in  the  evaluation  are  the  results  reported  by  the  laboratory
analysing the soil samples from LUCAS Soil surveys of 2009, 2012 and 2015.

2.3.1 LUCAS Soil Survey 2009

The data for the 2009 LUCAS Soil survey comes from three separate surveys:





LUCAS Soil survey for EU23:

19,910 samples

LUCAS Soil survey for Cyprus:

90 samples

Laboratory results combined to
LUCAS Soil data for 2009:
additional samples analysed:

20,000 samples
897 samples

 Exclusive Soil survey for Malta:

19 samples

The results of the analysis of the soil samples collected in EU23 and those from
Cyprus  are  recorded  in  one  file  containing  a  total  of  20,000  samples,  while  the
results  of  the  analysis  from  19  samples  collected  on  Malta  are  stored  in  a
separate  file.  The  results  of  the  analysis  of  an  additional  897  samples  of  the
EU23  survey  are  stored  in  a  separate  file.  The  surveys  and  the  soil  parameters
analysed in the laboratory have some distinct characteristics.

LUCAS Soil Survey for EU23

the  LUCAS  Soil  2009  survey 

The  main  data  of 
file
5.6.LUCAS_Results of 20,000 soil samples.xls. This would appear to be the
original  data  submitted  by  the  central  laboratory.  There  are  derivate
versions  of  the  data,  such  as  the  data  available  from  the  European  Soil
Data  Centre  (ESDAC)  (LUCAS_TOPSOIL_v1.xls)6.  However,  the  data
available  from  ESDAC  do  not  represent  the  original  data  and  were  not
used for the evaluation (Hiederer, 2018).

the 

is 

The  data  are  arranged  as  a  flat  table  by  country,  where  a  record  (row)
consists of the soil sample identifier (ID) and each parameter is stored as
a  field  (column).  The  individual  country  data  are  added  and  stored  in  a
single table. The resulting table cannot be used as a flat data table without
modification, because the data headers are repeated for each country. As
a  consequence,  no  meaningful  data  structure  for  records  or  fields  can  be
established  from  the  arrangement.  A  suitable  flat  data  table  was
generated  from  the  workbook  by  exporting  the  data  to  an  ASCII  format
and importing the data into the database format with all values defined as
alpha-numeric data type.

An additional 897 soil samples were analysed under the EU23 survey. The
results  of  the  analysis  was  reported 
file  named
in  a  separate 
LUCAS_RECORD_2011-09-27_Results_897_extra samples.xls.

6 URL: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/content/lucas-2009-topsoil-data

4

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The parameter code does not correspond completely with the codes used
in  the  file  containing  the  final  results  of  the  main  submission,  but
corresponds to the order of parameters.

LUCAS Soil Survey for Cyprus

The 2009 soil survey of Cyprus was organised without a concurrent LUCAS
main  survey  of  that  year.  However,  in  contrast  to  data  from  Malta,  the
results from the analysis of the 90 soil samples from Cyprus were included
in  the  data  provided  by  the  central  laboratory.  Hence,  the  soil  property
data for Cyprus was taken from the file 5.6.LUCAS_Results of 20,000 soil
samples.xls.

Exclusive Soil Survey for Malta

The soil survey of Malta was organised and performed outside the LUCAS
main survey and the LUCAS Soil survey of 2009. The data reported covers
the  analysis  of  the  soil  samples  collected  as  part  of  the  soil  survey  and
observations  from  a  basic  land  cover/use  survey.  No  information  were
available relative to the survey details or any specifications concerning the
sample analysis and data formats. It was assumed that the specifications
for the 2009 analysis were applicable.

from 

taken 

the  ESDAC 

It  was  further  not  possible  to  retrieve  all  files  submitted  by  the  survey
contractor or the laboratory. Data from the analysis of the 19 soil samples
were 
file
(LUCAS_TOPSOIL_v1.xls). The ESDAC data do not contain a country code
for the samples from Malta and the country samples were identified by the
soil  sample  ID  and  the  site  coordinates.  The  ESDAC  data  uses  a  numeric
value when the property is below the detection limit of the analysis used.
Another observation is that the ESDAC data inverts the order of the results
for pH(CaCl2) with pH(H2O) relative to the specifications for the 2009 EU23
survey.

LUCAS  Soil  2009  data 

The  data  used  was  the  attribute  table  of  an  Esri®  Shapefile7.  of
file  named  “Malta_Lucas.xlsx”  contained  the  basic
08.11.2011.  A 
information on geographic position and land use observations, but not the
soil data.

2.3.2 LUCAS Soil Survey 2012

For Bulgaria and Romania a LUCAS Soil component survey was organised as part
of  the  main  LUCAS  survey  in  2012.  The  results  of  the  soil  analysis  were
submitted  as  separate  files  for  each  country.  The  specifications  for  the  analysis
and  data  submission  could  not  be  retrieved.  Therefore,  and  because  the  same
central  laboratory  performed  the  analysis,  it  was  assumed  that  they  would
correspond to those of the 2009 analysis.





LUCAS Soil survey for Bulgaria:

661 samples

LUCAS soil survey for Romania: 1,373 samples

7 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100 USA

5

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The  data  files  used  for  the  evaluation  were  Bulgaria.csv  and  Romania.csv.  Files
with an XLSX suffix also exist with an earlier date. However, these files seem to
have  been  generated  from  other  data  for  the  surveys  and  are  not  suitable  for
evaluation.

2.3.3 LUCAS Soil Survey 2015

The LUCAS Soil Component survey of 2015 covers EU28 in a single survey. The
method for taking soil samples was basically unchanged as far as the parameters
evaluated  are  concerned.  The  laboratory  analysis  added  a  measurement  for
electric  conductivity  to  the  soil  parameters  reported.  Other  than  this,  the
methods  used  to  analyse  the  samples  by  the  laboratory  have  remained
unchanged.

A  modification  to  previous  surveys  was  the  distinction  of  four  groups  of  soil
samples that affect the scope of the laboratory analysis:

 Group 1:

1,334 samples

Results  from  repeated  soil  sampling  locations  of  soils  rich  in  organic
material,  as  found  in  2009  and  2012  surveys.  For  these  samples  the
analysis of CF and particle size distribution were not assessed.

 Group 2:

16,019 samples

Results from repeated soil sampling locations of mineral soils identified as
mineral during the 2009 and 2012 survey.

 Group 3:

5,656 samples

Results  from  soil  samples  not  located  at  previous  sample  sites,  covering
mineral and organic soil types.

 Group 4:

381 samples

Results of the analysis of clay mineral and/or multi-spectral analysis.

The evaluation covers data from Group 1, 2, and 3 for all checks and Group 4 for
a consistent data structure, excluding the results of the multi-spectral analysis.

2.4 Implementation: Evaluation Database

The  data  evaluation  is  implemented  as  a  relational  database  (RDB).  An  RDB
would  appear  to  be  particularly  suited  to  the  task,  because  the  data  are
uniformly  structured  and  recorded  in  some  tabulated  format.  Compared  to  an
implementation  of  interrogating  data  in  a  non-structured  environment  this
approach reduces data redundancy and improves integrity.

The  information  defining  the  data  or  values,  such  as  units  or  limits  of
detection(LOD),  were  only  available  in  text  documents.  These  were  transferred
to dictionaries and added to the database. Any parameters specifying a check are
stored in the database rather than the procedures to avoid inconsistencies in the
values used and improve transparency.

The checks carried out under the steps and any parameters used are recorded in
tables of the evaluation database and documented for reference. When a check
information  on  the  check  and  a
highlights  a  particular  condition  the 

6

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

corresponding  message  is  written  to  results  table.  The  set  of  result  tables  then
become  part  of  the  evaluation  database.  The  results  of  the  checks  can  be
summarised,  categorised  or  linked  to  each  item  evaluated  to  provide  a  high
degree of flexibility and transparency.

The  evaluation  RDB  covers  the  tasks  of  importing  the  source  data,  running  the
evaluation  checks  and  compiling  a  practical  set  of  LUCAS  Soil  component  data.
To facilitate these tasks dedicated graphical user interfaces have been created.

2.4.1 Data Import Form

An example of the import form, set to importing data from the 2009 surveys, is
given in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Form to Import LUCAS Soil Laboratory Results (Example: 2009
Data)

The  import  form  reads  the  source  data,  which  is  always  in  an  ASCII  format
(CSV). Although the original spreadsheet format could be imported it was found
that each submission had a different arrangement with rows or columns hidden,
set  to  0  width  and  a  fair  spectrum  of  field  names.  Because  of  this  variety  the
source  data  was  converted  to  a  common  ASCII  format,  where  the  first  line
contains  the  name  of  the  parameter  as  found  in  the  source  data  and  all  other

7

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

rows  are  treated  as  records.  All  data  are  imported  as  alpha-numeric.  This
approach  is  needed  to  evaluate  the  data  content.  Otherwise  the  parser  routine
would  remove  any  entries  that  do  not  comply  to  the  field  format.  Similar  to  a
spreadsheet file the RDB allows to set a field format to store any type of data yet
this is not applicable for the evaluation purpose.

2.4.2 Data Evaluation Form

The  imported  data  are  then  structured  by  converting  the  parameter  names  to
standard  field  names  based  on  a  dictionary.  Not  modified  is  the  order  of  the
parameters  in  the  source  data,  which  is  assessed  as  one  of  the  checks  of
compliance. The structured data are then normalised to allow setting the rules of
the evaluation RDB model. All data of the 2009 surveys are finally combined to a
single table.

All evaluation checks are accessible from a single form, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Form to run Evaluation Checks of LUCAS Soil Laboratory
Results (all years)

8

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The  evaluation  checks  are  independent  of  the  year  assessed.  The  survey  years
subjected  to  the  checks  are  defined  in  the  evaluation  check  list.  The  checks  of
each evaluation step are arranged in groups. The names of the groups as used in
the evaluation check list are displayed on the form. For each group of checks the
output is written to a results table. A summary of the check is also appended to a
summary table. While the detailed results of the checks are attributes to the item
or  data  assessed,  the  summary  tables  provide  an  overview  of  the  findings  and
are mainly used in this report. As on other forms the “Settings” pages specify the
processing environment, not the evaluation checks.

2.4.3 Data Standardisation Form

Somewhat  beyond  the  scope  of  the  evaluation  task  is  provision  of  a  the  LUCAS
Soil data in a standard format. This task involves modifying the data submitted
and in some cases also removing data. The form to perform the task is presented
in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Form to Generate Standard Data of LUCAS Soil Laboratory
Results (All Years)

9

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The task is ordered into processing first codes, then values and finally links. The
codes  concern  the  application  of  a  standard  form  of  codes,  mainly  to  indicate
laboratory results below the limit of detection. The values indicated in the codes
are  not  changed,  only  the  way  they  are  presented  in  the  tables.  The  values  of
results submitted can be changed from options available from the corresponding
page on the form. One such change is the adjustment of the results reported for
total nitrogen for the 2012 surveys or converting all values to a common decimal
separator.  The  standard  data  are  then  linked  to  data  from  the  LUCAS  main
survey to provide spatial reference and information on land cover and use.

10

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

3 Evaluation Checks

In this chapter details on the checks applied to evaluate LUCAS Soil component
data  are  presented  by  step  and  group.  Although  the  checks  are  independent  of
the survey year, different specifications apply to each year.

3.1 Compliance Checks

Data  format  specifications  for  Compliance  Checks  for  the  LUCAS  Soil  laboratory
data are taken from tender and meeting documents. The soil properties analysed
in the laboratory did not follow a specific naming convention. Each delivery used
a different naming convention, which makes identifying the data and transferring
the  values  to  a  more  structured  form  more  difficult.  A  standard  naming
convention  for  the  results  of  the  parameters  reported  by  the  laboratory  was
defined.

Mandatory  parameters  specified  in  the  tender  documents  were  (with  standard
label and used as field names) are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Mandatory and Supplementary Soil Parameters to be Reported
by the Central Laboratory

Parameter Name

Label

Mandatory parameters:
Coarse fragments
Clay content
Silt content
Sand content
pH(CaCl2)

pH(H2O)

Organic carbon

Supplementary parameters:

Carbonate content
Total Nitrogen content
Soluble Phosphor content
Extractable potassium
Cation Exchange Capacity

CF
CLAY
SILT
SAND
PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3
N
P
K
CEC

For the laboratory analysis of the 2015 data the parameter  Electric conductivity
(EC)  was  added.  The  method  used  to  determine  the  mandatory  parameter  OC
(indirect  method,  ISO  10694)  requires  the  analysis  for  the  supplementary
parameter  Carbonates  as  a  fundamental  part.  The  measured  total  carbon  is
generally  not  supplied  by  the  laboratory.  Also  included  should  be  a  column  on

11

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

comments  and  remarks.  The  contents  of  the  data  were  not  evaluated.  Not
evaluated at all were the results from the multi-spectral analysis.

The checks of data Compliance are divided into 5 groups:

File delivery format;

Position of parameters in file;

Decimals reported for parameter;

Reporting unit;

Parameter value type.

The  specifications  that  define  the  parameters  for  the  Compliance  checks  are
taken  from  project  documents.  All  relevant  attributes  are  transferred  to
dictionary tables and conditions are stored in the evaluation list table.

Specifications for Conditional Coding

Not included in the specifications are any details related to the coding of analysis
results  below  the  Limit  of  Detection  (LOD),  missing  data  or  data  formats8.
Missing data occur frequently for data on the particle size distribution for organic
soils.  Some  checks  concerning  the  prospect  of  linking  the  soil  analysis  to  the
main LUCAS survey are defined, but were not specified for the deliverables of the
soil analysis results.

3.1.1 Specifications of Compliance Checks of 2009 Data

Formal  specifications  of  data  deliverables  for  the  2009  laboratory  data  were
taken from the following documents;

 The  contract  documents  contain  specifications  on  data  layouts  and

delivery formats (JRC, 2009). 
File: SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_offer.pdf

 Preliminary Test Plan 2009 

File: LUCAS_soil_Preliminary_Test_Plan .pdf



Final Test Plan 2009 
File: 5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

 Kick-off Meeting minutes, 08.01.2010

File: LUCAS_Kick-off_meeting_minutes.pdf



Final Project Report15.06.2011
File: 5.10.LUCAS_Final Report_15June2011.PDF

During the Kick-off Meeting on 08.01.2010, Ispra, some additional specifications
were  set  for  2009  (SGS,  2010).  Relevant  to  OC  is  that  for  samples  for  organic
soils (“very high organic matter”) a texture analysis was not needed.

8

The file Contents-LUCAS-primary-data-2009-20140618-0.xls specifies the data format for the field
[SOIL_LABEL] as “Number”. Yet, not all identifiers of samples for results from the analysis of soil samples
comply with a numeric format in column “sample ID”.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/205002/208938/Contents-LUCAS-primary-data-2009-20140618-
0.xls/27fe0910-4150-4299-9e89-8cc0adf73d83

12

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

File Delivery Format

Where  specifications  were  given  for  the  delivery  file  format  they  state
“100% Excel-compatible” in all documents.

Position of Parameters in Files

A consistent position of the values reported in the file submitted may seem
trivial, but is of consequence when the position of a parameter in a table
changes between submissions. This may be obvious in some cases, where
the  range  of  data  is  significantly  different,  but  less  so  where  the  ranges
overlap, such as soil particle size or pH.

To avoid changes in a position in the source file data are imported into the
evaluation  database  by  name,  not  position.  In  the  normalised  form  this
aspect becomes irrelevant.

The  specifications  relative  to  the  position  of  reporting  a  parameter  in  the
files is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Position of Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2009)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Final
Test Plan

Final
Report

SOIL_ID

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

1

*

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

*  2009: The order of parameters specified under Section 4.1 of the contract was later modified to allow for the

parameter “coarse fragments” to be included, which is reported in column 2. 
2015:  The  order  of  the  parameters  specified  was  altered  during  the  Kick-off  Meeting  of  07.12.2016  to
include the parameter LAB_ID.

The  tender  documents  omitted  to  include  the  parameter  CF  in  the
specifications.  When  CF  was  reported  as  the  second  column,  all
subsequent  parameters  were  shifted 
the
specifications.

to  a  position  outside 

13

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Decimals Reported for Parameter

The number of decimals for the values reported in the submitted file were
specified in the tender and contract documents, but also the Final Report.
The  specifications  for  decimals  of  the  parameters  reported  are  given  in
Table 3.

Table 3: Decimals for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2009)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Final
Test Plan

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

The changes made to the decimals of the values reported from the Tender
Specifications  to  the  specifications  given  in  the  Final  Report  are
reasonable.  There  is  no  basis  for  reporting  pH(CaCl2)  and  pH(H2O)  with
different decimals or total nitrogen without a decimal, given the reporting
unit. Not evident is why CaCO3 should be reported without decimal, but OC
with  one  decimal.  OC  is  derived  from  CaCO3,  so  can  never  have  more
significant decimals than the parameter it is derived from when the same
reporting units are used.

Reporting Unit

The units for reporting the results of the laboratory analysis were specified
in  the  tender  and  contract  documents,  and  repeated  in  the  Final  Report.
On  overview  of  the  reporting  units  specified  in  the  documents  is  given  in
Table 4.

14

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 4: Units for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2009)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Final
Test Plan

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

%

%

%

%

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

CEC

cmol(+) kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

The units for all parameters are consistently presented in the documents.
The units used for the checks were set accordingly.

Parameter Data Type

For the values submitted no specifications were defined for the data type.
Specifying  a  data  type  or  a  dimension  for  a  parameter  would  seem
unwarranted for the file format. The spreadsheet format can store data of
type ‘any-type’ in a cell and the dimension of a numeric value is given by
the  decimals.  Other  than  storing  a  value  the  cell  content  can  also  be
formatted.  The  value  visible  is  thus  not  necessarily  the  value  stored,  but
may the the value when exporting data from the spreadsheet to an ASCII
format, such as CSV.
The  results  reported  are  mainly  numeric,  but  specific  conditions,  such  as
values below the limit of detection, are recorded as alpha-numeric codes.
These  codes  are  neither  specified,  nor  are  they  standardised  or
consistently  documented.  Depending  on  the  software  package  used  and
the  local  configuration,  the  presence  of  these  alpha-numerics  in  an
otherwise numeric field can lead to abnormal results.

3.1.2 Formal Data Specifications 2012

For  the  results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  of  the  2012  LUCAS  Soil  surveys
(Bulgaria and Romania) no further details on data formats specifications could be
found. It seemed reasonable to apply the same criteria as for the 2009 data.

15

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

3.1.3 Formal Data Specifications 2015

The specifications for the 2015 data defining the checks of data compliance were
taken from the following documents:

 Annex I to Service Contract 930131

File: Contract 930131 LUCAS Vol II.pdf (JRC, 2016).

 Preliminary Test Plan 07.12.2016

File: Preliminary Test Plan 07.12.2016..pdf

 Template Specimen  07.12.2016
File: 5_Template_specimen.pdf



Final Technical Report
File: 5.12_LUCAS_2015_Final_Technical_Report.pdf

For  the  parameters  to  be  analysed  of  the  2015  LUCAS  Soil  samples  the
mandatory  and  supplementary  parameters  of  2009  were  assembled  into  one
group  of  core  parameters.  The  parameter  of  Electric  Conductivity  (standard
label: EC) was added. The need to link the [Soil-ID] code to the LUCAS database
is explicitly stated.

File Delivery Format

As for the results of the 2009 laboratory analysis, the specifications for the
delivery file format state “100% Excel-compatible” in all documents.

Position of Parameters in File

The  order  of  the  results  reported  by  the  laboratory  was  more  explicitly
indicated in the Technical Specifications to the Tender for the 2015 survey
data than 2009 (p. 13 of Annex I of contract 930131).

The  specifications  for  the  position  of  the  parameters  the  file  are
summarised in Table 5.

16

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 5: Position of Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2015)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Template
Specimen

Final
Report

SOIL_ID

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

EC

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

11

13

14

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

12

14

15

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

13

12

14

15

Compared  to  the  2009  specifications  the  parameter  CF  was  included,  a
position  for  EC  was  inserted  and  a  last  field  for  comments  and  remarks
was also specified for column 15.

A  notable  deviation  from  the  order  of  reporting  parameters  in  2015  to
of  N 
2009 
document
“5_Template_specimen.pdf” the first column contains a laboratory ID.

inversion 

and 

the 

the 

P. 

In 

is 

The change to the order of parameters was presented during the Kick-off
Meeting  on  07.12.2016.  As  a  result,  the  positions  of  the  parameters
reported  is  shifted  by  one  position  from  the  tender  specifications.  The
rules for the check were defined as specified in the contractual document.

Decimals Reported for Parameter

The decimals to be used to report the results of the laboratory analysis for
the  “Template  Specimen”  document  were  taken  from  the  decimals  of  the
model  values  given  in  the  table.  The  specifications  for  the  decimals  in
which results are to be reported are given in Table 6.

17

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 6: Decimals for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2015)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Template
Specimen

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

EC

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

For  the  number  of  decimals  the  Final  Report  states  that  the  results  for  N
should be reported with one decimal (p. 70), rather than without decimal
as  defined  in  the  Technical  Specifications  and  the  Template  Specimen
documents. This rule was used for the checks of the data.

Reporting Unit

The  units  for  reporting  the  results  from  the  laboratory  analysis  were
specified in several documents. No inconsistencies between the documents
were  found.  The  reporting  units  specified  in  the  various  documents  are
summarised in Table 7.

18

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 7: Units for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2015)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Template
Specimen

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

EC

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

%

%

%

%

mS m-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

%

% m/m

% m/m

% m/m

mS m-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

%

%

%

%

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

%

%

%

%

mS m-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

The  reporting  units  for  the  2015  LUCAS  Soil  data  agree  with  those
specified for the 2009 data.

Parameter Data Type

The  file  format  used  (spreadsheet)  to  store  the  results  of  the  laboratory
analysis  does  not  impose  a  format  type  for  a  parameter.  Consequently,
there  are  no  specifications  of  a  format  type  for  the  parameters.  The  only
parameter for which a format should be specified is the sample identifier.
The identifier links the soil data to the LUCAS main survey,which is of type
integer. By extension, this format should be applied to the identifier of the
soil sample in the laboratory data. For 2015 the results table contains an
identifier  given  by  the  laboratory  in  addition  to  the  soil  label.  This
additional identifier in not included in the evaluation.

3.2 Conformity Checks

The  Conformity  Checks  evaluate  actual  values  reported  in  the  data  delivered.
They  are  intended  to  highlight  conditions  where  values  are  not  defined  or  are
outside  possible  ranges.  Codes  or  identifiers  that  are  not  defined  generally  lead
to a warning, while data out of range are considered errors. The range limits are
thus  set  with  the  aim  to  exclude  impossible  values,  not  to  define  a  range  of
credible values.

19

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The  checks  of  data  Compliance  are  divided  into  two  sections  with  5  groups  in
each section:

3.2.1 Section 1: Data Structure

The status of data integrity is largely governed and assessed by the rules of the
data model of the evaluation RDB.

The groups of checks performed under the section are:











Duplicate DMT link data (key violation;

Duplicate LAB link data (key violation);

Duplicate textural and pH data;

Duplicate chemical data;

LAB-DMT link (referential integrity).

DMT  here  refers  to  the  data  of  the  LUCAS  Data  Management  Tool  (Eurostat,
2018).  The  data  is  provided  by  Eurostat  to  allow  linking  the  soil  data  to
geographic  locations  and  information  collected  at  the  points  of  the  LUCAS  LUC
survey.

The aspect of duplicate records can be assessed by a count of unique entries in a
link field. The conditions of key violations are assessed by the rules of referential
integrity. Respecting referential integrity is a requirement for relating soil data to
spatial  locations  and  information  collected  for  other  LUCAS  surveys.  The  DMT
data,  also  those  related  to  soil,  are  not  part  of  the  evaluation,  but  used  to
generate  a  standard  data  set  that  allows  unambiguous  links  to  the  LUCAS  land
use/cover data that describe the points of the soil sample location.

3.2.2 Section 2: Data Status

The checks of this section evaluate the degree to which data entries agree with
expected codes, values or ranges of values.

The groups of checks performed under the section cover:











Missing data;

Code for LOD;

Intrinsic Numeric range;

Minimum LOD;

Expected range.

For  the  first  four  groups  of  checks  the  reference  entries  are  well-defined.  The
upper  and  lower  limits  of  the  expected  range  of  values  are  set  based  on  the
statistical distribution of the values reported from other large-scale soil surveys.
For  the  evaluation  different  limits  are  set  for  mineral  soils  and  soils  high  in
organic material.

20

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Missing Data

The  documents  do  not  specify  codes  to  indicate  occurrences  of  missing
data.  The  checks  identify  the  occurrences,  but  in  the  absence  of  a
reference these are not further evaluated.

Code for LOD

The project documents or reports detailing the laboratory methods contain
codes  and  values  for  limits  of  detection  (LOD).  These  limits  are  not  in  all
cases identical between documents and surveys. For the 2009 LUCAS Soil
survey the specifications are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8: Limit of Detection for Soil Parameters (2009)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Final
Test Plan

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

0.1 %

0.1 %

0.1 %

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

0.1 %

2 g kg-1

1 g kg-1

1 g kg-1

2 g kg-1

1 g kg-1

0.5 g kg-1

0.2 g kg-1

0.2 g kg-1

0.2 g kg-1

3 – 5 mg kg-1

5.0 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

20 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

2.0 cmol(+) kg-1 2.0 cmol(+) kg-1 2.0 cmol(+) kg-1

For  the  LODs  of  the  parameters  N,  P  and  K  different  documents  gave
different values9. The last column of the table contains the values used in
the checks, which were given in the Final Report.

For  data  from  the  2012  LUCAS  Soil  survey  (Bulgaria  and  Romania)  any
documents specifying methods or results were missing. In the absence of
a Test Plan or a detailed Final Report the LOD values were extracted from
the  range  of  values  and  the  codes  used  in  the  data.  The  values  used  are
given in Table 9.

9 One difference noted between monthly data tables and the final data is the indicator given for the limit for
measuring soluble phosphor (P): the monthly data files indicate “< 5,0” while the final data contains the
indicator “< 10.0”. The use of a “.” (point) or a “,” (comma) as decimal separator is consistent in the data,
but not all indications of measurement limits. This is not considered of relevance to this data evaluation.

21

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 9: Limit of Detection for Soil Parameters (2012)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract*

Preliminary
Test Plan

Final
Test Plan

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

6 g kg-1

0.5 g kg-1

0.2 g kg-1

5.0 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

2.0 cmol(+) kg-1

*

no contractual information available

For  the  2015  survey  data  the  LOD  values  given  in  the  documents  are
summarised in Table 10.

22

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 10: Limit of Detection for Soil Parameters (2015)

Parameter

Document

Check

Label

Contract

Preliminary
Test Plan

Template
Specimen

Final
Report

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

EC

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

0.1 %

0.5 g kg-1

3 – 5 mg kg-1

20 mg kg-1

2 – 10 pH

2 – 10 pH

2 mS m-1

2 g kg-1

1 g kg-1

0.2 g kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

10.0 mg kg-1

2.0 cmol(+) kg-1

The  values  for  the  LOD  were  not  specified  in  the  Final  Report  for  the
analysis of the 2015 data, in contrast to the 2009 data analysis. Values for
the  LODs  are  given  in  the  Preliminary  Test  Plan  for  2015  and  correspond
to  the  LODs  given  in  the  Preliminary  Test  Plan  for  2009.  These  values
specified for LOD in 2015 are lower and are not in line with the limits given
in the Final Report for 2009 or the laboratory methods, where specified. As
a practical solution to the lack or inconsistent presentation of the LODs for
2015, the LOD limits of 2009 were used for the checks.

Intrinsic Number Range

The intrinsic number range is governed by the data unit used to report the
analysis  results.  It  consists  of  a  minimum  and  maximum  value  that  limit
the  possible  range  of  reported  results.  For  none  of  the  values  evaluated
can  the  minimum  be  negative.  Any  negative  values  can  only  signify  a
specific  condition,  but  not  a  result  of  the  laboratory  analysis.  The
maximum  values  are  generally  given  by  the  reporting  units.  For  the
particle  sizes  the  results  are  reported  in  percent,  which  limits  the
maximum to a value of 100. Any values outside the intrinsic number range
are flagged as errors.

The  values  used  for  evaluating  the  intrinsic  range  are  presented  in  Table
11.

23

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 11: Intrinsic Number Range for reporting Soil Parameters

Parameter

Unit

Lower Limit

Upper Limit

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

%

%

%

%

pH

pH

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

cmol(+) kg-1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

100

100

100

100

14

14

1000

1000

1000

1000000

1000000

1000000

The values for the parameters for the texture parameters are reported in
integer values. This can lead to rounding imprecisions when calculating the
sum of all texture values and an upper limit of 101 could be appropriate.

Minimum LOD

Any value below the LOD should be recorded as the code for the LOD. In
case  a  value  smaller  than  the  LOD  is  recorded  a  warning  is  set  for  the
value reported. The warning includes occurrences of the value zero (0) for
parameters.  However,  a  value  of  zero  can  be  a  valid  result  even  when  a
LOD is set. This may happen when the LOD is < 1 and the field format is
an integer, as in the case of coarse fragments. Under these conditions an
entry of zero is not highlighted.

The documents do not specify LOD codes for all parameters measured and
all  years  processed.  There  is  also  a  difference  between  the  LOD  codes
given in the various documents and those present in the data. To properly
identify  cases  where  an  reported  value  is  less  than  the  LOD  the  codes
actually  present  in  the  data  have  to  be  assessed,  in  addition  to  the  ones
documented.

The  entries  found  in  the  data  that  were  not  numeric  entries  are  listed  in
Table 12.

24

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 12: Codes Present in Data for Test of Soil Parameter Value < LOD
for Conformity Check

Parameter

Survey Year

Label

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

EC

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

2009

2012

2015

Code 1

Code 2

Code 1

Code 2

Code 3

Code

< 1

< 1

< 1

-

-

-

< 2.0

< 1

< 0.2

< 10.0

< 10.0

< 2.0

< 2,0

< 0,2

< 10,0

< 2,0

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-999

-44

-5

<6

<0.5

<5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

The  methods  applied  to  record  cases  where  measurements  resulted  in
values  below  the  LOD  vary  between  years,  but  for  2009  also  between
sources.

2009 Survey Data

CF contains a code of “< 1” and no values of zero (0). CLAY and K contain
an entry of “no more soil”. SAND contains neither a code indicating a LOD,
nor  a  value  of  zero  (0).  For  OC,  N,  P  and  CEC  the  LOD  code  using  a
comma (“,”) as a decimal originates from the additional 897 sample data.

2012 Survey Data

There is no code “-999” for the parameter CF, as for other parameters of
that  year.  The  values  for  SILT  contain  entries  of  “-999”,  but  also  two
negative values (-44; -5). The latter are in all probability data errors, not
codes. CLAY and SAND contain entries of zero (0), but not SILT.

The  parameters  N  and  K  only  have  a  code  “-999”  attached,  but  no  code
was found for a LOD. The LOD code for  P in the data is “<5”.  CEC has a
value  of  “-999”  attached,  contains  instances  of  a  value  =  0,  but  no  code
indicating a LOD.

The  LOD  codes  for  OC,  CACO3  and  P  are  at  odds  with  the  LODs  for  the
other  surveys.  From  the  limits  indicates  in  the  data  one  could  infer  that

25

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

different laboratory methods were used to measure the soil properties. In
the absence of such documents this remains conjecture.

In the evaluation values of “-999” are treated as missing data in all cases.
Since these values co-exist with codes indicating the LOD they should not
be interpreted as substitutes for a LOD code.

2015 Survey Data

In general, the data do not contain codes that would indicate the LOD or
missing  data.  CLAY  and  SILT  contain  values  of  zero  (0),  but  not  SAND.
CACO3  contains  entries  of  zero  (0),  but  not  OC.  The  values  for  the
parameters N, P, K, CEC contain values of zero (0), but not  EC. An entry
of “*3.3” for the parameter CEC is in all likelihood an erroneous entry for a
value.

Occurrences of slightly varying alpha-numeric codes, as found for 2009, require
only  simply  means  for  their  identification.  However,  the  use  of  actual  numeric
values as codes, as in 2012 and 2015, is potentially problematic. This is the case
when comparing data from different surveys, because codes for reporting cases
of measurements below the LOD were used for reporting data in 2009.

Expected Value Range

The expected range for values is within a minimum and maximum span of
values  that  are  based  on  a  typical  range  as  found  in  the  2009  and  2015
LUCAS Soil surveys. The minimum value of the expected range was set to
the Limit of Quantification (LOQ). The value was calculated by multiplying
the value of the LOD by 3.3. This procedure is also used by ICP Forests for
the evaluation of Soil Condition data (ICP Forests Manual XVI, p. ). For the
pH  parameters  this  procedure  cannot  be  applied  and  a  0.25%  quantile
(Q0.025) is used. A quantile of 97.5% (Q0.975) is used to determine the upper
range  of  expected  values  for  all  parameters.  Where  the  LOQ  is  less  then
the Q0.025, the quantile is used

The values used for the evaluation are presented in Table 13.

26

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 13: Lower and Upper limits for Expected Value Range for Q0.025 and
Q0.975

Parameter

Year

Unit

Lower

Upper

Mineral

Organic

Mineral

Organic

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CACO3

N

P

K

CEC

EC
red: LOD
blue: < LOQ

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

2009

2015

pH

pH

pH

pH

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

g kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

mg kg-1

2009 cmol(+) kg-1

2015 cmol(+) kg-1

2015

mS m-1

3.3

3.5

4.1

4.1

5.3

4.6

1.0

1.0

0.6

0.6

10.7

4.9

24.5

19.4

2.8

2.5

3.4

2.8

2.9

3.6

3.7

120.0

120.0

1.0

1.0

3.1

5.4

11.1

11.7

39.5

44.6

8.4

7.0

12.1

7.6

7.7

8.3

8.2

120.0

120.0

553.0

603.2

5.9

6.8

115.2

108.2

714.6

643.0

37.4

42.0

84.3

6.6

7.0

6.9

7.2

531.3

524.2

314.6

197.0

25.1

29.1

124.1

165.0

653.1

674.1

101.5

86.7

236.8

The table provides the quantiles for data from the 2009 and 2015 surveys.
For  most  parameters  the  differences  in  the  quantile  values  between  the
two  surveys  are  small.  A  notable  difference  was  found  for  CACO3  for
organic soils and, to a lesser degree, for extractable phosphor, for mineral
and for organic soils.

In several cases the lower limit quantile is below the LOD (values in blue)
and at the LOD (values in red). For CACO3 this is unavoidable due to the
large  number  of  samples  with  very  low  carbonate  content.  For  soluble
phosphor the value of the lower limit is rather unexpected.

3.3 Uniformity Checks

Checks of data Uniformity cover aspects of relationships between parameters for
a  given  survey  year  and  temporal  consistency  of  specifications  and  values  over
several  surveys.  For  temporal  consistency  of  values  the  location  of  the  soil
sample plots and data from the LUCAS LUC survey are used.

27

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The Uniformity checks are divided into two sections.

3.3.1 Section 1: Multi-parameter, Single Survey

The  checks  in  Section  1  evaluate  the  consistency  of  the  values  reported  for  a
parameter within a survey.

C:N Ratio

The  C:N  Ratio  in  mineral  topsoils  generally  ranges  from  15-20  and
decreases with soil depth. The C:N Ratio for the evaluation was computed
from  the  OC  content  and  the  values  for  total  nitrogen.  Following  the
sampling  procedure  of  the  LUCAS  Soil  component  surveys  the  C:N  Ratio
refers  to  the  soil  stratum  of  the  soil  profile.  Where  present  litter  or
partially  decomposed  organic  material  overlaying  the  soil  stratum  should
have  been  removed.  This  reduces  the  expected  rage  for  the  C:N  Ratio
compared to samples for forests soils.

Difference between pH(CaCl2) for pH(H2O)

A  difference  between  pH(CaCl2) 
inherent  to  the
measurement  methods.  However,  the  value  for  pH(CaCl2)  should  always
be  ≤  the  value  for  pH(H2O)  and  the  difference  should  not  exceed  1.2  pH
units.

for  pH(H2O) 

is 

Value of pH(CaCl2) for CaCO3

With  an  increasing  presence  of  CaCO3 the  soil  pH  should  decrease.  At
pH(CaCl2) below 6 the presence of carbonates should be at the LOD for the
parameter. A distinction in the relationship is made between samples form
mineral  soils  and  samples  from  soils  high  in  OC.  For  samples  high  in  OC
the limit is set 0.5 pH units below the limit used for mineral soils (source:
ICP Forests Manual XVI).

CaCO3 for pH(CaCl2)

A  relationship  between  the  presence  of  carbonates  and  pH  exists  also  for
soils with measurable amounts of carbonates. Where carbonates are above
the LOD the soil pH measured as pH(CaCl2) should be above 6 for mineral
soils and 0.5 pH units lower than for mineral soils for those high in OC.

OC < LOD(CaCO3)

A special case of a value below the LOD for a measurement is the LOD for
OC. OC is not measured directly, but calculated as the difference between
total carbon and inorganic carbon. The formula used to calculate OC is:

28

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

TC - 0.12 * C(CaCo3)

OC = ------------------------ * 100 [g kg-1]

dry matter (%)

with

OC:

TC:

OC content in the air-dried soil sample [g kg-1]

total carbon content [g kg-1]

C(CaCO3):

carbonate content [g kg-1]

(source: SGS, 2011)

As a result of the method used to determine OC in the samples the LOD of
OC, and hence the values reported for OC, cannot be less than the higher
value of the LOD for measuring carbonates or total carbon. The only LOD
stated  for  determining  total  carbon  content  was  2  g  kg-1,  as  given  in  the
2009 Final Report.

3.3.2 Section 2: Single Parameter, Multiple Surveys

The checks in Section 2 assess the temporal stability for parameters that can be
presumed  stable  between  surveys,  such  as  pH,  or  the  detection  of  change  for
more dynamic parameters, such as OC.

OC Change from/to Mineral or High in Organic Carbon

Over  the  6  years  between  of  the  main  LUCAS  Soil  surveys  no  radical
changes  in  OC  would  be  expected.  Except  for  extreme  cases  of  land  use
changes there should be no conversion of an organic soil to a mineral soil.
A change from a mineral soil to a soil high in organic matter or an organic
soil  would  be  even  more  unlikely  without  major  soil  disturbances.  This
check  highlights  conditions,  where  the  material  samples  changes  from
mineral  to  organic.  To  avoid  including  changes  in  the  interim  phase  the
limit for mineral soils was set to 120 g C kg-1 and the limit for OC to 200 g
C kg-1.

Temporal Change of Parameters within Acceptable Range

Temporal  changes  in  the  values  reported  for  a  soil  parameter  between
surveys should be limited. The range of plausible changes depends on the
parameter.  For  soil  physical  parameters,  such  as  texture,  the  changes
should  not  exceed  those  expected  from  taking  repeated  samples  at  the
same  site.  For  soil  chemical  parameters  the  changes  can  be  larger  than
the  variation  in  repeated  samples,  but  still  limited.  Changes  outside  the
expected range may be attributed to disturbances at the sampling site or
that samples were taken at a different location.

Link to Eurostat Micro data

The  results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  of  the  LUCAS  Soil  component  data
do  not  contain  any  information  on  the  geographic  context  of  the  sample
location.  Spatial  locations,  information  on  land  use  and  cover,  as  well  as

29

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

additional  observations  at  a  LUCAS  point,  are  provided  by  the  Eurostat
micro-data, which is part of the LUCAS primary data10. Combining LUCAS
Soil  data  with  the  information  collected  under  the  LUCAS  LUC  survey
opens a whole new dimension of information. It allows to position the soil
samples  in  the  landscape  and  evaluate  the  effects  of  land  use  on  soil
properties.  For  this  the  soil  properties  have  to  be  linked  to  the  land  use
and  cover  information  by  an  unambiguous  link.  The  check  verifies  that
valid  links  exist  between  the  data  provided  by  the  laboratory,  the  DMT
provided  by  Eurostat  and  the  publicly  available  Eurostat  micro-data.  The
check includes a test of the uniqueness of the point identifier in the micro-
data and of the geographic co-ordinates of the points that are linked to the
DMT.

Observation Distance

Taking  soil  samples  requires  a  physical  presence  at  the  site  of  data
collection.  This  is  not  strictly  the  case  for  sampling  land  use  and  cover
data in the LUCAS LUC survey. The survey may report the properties of a
location  that  is  not  physically  accessible,  but  which  can  be  determined
from an observation point that is at some distance from the survey point.

The instructions for the LUCAS LUC survey allow a point of observation to
be  farther  way  than  100  m  from  the  theoretical  point,  but  for  collecting
soil  samples  this  distance  should  be  100m  or  less  (14.4.3  Collecting  the
soil sample, LUCAS2015_C1-Instructions_20150227.doc)11.

In  the  evaluation  it  is  assumed  that  the  soil  samples  are  taken  at  the
location from which the LUCAS grid point was observed for the LUCAS LUC
survey.  It  is  further  assumed  that  the  land  use  /  cover  at  the  location
where the soil sample was taken does not differ from the land use / cover
of the LUCAS point and recorded in the LUCAS LUC survey.

For  the  main  survey  information  on  observation  distance  and  direction  to
the  nominal  grid  position  are  recorded  and  given  in  the  data  files  in  the
field  [OBS_DIST]12.  For  the  locations  of  soil  samples  taken  outside  the
LUCAS  LUC  survey  (Cyprus  and  Malta  in  2009)  this  information  is  not
available. The check highlights all cases where a soil sample is taken at an
observation  distance  greater  then  100  m  (except  for  samples  from  Malta
and Cyprus).

10 URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lucas/data/primary-data/2015
11 URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/205002/6786255/LUCAS2015-C1-Instructions-20150227.pdf
12 [OBS_DIST]: Distance between theoretical and reached point in meters.

30

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

4 Data Evaluation Results

For  the  evaluation  the  data  were  analysed  by  year  and  survey.  Thus,  the  three
data  sets  for  2009  were  processed  separately,  for  2012  data  Bulgaria  and
Romania were processed individually, as were the data from the four Groups in
2015.  This  resulted  in  processing  and  comparing  9  sets  of  data  for  the
evaluation.

The results of the laboratory analysis available to the evaluation differ in format,
content  or  structure.  In  addition,  over  time  numerous  derivate  versions  have
been  generated,  using  different  file  formats  and  diverse  reasoning  for  added
processing. An overview of the data available is given in Annex I. No claims for
completeness of the data sources are made.

Where  possible  the  files  submitted  by  the  central  laboratory  were  used.  When
data were available in more than one format the data in spreadsheet format was
used.  The  information  on  the  source  file  was  added  to  the  forms  for  importing
data into the evaluation database.

The checks for data Compliance, Conformity and Uniformity Checks of Section 1
are  applied  to  each  survey  or  submitted  data  set.  Because  of  the  different
periods of laboratory analysis the  results of the evaluation checks are presented
by survey year, which is subdivided by the provenance of the data.

The checks for data Uniformity under Section 2 include an evaluation of temporal
changes  of  the  soil  parameters  between  surveys.  The  evaluation  results  are
therefore presented by the type of check.

4.1 Compliance Checks

Compliance  checks  cover  the  adherence  to  formal  specifications  for  the
representation of the data in the files submitted.

4.1.1 Compliance Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Surveys

The results of the Compliance Checks for the 2009 LUCAS Soil component survey
for EU23 plus Cyprus and Malta are given in Table 14.

31

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  14:  Results  of  Compliance  Check  for  2009  LUCAS  Soil  Laboratory
Data

Check

Cases

Check Label

Message

ID

1
194
195
196
205
206
215
216
222
233
242
243
253
254
282
283
284
285
300
307
308

No.

1
8
7518
317
464
7
208
3
5
125
2
19
43
3
47
4496
179
2
2
379
66

EXCEL_COMPATIBLE
TYPE_CACO3_2009_CY
TYPE_CACO3_2009_D1
TYPE_CACO3_2009_D2
TYPE_CEC_2009_D1
TYPE_CEC_2009_D2
TYPE_CF_2009_D1
TYPE_CF_2009_D2
TYPE_CLAY_2009_D1
TYPE_K_2009_D1
TYPE_N_2009_CY
TYPE_N_2009_D1
TYPE_OC_2009_D1
TYPE_OC_2009_D2
TYPE_P_2009_CY
TYPE_P_2009_D1
TYPE_P_2009_D2
TYPE_P_2009_MT
TYPE_SILT_2009_D1
TYPE_SOIL_ID_2009_D1
TYPE_SOIL_ID_2009_D2

File not in 100% Excel-compatible format.
Character in data field CACO3.
Character in data field CaCO3.
Character in data field CaCO3.
Character in data field CEC.
Character in data field CEC.
Character in data field coarse.
Character in data field coarse_fr.
Character in data field clay.
Character in data field K.
Character in data field N.
Character in data field N.
Character in data field OC.
Character in data field OC.
Character in data field P.
Character in data field P.
Character in data field P.
Character in data field P.
Character in data field silt.
Character in integer field sample ID.
Character in integer field sample ID.

Note:

D1: Laboratory analysis of 20,000 samples
D2: Laboratory analysis of 897 additional samples

File Delivery Format

The  file  format  “XLS”  (Microsoft®  Excel®  97  -2003  Workbook)  could  be
used  as  source  data  in  all  case  but  one.  For  data  from  Malta  the  source
was  an  ESRI®  Shapefile13.  This  inconsistent  format  should  not  be
attributed  to  the  provider  of  the  source  data,  because  it  is  very  unlikely
that  the  laboratory  provided  the  results  of  the  analysis  in  this  format.
Unfortunately,  the  originally  transmitted  results  for  Malta  could  not  be
retrieved.

Position of Parameters in File

The checks did not highlight cases of inconsistent positions of parameters
in  the  files.  This  is  to  some  degree  the  result  of  the  provisions  made  to
allow importing the data of the spreadsheet files. The important aspect of
the result is that the parameters are arranged in the order specified in the
documents.

The  data  file  5.6.LUCAS_Results  of  20,000  soil  samples.xls  contains  an
additional  column  with  reference  to  the  country.  This  information  can  be
used  to  identify  conditions  specific  to  a  country,  but  because  it  is  not
specified it is not evaluated.

13 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100 USA

32

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Decimals reported for parameter

There are no apparent differences in the number of decimals between the
specifications used for the check and values recorded in the files.

Reporting Unit

The data would appear to be reported in the units specified. The relevant
information  is  available  in  some  data  files  in  the  second  row.  In  other
cases it can be found in the project documents.

Parameter Type

The file format used to store the results of the laboratory analysis does not
impose a format type for a parameter. The check determines if an entry in
a parameter field is numeric or alpha-numeric. The occurrences of alpha-
numeric  entries  in  a  parameter  field  are  written  to  a  table  for  further
evaluation. This table gives an overview of all codes used in the parameter
fields.  The  information  is  used  at  a  later  stage  when  standardising  the
parameter codes, for example to code cases of LOD.

The  check  highlighted  15,443  cases  of  alpha-numeric  entries  in  a
parameter  field.  The  cases  alpha-numeric  entries  and  their  number  of
occurrence are given in Table 15.

Table  15:  Alpha-numeric  Entries  and  Number  of  Occurrences  in
2009 Data

Entry

Count

Entry

Count

Entry

Count

< 0,2

< 0.2

<0.5

< 1

17

4

681

8,060

< 2,0

< 2.0

<5

<6

10

507

635

231

< 10,0

< 10.0

*3.3

no more soil

179

4,668

1

3

The cases of alpha-numeric entries are treated as data errors only in one
case  (“*3.3”).  The  entry  “no  more  soil”  does  not  trigger  an  error,  but
would have been more appropriately entered in the field for comments. All
remaining  cases  indicate  measurements  with  results  below  the  LOD.  The
summary table shows that the indicator used as decimal point is a comma
(”,”)  or  a  fullstop  (”.”).  The  comma  separator  was  used  in  the  file
containing the 897 additional samples, while the file with 20,000 samples
used a fullstop (”.”).

There  were  447  cases  of  alpha-numeric  entries  in  the  identifier  field.  In
333  cases  a  suffix  “UK”  was  added  to  the  identifier.  In  41  cases  a  prefix
“L” was used with a short number. The remaining cases are instances of a
suffix  “A”  or  “B”,  which  would  indicate  the  inner  or  outside  sample  bags.
These  cases  were  mainly  present  in  the  data  of  the  additional  897
samples.

33

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

4.1.2 Compliance Check Results for 2012 LUCAS Soil Survey

For Bulgaria and Romania a LUCAS Soil component survey was organised as part
of  the  main  LUCAS  survey  in  2012.  The  results  of  the  soil  analysis  were
submitted  as  separate  files  for  each  country.  The  specifications  for  the  analysis
and  data  submission  could  not  be  retrieved.  Therefore,  and  because  the  same
central  laboratory  performed  the  analysis,  it  was  assumed  that  they  would
correspond to those of the analysis of the 2009 samples.

A  summary  of  the  results  of  the  data  compliance  evaluation  of  the  data  for
Bulgaria and Romania are given in Table 16.

34

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  16:  Results  of  Compliance  Check  for  2012  LUCAS  Soil  Laboratory
Data for Bulgaria and Romania

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

No.

42, 43

1, 1

58, 59

1, 1

74, 75

1, 1

91, 92

1, 1

99, 100

1, 1

107, 108

1, 1

115, 116

1, 1

122, 123

1, 1

135, 136

1, 1

143, 144

1, 1

158, 159

1, 1

161, 162

1, 1

169, 170

1, 1

179, 180

1, 1

184, 185

1, 1

188, 189

198
199
256
257
286
287

369
370

1, 1

180
501
47
184
247
388

1
1

DEC_N_2012_BG
DEC_N_2012_RO
DEC_PH_CACL2_2012_BG
DEC_PH_CACL2_2012_RO
DEC_P_2012_BG
DEC_P_2012_RO

N not reported with 1 decimal.

PH_CACL2 not reported with 2 decimals.

P not reported with 1 decimal.

Potassium results not included as 12th parameter.

CF results not included as 2nd parameter.

CLAY results not included as 3rd parameter.

CEC results not included as 13th parameter.

CACO3 results not included as 9th parameter.

POS_CACO3_2012_BG
POS_CACO3_2012_RO
POS_CEC_2012_BG
POS_CEC_2012_RO
POS_CF_2012_BG
POS_CF_2012_RO
POS_CLAY_ID_2012_BG
POS_CLAY_ID_2012_RO
POS_K_2012_BG
POS_K_2012_RO
POS_N_2012_BG
POS_N_2012_RO
POS_OC_2012_BG
POS_OC_2012_RO
POS_PH_CACL2_ID_2012_BG
POS_PH_CACL2_ID_2012_RO pH(CaCl2) results not included as 7th parameter.
POS_PH_H2O_2012_BG
POS_PH_H2O_2012_RO
POS_P_2012_BG
POS_P_2012_RO
POS_SAND_ID_2012_BG
POS_SAND_ID_2012_RO
POS_SILT_ID_2012_BG
POS_SILT_ID_2012_RO
POS_SOIL_ID_2012_BG
POS_SOIL_ID_2012_RO

Nitrogen results not included as 10th parameter.

pH(H2O) results not included as 7th parameter.

SAND results not included as 5th parameter.

SILT results not included as 4th parameter.

OC results not included as 8th parameter.

Soil sample identifier not included as 1st parameter.

Phosphorous results not included as 11th parameter.

TYPE_CACO3_2012_BG

Character in data field CaCO3.

TYPE_CACO3_2012_RO

Character in data field CaCO3.

TYPE_OC_2012_BG

Character in data field OC.

TYPE_OC_2012_RO

Character in data field OC.

TYPE_P_2012_BG

TYPE_P_2012_RO

UNIT_N_2012_BG

UNIT_N_2012_RO

Character in data field P.

Character in data field P.

N not reported in g kg-1.

N not reported in g kg-1.

The  source  data  for  Bulgaria  and  Romania  has  the  same  format  and  the
results of the checks are identical except in the number of occurrences.

File Delivery format

The data files used for the evaluation were Bulgaria.csv and Romania.csv.
Files with an “XLSX” suffix also exist with an earlier date. However, these
files  contain  unusual  settings  for  cell  formats  and  seem  to  have  been

35

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

generated  from  other  data  and  were,  therefore,  not  used  for  evaluation.
There  is  no  difference  in  the  arrangement  of  the  data  or  the  parameter
names  between  the  file  types.  Some  fields  in  the  spreadsheet  files  have
been  formatted  to  present  14  decimal  places,  such  as  the  particle  size
data.  These  data  are  reported  in  integer  values  and  the  reason  for  the
format  settings  are  not  obvious.  These  format  settings  were  not  found  in
the  CSV  files,  which  indicates  that  they  were  not  generated  directly  from
the spreadsheet files. Because XLS-compatible files are available the check
for the file delivery format did not highlight any inconsistency, although a
different file was used.

Position of Parameters in File

The  file  structure  for  the  two  files  differs  to  some  degree  from  the  2009
data:  The  first  parameter  is  the  LUCAS  point  identifier,  second  and  third
parameters  are  the  projected  point  coordinates.  The  sample  identifier
[SOIL ID] is given as 17th parameter, followed by geographic coordinates,
which  in  the  absence  of  further  information  were  taken  to  relate  to  the
observation point.

Noteworthy is that the order of the values for PH_CACL2 and PH_H2O are
reversed in the files compared to the 2009 and 2015 data.

Decimals Reported for Parameter

For  the  number  of  decimals  the  2009  specifications  were  applied.  The
checks highlighted three cases of inconsistent conditions:

N was reported with 0 decimals instead of 1 decimal.

PH_CACL2 was reported with 1 decimal instead 2 decimals.

P was reported with 0 decimals instead of 1 decimal.

The  decimals  for  total  nitrogen  and  pH(CaCl2)  are  those  of  the  2009
Contract, not of the 2009 Final Report and data. The 0 decimals for soluble
phosphor are not specified or used in other data.

Reporting Unit

The reporting units of the results of the laboratory analysis are not obvious
from  the  files.  In  this  case  the  parameter  values  were  compared  to  the
values  and  units  used  for  the  2009  data.  A  similar  check  is  performed
when evaluating the expected range of data under the Conformity checks.
However,  reporting  N  and  P  with  0  decimals  is  peculiar.  The  values  for
these parameters were therefore compared to values from other samples.
For  P  the  values  are  within  the  expected  range  of  data,  but  the  mean
value for N for Bulgaria and Romania deviates by a factor of more than 50
from the mean of the 2009 data.

Because  the  check  as  implemented  results  in  an  error  rather  than  a
warning  when  a  deviation  is  found  and  the  importance  of  highlighting
inconsistencies  the  unit  for  reporting  laboratory  results  for  total  nitrogen

36

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

were intentionally set to deviate from the nominal entries, thus generating
an error.

Parameter Type

The  Compliance  check  on  the  parameter  type  highlighted  3  cases  of
deviations, which were:

Parameter

Country

Entry

Count

CACO3

OC

P

Bulgaria

Romania

Bulgaria

Romania

Bulgaria

Romania

<0.5

<0.5

<6

<6

<5

<5

180

501

47

184

247

388

There are no differences in the cases found between the data for the two
countries. The notable aspects about the results are:

The  values  for  the  LOD  indicated  by  the  codes  are  markedly  different
between CACO3 and OC.

The  values  indicated  for  the  LOD  of  CACO3  and  OC  differ  significantly
from  those  specified  for  the  2009  laboratory  measurements  and  used
for 2015 results.

The value indicated for the LOD of parameter P deviates from the value
for 2009 and 2015 results.

There are no non-numeric entries for any of the other parameters that
could be interpreted as values of the parameter LOD.

The check raises some doubts about how trustworthy the values indicated
for the parameter LODs are and, by extension, how comparable the 2012
LUCAS soil data for Bulgaria and Romania are to results from the 2009 and
2012 surveys.

4.1.3 Compliance Check Results for 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey

The results of the analysis of the 2015 LUCAS Soil component survey used in this
evaluation were the files submitted by the central laboratory as the final data14.
The  file  is  in  “XLS-compatible”  format  (JRC,  2016),  but  with  a  structure  that
differs from the 2009 data. The main changes are:

 The  single  file  contains  on  separate  pages  the  results  of  the  laboratory

analysis by submission Group.

14 File name: 5.4_LUCAS_2015_Final_Results.xlsx

37

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

 The parameters measured by the laboratory differ between Groups.

 The parameter Electrical conductivity (EC) has been added to the data for

all samples.

The  results  of  the  Compliance  checks  applied  to  the  final  data  submission  are
summarised in Table 17.

Table  17:  Results  of  Compliance  Check  for  2015  LUCAS  Soil  Laboratory
Data

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

93
94
95
96
101
102
103
104
109
113
117
118
119
120
124
125
126
127
137
138
139
140
145
146
147
148
153
154
155
156
163
164
165
166
171
172
173
174
182
211
313

No.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2

CACO3 results not included as 11th parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th parameter.
CEC results not included as 15th parameter.
CEC results not included as 15th parameter.
CEC results not included as 15th parameter.
CEC results not included as 15th parameter.
CF results not included as 3rd parameter.
CLAY results not included as 4th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
OC results not included as 10th parameter.
OC results not included as 10th parameter.
OC results not included as 10th parameter.
OC results not included as 10th parameter.

POS_CACO3_2015_G1
POS_CACO3_2015_G2
POS_CACO3_2015_G3
POS_CACO3_2015_G4
POS_CEC_2015_G1
POS_CEC_2015_G2
POS_CEC_2015_G3
POS_CEC_2015_G4
POS_CF_2015_G3
POS_CLAY_2015_G3
POS_EC_2015_G1
POS_EC_2015_G2
POS_EC_2015_G3
POS_EC_2015_G4
POS_K_2015_G1
POS_K_2015_G2
POS_K_2015_G3
POS_K_2015_G4
POS_N_2015_G1
POS_N_2015_G2
POS_N_2015_G3
POS_N_2015_G4
POS_OC_2015_G1
POS_OC_2015_G2
POS_OC_2015_G3
POS_OC_2015_G4
POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G1 PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th parameter.
POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G2 PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th parameter.
POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G3 PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th parameter.
POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G4 PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th parameter.
POS_PH_H2O_2015_G1
POS_PH_H2O_2015_G2
POS_PH_H2O_2015_G3
POS_PH_H2O_2015_G4
POS_P_2015_G1
POS_P_2015_G2
POS_P_2015_G3
POS_P_2015_G4
POS_SILT_2015_G3
TYPE_CEC_2015_G2
TYPE_SOIL_ID_2015_G2

PH_H2O results not included as 8th parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
SILT results not included as 5th parameter.
Character in data field CEC.
Character in integer field Client ID.

38

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The  Conformity  Checks  highlight  41  cases  of 
inconsistencies  between
specifications and entries found. Of these, 39 concern the position of the data in
the file and two the format type.

File Delivery Format

The file format of the data submission is compliant with the specifications.
Storing the data for Groups on separate worksheets in a single file is not
explicitly specified, but a feature of the storage format that is not explicitly
barred.

Position of Parameters in File

The number of cases where the position of a parameter in the file differs
from the specification is largely due to adding an internal sample identifier
as the first parameter. As a consequence, the position of all parameters in
the  file  has  shifted  to  the  right.  Also  changed  from  the  specifications  are
the  field  names  for  the  laboratory  identifier  ([Sample  ident]  ->  [Lab  ID])
and the soil sample identifier ([SOIL-ID] -> [Client ID]). A field containing
the  country  code  was  added  as  3rd  parameter.  This  may  be  useful  in  the
identification  of  labelling  problems  although  it  is  not  foreseen  in  the
specifications.

For Groups 1, 2 and 4 the parameters for particle size were not analysed
by  the  laboratory.  Measuring  particle  size  was  specified  only  for  data  of
Group 3 (sites not previously visited) and are only included in the data for
this  Group.  The  data  format  specifications  do  not  distinguish  between
these differences. As a consequence, the check highlights such cases.

Of  concern  than  a  shift  in  the  position  of  all  parameters  in  the  file  is  the
modification of the order of parameters:

Positions of [SAND] and [SILT] are interchanged.

Positions of [P] and [N] are interchanged.

In  particular  the  interchanged  positions  of  [SAND]  and  [SILT]  may  be
easily  overlooked,  because  the  parameters  cover  the  same  range  of
values.

Decimals Reported for Parameter

The  check  on  the  number  of  decimals  has  not  raised  any  cases  of
warnings.

Reporting Unit

The  reporting  units  for  the  parameters  analysed  are  also  stated  explicitly
in  the  file  submitted.  No  deviations  from  the  specifications  were
highlighted by the check.

39

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Parameter Type

Non-numeric entries in the data for a parameter were found for:

Data for CEC contains one entry “*3.3”, which raised a warning.

Field [Client ID] has entries for “30133A” and “30133B”.

This  low  count  of  non-numeric  entries  for  parameters  actually  indicates  a
problem: there are no codes to indicate measurements with results below
the  LOD.  From  the  data  it  appears  that  these  cases  have  been  given  a
value  zero  (“0”).  This  practice  differs  from  the  data  submitted  for  the
results of the laboratory analysis of previous LUCAS Soil surveys and may
lead  to  misinterpretations  when  comparing  data.  A  value  of  zero  should
signify that the laboratory measurements resulted in a confirmed absence
of  a  parameter  in  a  sample.  This  is,  however,  not  necessarily  the  case
when 
low
concentrations.  Thus,  a  zero  (“0”)  in  a  parameter  field  should  not  be
treated as a measurement value, but as an indicator that a measurement
resulted in a concentration below the LOD. The practice of using a numeric
value  to  code  instances  where  a  data  value  cannot  be  given,  may
complicate  the  analysis  of  the  data,  in  particular  when  computing
summary statistics or changes.

the  measurements  become  decidedly  uncertain  at 

4.2 Conformity Checks

Conformity  checks  evaluate  the  actual  values  submitted  as  results  of  the
laboratory analysis.

4.2.1 Conformity Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Surveys

For the results of the analysis of the samples of the 2009 LUCAS Soil component
the  data  from  the  897  additional  samples  were  merged  with  the  file  containing
the  results  from  the  analysis  of  the  20,000  samples.  This  approach  appears
reasonable,  because  the  extra  data  contain  results  from  the  same  survey  and
were analysed under the same conditions as the main data. They also link to the
same LUCAS LUC survey and it is, therefore, reasonable to apply the checks for
data integrity to the combined data for the 2009 LUCAS Soil surveys.

Section 1: Data Structure

The  outcome  of  the  Conformity  Checks,  which  assess  the  data  integrity  for  the
combined data for 2009 surveys, are presented in Table 18.

40

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  18:  Conformity  Check  Results  for  2009  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 1

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

495

No.

8

DUPLICATE_TEXT_2009

LUCAS SOIL: Texture + pH data is duplicated.

Duplicate LAB

The laboratory files contains no duplicate identifiers of soil samples.

Duplicate TEXT

The checks highlighted 8 cases of duplicate data for soil texture data plus
pH. The reason is the use of the alpha-numeric ”-” for texture data, which
leaves  the  two  pH  values  as  parameters  for  uniqueness,  which  his
insufficient data to avoid duplicate cases.

Duplicate CHEM

The results of the laboratory analysis contain no duplicate chemical data.

LAB-DMT-LINK

The check found 1,650 case where the soil data could not be linked to the
DMT  data,  because  the  DMT  did  not  contain  a  corresponding  entry  in  the
link field. The soil data affected are those with alpha-numeric components
in  their  identifier  of  the  laboratory  data.  Of  these,most  are  found  in  the
897  additional  data.  The  data  from  the  soil  surveys  in  Cyprus  (90)  and
Malta  (19)  cannot  be  linked  to  the  DMT,  because  no  corresponding  land
use/cover  surveys  were  performed  for  those  points  and  years.  The
geographic position for the sample points can be found in other data, but
this does still not provide concurrent information on the land use/cover.

Section 2: Data Status

The  summary  statistics  of  the  Conformity  Checks  of  Section  2  are  presented  in
Table 19.

Table  19:  Conformity  Check  Results  for  2009  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 2

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

436

458

464

470

513
556

No.

7

CODE_LOD_CEC_2009

17

CODE_LOD_N_2009

3

CODE_LOD_OC_2009

179

CODE_LOD_P_2009

1
2

MISSING_CLAY_2009
MISSING_SAND_2009

Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC results.("<
2.0")
Invalid code for quantification limit of N results.("<
0.2")
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC results.("<
2.0")
Invalid code for quantification limit of P results.("<
10.0")
A value is missing for parameter CLAY.
A value is missing for parameter SAND.

41

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

559
556
559

568

574

580

592

598

604

610

616
619

644

650

656

662

668

674

680

686

692
698
704

716

722

728

734

740
746
752
758
776
782
788
794
942

No.

2
2
2

MISSING_SILT_2009
MISSING_SAND_2009
MISSING_SILT_2009

218

EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_2009

10

EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_2009

5329

EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2009

201

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2009

70

EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2009

572

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2009

10

44
6

EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2009

EXP_CF_MAX_M_2009
EXP_CF_MAX_O_2009

512

EXP_K_MAX_M_2009

77

EXP_K_MAX_O_2009

226

EXP_K_MIN_M_2009

23

EXP_K_MIN_O_2009

149

EXP_N_MAX_M_2009

79

EXP_N_MAX_O_2009

288

EXP_N_MIN_M_2009

10

EXP_N_MIN_O_2009

252
13
83

EXP_OC_MAX_M_2009
EXP_OC_MAX_O_2009
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2009

9

EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_2009

27

EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2009

446

EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2009

41

EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2009

88
21
99
1
321
33
1056
143
1

EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_2009
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_2009
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_2009
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_2009
EXP_P_MAX_M_2009
EXP_P_MAX_O_2009
EXP_P_MIN_M_2009
EXP_P_MIN_O_2009
REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2009

A value is missing for parameter SILT.
A value is missing for parameter SAND.
A value is missing for parameter SILT.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for
mineral soil.(> 600)
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for
organic soil.(> 200)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for
mineral soil.(< 3.0)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 50)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 105)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 8.0)
Maximum CF value above expected range.(> 60)
Maximum CF value above expected range.(> 60)
Maximum K value above expected range for mineral.(>
700)
Maximum K value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 650)
Minimum K value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 20)
Minimum K value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 40)
Maximum N value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 8)
Maximum N value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 25)
Minimum N value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 0.5)
Minimum N value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 4.0)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 550)
Minimum OC value below expected range.(< 3.0)
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(>
8.1)
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(>
6.6)
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(<
3.3)
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(<
2.8)
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 8.5)
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 7.0)
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.8)
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.3)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 125)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 12)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting range.(> 10)

The  checks  highlight  40  conditions  and  a  total  of  10,669  cases.  The  test  for
values outside the expected range account for 98% of all cases of the check.

42

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Missing Data

For two samples the vales for particle size were missing (SOIL_IDs 14578
and 19372). For sample 19372 the comment “no more soil” was found in
the field CLAY. None of the samples are high in OC.

Code LOD

The  total  number  of  cases,  where  the  entry  indicating  the  code  for  LOD
was  not  conform,  came  to  204.  The  cases  include  instances,  where  the
checks  found  a  comma  (”,”)  as  decimal  separator  in  the  value  specifying
the LOD, but expected a full stop (”.”). 179 cases concern the data for the
parameter P for the 897 additional samples, but not the main survey data.

Numeric Range

The  checks  identified  one  case  where  the  numeric  value  was  outside  the
range  (maximum  PH_H2O  value  above  reporting  range  (value:  10.08).
The  documents  specify  that  the  maximum  pH  value  of  10.0.  The  value
may be seen as within the margins of rounding.

Minimum LOD

No cases were highlighted where the value reported was below the value
indicated  for  the  LOD.  However,  there  are  4,363  cases,  where  the  value
reported  equals  the  LOD.  In  particular,  the  values  reported  for  CACO3
were frequently at the measurement limit (4,259 cases with CACO3 = 1).

Expected Range

The  number  of  cases  highlighted  by  the  test  for  values  outside  the
expected  range  very  much  depend  on  setting  the  upper  range  limit.  The
lower  range  limit  cannot  be  less  then  the  LOD,  but  upper  limit  is  a
statistical  value  that  depends  on  the  data  used  to  determine  the
distribution  from  which  the  expected  ranges  are  derived  and  the
probability at which data may fall outside the range.

For 2,131 cases the value in the data exceeded the maximum limit of the
expected  range.  Most  cases  concern  the  parameter  K,  where  the  results
for  512  samples  exceeded  a  value  of  700  mg  kg-1.  The  is  approx.  the
mean  value  of  the  Q0.975  between  the  2009  and  2015  survey.  Setting  the
value to 720 mg kg-1, as indicated by the Q0.975 of the 2009 data, reduces
the number of cases highlighted cases to 226.

The  test  for  a  value  exceeding  the  minimum  of  the  expected  range
highlighted over 8,000 cases, or 76% of all cases for the test. The test for
the  minimum  CACO3  highlights  5,329  cases.  For  this  soil  parameter  the
test has little meaning, since many soils are naturally low in CaCO3 and a
value near or below the LOD is quite possible. In this case it may be more
meaningful to set the lower limit of the test to the LOD.

43

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

4.2.2 Conformity Check Results for 2012 LUCAS Soil Surveys

The  file  and  data  formats  of  the  2012  LUCAS  Soil  survey  laboratory  results  for
Bulgaria and Romania are identical and the identifiers for the soil samples have
no  overlap  in  numeric  codes.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  to  merge  the  data  of  the
two surveys into a single file for the application of the Conformity Checks.

Section 1: Data Structure

The summary results of the 2012 LUCAS Soil survey for the checks of Section 1
are given in Table 20.

Table  20:  Conformity  Check  Results  for  2012  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 1

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

483
496

No.

2
2

Duplicate LAB

DUPLICATE_CHEM_2012
DUPLICATE_TEXT_2012

LUCAS SOIL: Chemical data is duplicated.
LUCAS SOIL: Texture + pH data is duplicated.

There  are  no  duplicates  for  the  sample  identifier,  where  an  identifier  has
been  recorded  in  the  data.  However,  there  are  data  for  four  samples
without an identifier.

Duplicate TEXT

The  check  for  duplicate  chemical  data  identified  two  samples  from
Romania  (ID:35257;  ID:  35312)  with  identical  entries  in  the  parameters.
These  are  for  samples  without  data  and  the  entries  are  set  to  “-999”,
which results in the duplications highlighted by the test.

Duplicate CHEM

Duplicate entries for chemical data were found for the same two samples
as for chemical data and with the same reason (“-999”).

LAB-DMT-LINK

Since there was no LUCAS land use/cover survey for Bulgaria and Romania
in  2012  the  link  information  to  the  LUCAS  points  is  included  in  the  files
containing  the  results  of  the  analysis  of  the  soil  samples.  There  are  no
duplicate entries for the identifiers, but the four samples without a sample
identifier, but a point identifier and results of measurements.

Section 2: Data Status

The  summary  statistics  of  the  Conformity  checks  of  Section  2  are  presented  in
Table 21.

44

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  21:  Conformity  Check  Results  for  2012  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 2

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

430

465
471

581

593

605

617

645

657

669

681

693
705
717
729
741
753
777
789
801
807
813
819
825
831
843
849
864
877
883
889
901
913
922
928
937
949

No.

679

231
635

707

CODE_LOD_CACO3_2012

CODE_LOD_OC_2012
CODE_LOD_P_2012

EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2012

209

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2012

41

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2012

129

EXP_CF_MAX_M_2012

47

EXP_K_MAX_M_2012

2

EXP_K_MIN_M_2012

1796

EXP_N_MAX_M_2012

7

EXP_N_MIN_M_2012

Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3 results.("<
0.5")
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC results.("< 6.0")
Invalid code for quantification limit of P results.("< 5.0")
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 50)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Maximum CF value above expected range.(> 60)
Maximum K value above expected range for mineral.(>
700)
Minimum K value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 20)
Maximum N value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 8)
Minimum N value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 0.5)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 120)
Minimum OC value below expected range.(< 3.0)

2
15
1
2
7
2
23
670
8
40
2
7
15
13
8
23
13
2
1
7
15
13
13
15
2
2

EXP_OC_MAX_M_2012
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2012
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_2012 Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(> 8.1)
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2012 Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(< 3.3)
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_2012
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_2012
EXP_P_MAX_M_2012
EXP_P_MIN_M_2012
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2012
LOD_CEC_MIN_2012
LOD_K_MIN_2012
LOD_N_MIN_2012
LOD_OC_MIN_2012
LOD_P_MIN_2012
NUM_CACO3_MIN_2012
NUM_CEC_MIN_2012
NUM_CLAY_MIN_2012
NUM_K_MIN_2012
NUM_N_MAX_2012
NUM_N_MIN_2012
NUM_OC_MIN_2012
NUM_P_MIN_2012
NUM_SAND_MIN_2012
NUM_SILT_MIN_2012
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_2012
REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2012

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 8.5)
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.8)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 120)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.(< 1)
Minimum CEC value below LOD.(< 2.0)
Minimum K value below LOD.(< 10)
Minimum N value below LOD.(< 0.2)
Minimum OC value below LOD.(< 6)
Minimum P value below LOD.(< 5)
Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum CEC value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum CLAY value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum K value below numeric range.(< 0)
Maximum N value above numeric range.(> 1000)
Minimum N value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum OC value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum P value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum SAND value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum SILT value below numeric range.(< 0)
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting range.(< 2)
Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting range.(< 2)

Missing Data

There are no cases highlighted for the test for missing data in the files.

Code LOD

In the absence of a competent document on the laboratory measurement
methods  and  the  LOD  the  test  for  invalid  LODs  highlights  practically  all
cases,  where  the  codes  are  not  conform  to  the  2009  codes.  There  is  no
problem with format of the codes, but their values, which differ from 2009
for the parameters CACO3, OC and P.

45

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Numeric Range

For  most  physical  and  all  chemical  parameters  the  test  for  the  valid
numeric  range  highlights  cases  with  values  below  the  intrinsic  range  of
values. This is caused by the use of the numeric code ”-999”. The intended
significance of the code is not evident. It may indicate that a measurement
was or could not be taken, but not that a measurement resulted in a value
below the LOD, because it co-exists with the latter in the same field.

In  one  case  the  value  exceeds  the  intrinsic  numeric  range  (SOIL_ID:
35024;  N:  1,038).  For  a  measurement  using  the  unit  of  [g  kg-1]  this
should not be possible.

Minimum LOD

There are several cases of a reported condition where [0 < Value < LOD].
This could be attributable to the uncertainty in the LOD actually used, but
is more likely a result of an inconsistent application of the LOD.

Expected Value Range

The  test  for  values  outside  the  expected  range  highlighted  numerous
cases. The most frequent cases are:

1,796 (88.3%)
Maximum N value above expected range for mineral soil.(> 8)

707 (34.8%)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for mineral soil.(< 3.0)

670 (32.9%)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)

The  number  of  cases  with  a  very  low  concentration  of  CACO3  in  the  soil
samples  is  not  as  such  unusual  and  was  also  observed  in  samples  from
other  surveys.  Of  more  concern  are  the  cases  with  low  extractable
phosphorous  and  total  nitrogen.  For  the  latter,  88.3%  of  the  values
reported as laboratory measurements are outside the expected range. As
already  stated,  the  values  for  total  nitrogen  were  reported  in  a  unit
different from 2009 and 2015 and need adjusting before they can be used.

4.2.3 Conformity Check Results for 2015 LUCAS Soil Surveys

The results of the laboratory analysis of the LUCAS Soil data were processed by
Group.  Groups  1,  2  and  4  contain  data  for  EU28,  although  not  for  all  Member
States  in  all  groups.  Group  3  contains  also  data  from  non-EU28  countries.  The
data contain a field that provides the country name for the location of the sample
sites.  The  country  names  and  number  of  samples  assigned  to  the  country  are
given in Table 22.

46

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  22:  LUCAS  Soil  2015  Country  Code  data  and  Sample  Number  by
Group

GROUP 1

GROUP 2

GROUP 3 

EU28

GROUP 4

Country code No. Country code No. Country code No.

No. Country code No.

Austria

Belgium

Czech
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania

27 Austria

5 Belgium

Bulgaria

12 Czech

9 Denmark

37 Estonia
316 Finland
32 France
68 Germany
3 Greece
4 Hungary

40 Ireland
12 Italy
38 Latvia
22 Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

6

Poland
Portugal
Romania

Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden

The
Netherlands

43 Poland

5 Portugal
1 Romania

3 Slovakia
13 Slovenia
27 Spain
556 Sweden

Albania
295 Austria

Ausztria
59 Belgium
Bosnia

514 Bulgaria
Bulgária
Croatia
Cyprus

396 Czech
203 Denmark
143 Estonia
683 Finland
2541 France
1493 Germany
415 Greece
388 Hungary
83 Ireland

954 Italy
261 Latvia
306 Lithuania

3 Luxemburg
Macedonia
Malta
Montenegro
Netherlands
The
Netherlands

129

1266 Poland

408 Portugal
978 Romania
Serbia

199 Slovakia
92 Slovenia

2403 Spain
1276 Sweden

Switzerland

120
99
144
82
243
1
81
203
77
20
4
12
127
413
98
217
15
73
639
12
17
10
120
3
60
35

1
58
22
108
412
22
41

99 Austria

144

82 Belgium

1
81
203
77
20 Czech Republic

4 Denmark

12 Estonia
127 Finland
413 France

98 Germany

217 Greece

15 Hungary
73 Ireland

639 Italy

12 Latvia
17 Lithuania
10

3

35

The
Netherlands

1

58 Poland
22 Portugal

108

22 Slovakia
41 Slovenia

1545 1545 Spain

57
320

57 Sweden

6

1

14
6
3
28
67
38
9
12
1
38
2
8

5
30
12

4
1
60
22

U. Kingdom

55 UK

531 U. Kingdom

145

145

Total

1,334

16,019

5,656 4,381

United
Kingdom

14

381

The inconsistencies in the entries is the field [Country code] within and between
files  are  not  assessed,  because  the  field  is  not  included  in  the  specifications.
Notable  is  the  inclusion  of  data  for  1,275  samples  from  non-EU28  countries  in
Group  3.  For  some  of  the  checks  these  data,  although  for  countries  outside
EU28,  have  to  be  included  in  the  tests,  such  as  the  checks  for  data  structure.
Duplicate  entries  for  sample  identifiers  may  exist  between  samples  located  in
EU28 and non-EU28 countries.

47

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Section 1: Data Structure

The  summary  results  of  the  2015  LUCAS  Soil  survey  for  the  Conformity  Checks
of Section 1 are given in Table 23.

Table  23:  Conformity  Check  Results  for  2015  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 1

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

487

491

494

497

No.

1

DUPLICATE_DMT_POINT_2015 LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for point.

173

DUPLICATE_DMT_SOIL_2015 LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for soil sample.

4

4

DUPLICATE_LAB_SOIL_2015

LUCAS SOIL: Duplicate identifier for soil sample.

DUPLICATE_TEXT_2015

LUCAS SOIL: Texture + pH data is duplicated.

The results from the Conformity Checks for the integrity of the data structure are
detailed below.

Duplicate DMT Point ID

One  case  of  a  duplicate  ID  for  a  point  was  found  by  the  check  (ID:
51643122).

Duplicate DMT Soil ID

The check indicates 173 occurrences of duplicate soil IDs in the DMT. One
case  highlighted  are  duplicates  with  an  ID  “88888”,  which  concerns
251,072 points in the DMT. Soil IDs of “1” to “9” are duplicated 28 times.
Found  were  also  164  occurrences  of  duplicates  of  other  IDs,  which  affect
330 cases. In all the cases of a valid soil ID the code for [SOIL_TAKEN] is
“1”.

Duplicate LAB

The test for duplicate identifiers found 4 cases:

[SOIL_ID]: 41820, 41823, 41824, 56275

While  the  sample  identifiers  are  duplicates,  the  associated  data  differ
between  the  duplicates.  The  data  cannot  be  linked  unambiguously  to  a
LUCAS  point,  which  results  in  the  8  samples  without  land  use/cover
information.

Duplicate TEXT

The test for duplicate texture and pH data highlights four cases, which are
two duplicate records.

[SOIL_ID]: 44279 and 44339

[SOIL_ID]: 30120 and 48307

It is very unlikely to have the same results for all 6 parameters, of which
two  are  of  type  float.  One  may,  therefore,  assume  that  these  entries  are
duplicates.

48

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Not  counted  as  duplicates  are  the  2,365  cases,  where  the  pH  values  are
identical  between  samples,  but  no  texture  information  is  provided.  With
the limited range of pH values and the number of decimals of reporting the
results  of  the  analysis  the  occurrence  of  the  same  data  pairs  is  not
unusual.

Duplicate CHEM

No  duplicate  entries  for  the  results  from  the  chemical  parameters  were
found. This includes the cases with duplicate texture and pH data.

LAB-DMT-LINK

The check highlighted 1,484 cases where a Laboratory Soil ID exists in the
LAB file without correspondence in DMT data. These cases are included in
the  detailed  reports  of  the  checks,  but  not  the  summary  results.  The
evaluation cannot assign the lack of correspondence to either data as long
as the format specifications for the entries in the link field are respected.

Section 2: Data Status

The  summary  statistics  of  the  Conformity  Checks  of  Section  2  are  presented  in
Table 24.

Table  24:  Conformity  Check  Results  for  2015  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 2

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

512

570

571

572

573

578

582

583

584

585

588

589

590

591

594

595

No.

4

1

MISSING_CF_2015_G3

EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_2015_G1

158

EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_2015_G2

133

EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_2015_G3

1

4

EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_2015_G4

EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_2015_G3

555

EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015_G1

10449 EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015_G2

3234

EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015_G3

245

EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015_G4

591

EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015_G1

164

EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015_G2

69

EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015_G3

5

EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015_G4

15

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_G1

168

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_G2

A value is missing for parameter CF.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 600)
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 600)
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 600)
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 600)
Maximum CACO3 value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 200)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 1.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 1.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 1.0)
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 1.0)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 50)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 50)

49

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

596

597

601

602

603

606

607

608

609

612

613

614

618
621
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
636
637
638
639
640
641
642

647

648

649

652

653

654

658

659

660

661

664

665

666

No.

144

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_G3

4

1

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_G4

EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_G2

17

EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_G3

1

EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_G4

10

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G1

507

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G2

173

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G3

24

35

4

1

77
6
24
296
86
8
18
4
8
16
260
55
6
16
6
1

300

93

22

27

10

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G4

EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G1

EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G2

EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G3

EXP_CF_MAX_M_2015_G3
EXP_CF_MAX_O_2015_G3
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G1
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G2
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G3
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G4
EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G1
EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G2
EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G3
EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G1
EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G2
EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G3
EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G4
EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G1
EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G2
EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G3

EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G2

EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G3

EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G4

EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G1

EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G2

4

EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G3

49

EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G1

462

EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G2

88

EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G3

7

EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G4

11

EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G1

3

1

EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G2

EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G3

Maximum CEC value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 50)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 50)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 105)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 105)
Maximum CEC value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 105)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 3.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 8.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 8.0)
Minimum CEC value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 8.0)
Maximum CF value above expected range.(> 60)
Maximum CF value above expected range.(> 60)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 100)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 100)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 100)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 100)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 250)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 250)
Maximum EC value above expected range.(> 250)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 3)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 3)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 3)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 3)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 12)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 12)
Minimum EC value below expected range.(< 12)
Maximum K value above expected range for mineral.(>
700)
Maximum K value above expected range for mineral.(>
700)
Maximum K value above expected range for mineral.(>
700)
Maximum K value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 650)
Maximum K value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 650)
Maximum K value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 650)
Minimum K value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 20)
Minimum K value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 20)
Minimum K value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 20)
Minimum K value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 20)
Minimum K value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 40)
Minimum K value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 40)
Minimum K value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 40)

50

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

670

671

672

673

676

677

678

679

682

683

684

685

689

694
695
696
697
700
706
707
708
709

719

720

724

725

726

730

731

732

733

736

743

744

745

748

749

No.

72

EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G1

120

EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G2

162

EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G3

4

EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G4

90

EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G1

5

EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G2

11

EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G3

1

9

EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G4

EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G1

193

EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G2

64

EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G3

4

1

109
89
132
2
7
2
142
36
2

8

2

14

5

34

41

63

26

1

5

42

6

1

12

2

EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G4

EXP_N_MIN_O_2015_G2

EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G1
EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G2
EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G3
EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G4
EXP_OC_MAX_O_2015_G1
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G1
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G2
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G3
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G4
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_2015
_G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_2015
_G3
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2015_
G1
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2015_
G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2015_
G3
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2015_
G1
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2015_
G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2015_
G3
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2015_
G4
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2015_
G1
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_2015_G
2
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_2015_G
3
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_2015_G
4
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_2015_G
1
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_2015_G
2

Maximum N value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 8)
Maximum N value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 8)
Maximum N value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 8)
Maximum N value above expected range for mineral
soil.(> 8)
Maximum N value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 25)
Maximum N value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 25)
Maximum N value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 25)
Maximum N value above expected range for organic
soil.(> 25)
Minimum N value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 0.5)
Minimum N value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 0.5)
Minimum N value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 0.5)
Minimum N value below expected range for mineral
soil.(< 0.5)
Minimum N value below expected range for organic
soil.(< 4.0)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum OC value above expected range.(> 550)
Minimum OC value below expected range.(< 3.0)
Minimum OC value below expected range.(< 3.0)
Minimum OC value below expected range.(< 3.0)
Minimum OC value below expected range.(< 3.0)

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(> 8.1)

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(> 8.1)

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(> 6.6)

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(> 6.6)

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected range.(> 6.6)

Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(< 3.3)

Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(< 3.3)

Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(< 3.3)

Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(< 3.3)

Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected range.(< 2.8)

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 8.5)

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 8.5)

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 8.5)

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 7.0)

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 7.0)

51

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

750

754

755

756

757

778
779
780
781
784
785
786
790
791
792
793
796
797
798
802
803
804
805
808
809
810
811
814
815
816
817
820
821
822
826
827
828
829
832
833
834
835
945

No.

18

13

51

36

1

14
272
57
13
49
21
11
125
4658
3270
138
4
3
8
1074
8308
1908
188
12
274
85
11
14
109
11
2
1
7
6
1
55
14
1
19
705
1158
35
1

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected range.(> 7.0)

Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.8)

Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.8)

Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.8)

Minimum PH_H2O value below expected range.(< 3.8)

EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_2015_G
3
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_2015_G
1
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_2015_G
2
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_2015_G
3
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_2015_G
4
EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G1
EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G2
EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G3
EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G4
EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G1
EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G2
EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G3
EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G1
EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G2
EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G3
EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G4
EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G1
EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G2
EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G3
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_G1
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_G2
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_G3
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_G4
LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G1
LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G2
LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G3
LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G4
LOD_K_MIN_2015_G1
LOD_K_MIN_2015_G2
LOD_K_MIN_2015_G3
LOD_K_MIN_2015_G4
LOD_N_MIN_2015_G1
LOD_N_MIN_2015_G2
LOD_N_MIN_2015_G3
LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G1
LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G2
LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G3
LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G4
LOD_P_MIN_2015_G1
LOD_P_MIN_2015_G2
LOD_P_MIN_2015_G3
LOD_P_MIN_2015_G4
REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2015_G2 Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting range.(> 10)

Maximum P value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 120)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 125)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 125)
Maximum P value above expected range.(> 125)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 15)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 12)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 12)
Minimum P value below expected range.(< 12)
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.(< 1)
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.(< 1)
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.(< 1)
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.(< 1)
Minimum CEC value below LOD.(< 2.0)
Minimum CEC value below LOD.(< 2.0)
Minimum CEC value below LOD.(< 2.0)
Minimum CEC value below LOD.(< 2.0)
Minimum K value below LOD.(< 10)
Minimum K value below LOD.(< 10)
Minimum K value below LOD.(< 10)
Minimum K value below LOD.(< 10)
Minimum N value below LOD.(< 0.2)
Minimum N value below LOD.(< 0.2)
Minimum N value below LOD.(< 0.2)
Minimum OC value below LOD.(< 2)
Minimum OC value below LOD.(< 2)
Minimum OC value below LOD.(< 2)
Minimum OC value below LOD.(< 2)
Minimum P value below LOD.(< 5)
Minimum P value below LOD.(< 5)
Minimum P value below LOD.(< 5)
Minimum P value below LOD.(< 5)

Missing Data

The test indicates four cases of missing data in Group 3 for the parameter
CF. The corresponding [SOIL_ID]s are:

56237

Lithuania

14716

Bulgaria

27594

Germany

39138

The Netherlands

52

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

For the samples data on particle size distribution are reported, just the CF
field contains blank entries.

The laboratory results for these four samples were added to the end of the
file with a distinct series of [Sample Ident] codes. From this one may infer
that  the  samples  were  analysed  separately  from  the  other  samples  and
that the values for CF were omitted when appending the data to the file.

Code LOD

The  temporal  consistency  of  the  codes  used  to  indicated  results  of  the
analysis below the LOD and any missing data was evaluated based on the
parameters given in Table 25.

Table  25:  Codes  for  Limit  of  Detection  and  Minimum  Value  for
Parameters in Data

Parameter

Survey

2009

2012

2015

20,000 ->

incl. Cyprus

Malta

CF

CLAY

SILT

SAND

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

OC

CaCO3

N

P

K

CEC

< 1

< 1

< 1

1

2.57

3.21

< 2

< 1

< 0.2

< 10

< 10

< 2.0

blue: smallest value > 0
*

contains also entries of -999

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1

1*

1*

1*

3.5*

4.14*

< 6*

< 0.5*

16*

< 5*

20.3*

1.2*

1

1

2

2

2.6

3.17

0.31

0.1

1

0.1

1.4

0.2

The value for the LOD for OC changed from < 2.0 g kg-1 in 2009 to < 6.0
g  kg-1  in  2012.  The  limits  were  reflected  in  the  data  reported  for  OC  for
both years.

No  specific  value  for  the  LOD  for  OC  measurements  was  indicated  in  the
2015  data  (2  cases  of  “<0.0”).  The  2015  data  contains  70  (0.3%)  cases
were  the  value  reported  was  below  the  LOD  specified  for  2009.  Applying
the  LOD  of  2009  to  2015  OC  data  results  in  987  cases,  where  data  are
below the LOD indicated. However, it does not seem reasonable to use this
comparison as an evaluation criterion.

53

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

For the results of the CaCO3 analysis the LOD changed from < 1 g kg-1 in
2009 to < 0.5  g kg-1 in 2012. Due to the specifications of the number of
decimals for the parameter (0) the change in LOD is of no effect. The lack
of an identifier for analysis results below the LOD for CaCO3 in 2015 is an
inconsistency in reporting the results. In spite of this, no values below the
LOD of 2009 are reported for 2015 data. Thus, any practical consequences
depend  on  the  method  used  to  treat  the  2015  data,  which  are  below  the
2009 LOD value. This interpretation equally applies when comparing data
of the 2012 to the 2015 survey.

The test for the use of a code indication a measurement below the LOD did
not highlight any cases. The reason for this is not that only valid codes for
the  LOD  were  recorded,  but  that  no  such  code  was  used  for  any  of  the
parameters.

Numeric Range

The  number  of  cases  highlighted  by  the  test  of  data  outside  the  intrinsic
numeric  range  indicated  one  case.  The  value  for  the  parameter  PH_H2O
was 10.37 and thus above the limit of pH 10.

Minimum LOD

For the 2015 data the test for values below the minimum LOD resulted in
a  large  number  of  cases.  This  is  caused  by  using  a  value  of  zero  to  code
instances where the measurements were below the LOD. In this, the 2015
data  deviates  from  previous  practices.  With  the  file  format  used  to  store
the results of the laboratory analysis there is no technical demand for such
a  step.  The  entry  of  a  value  zero  (“0”)  denotes  a  code,  not  a  measured
value.  It  signifies  the  condition  that  the  presence  of  the  parameter  could
not be determined accurately at low concentrations, but does not signify a
measured  absence  of  a  parameter.  The  use  of  the  value  in  2015  can
therefore be considered potentially confounding.

Expected Value Range

The number of cases where a value exceeds the expected range suggests
that  the  minimum  range  limits  for  CACO3  and  P  should  be  the  LOD  to
reduce the number of cases highlighted by the check. The maximum range
limit could be increased for parameters K for mineral soils (> 700 mg kg-
1), CACO3 for mineral soils (> 600 g kg-1), EC for mineral soils (> 100 mS
m-1)  and  P  for  mineral  soils  (>  120  mg  kg-1).  The  range  limits  set  for
organic soils lead to less cases highlighted, simply because there are fewer
samples from soils with high OC content in the survey.

4.3 Uniformity Checks

Uniformity Checks are sub-divided into those that evaluate relationships between
parameters  for  a  survey  year  (Section  1)  and  those  that  evaluate  temporal
changes for a parameter (Section 2).

54

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

4.3.1 Section 1: Multi-parameter, Single Survey

A summary of the results from comparing parameters for a survey are presented
in Table 26.

Table  26:  Uniformity  Check  Results  for  2009  LUCAS  Soil  Survey,
Section 1

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

970

976

982
994

1029

No.

3758 CACO3_PH_M_2009

13

2
67

86

CACO3_PH_O_2009

CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2009
CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2009

PH_CACO3_M_2009

1035

147

PH_CACO3_O_2009

Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral soil with
PH_CACL2.(<= 3)
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic soil with
PH_CACL2.(<= 3)
C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil.(>= 100)
C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil.(<= 5)
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral soil with
PH_CACL2.(>= 3)
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic soil with
PH_CACL2.(>= 3)

C:N Ratio

The  C:N  Ratio  was  found  outside  the  expected  range  in  69  cases.  In  two
cases the values were greater than the maximum:

ID: 13177

C:N Ratio:172.33

ID: 13416

C:N Ratio: 196.50

The upper limit for the expected range was set to a value of 100 and the
values  found  were  significantly  above  this  limit.  A  value  >  30  may  be
considered very high and the range limit could be revised to a lower value.

The  67  cases  of  unexpectedly  low  values  for  the  C:N  Ratio  covered  a
continuous  range  below  the  lower  limit  of  5.0.  There  are  16  cases  with  a
C:N Ratio below 3, with a minimum of 1.27.

pH Difference

The  test  on  uncommonly  high  differences  in  values  for  PH_CACO3  and
PH_H2O did not result in any cases outside the range set for the test.

Low pH and high CaCO3

The test found 86 cases where a mineral soil with a low ph (pH(CaCl2) <
5) was combined with a high carbonate content (>= 3.0 g kg-1). The test
applied  to  organic  soils  (pH(CaCl2)  <  6;  >=  3.0  g  kg-1)  highlighted  147
cases with unexpected combinations. While most cases exceeded the limit
by only a margin, there were five cases where the carbonate content was
> 20 g kg-1 for organic soils, with a maximum of 79 g kg-1.

Low CaCO3 with high pH

The test of unexpected combinations of a low carbonate content (< 3.0 g
kg-1)  with  high  pH  (mineral:  >=  5;  organic:  >=  6)  did  not  highlight  any
cases.

55

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

OC Less than LOD for CACO3

No  cases  were  found  where  the  value  for  OC  was  less  than  the  LOD  for
CACO3.  The  test  is  based  on  a  LOD  for  carbonates  of  1.0  g  kg-1  for  all
surveys, as specified for the LOD for  CACO3 for 2009. Excluded from the
test are entries of zero (“0”) or ”-999”, which are considered codes.

4.3.2 Section 2: Single Parameter, Multiple Survey

Changes  in  the  results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  were  evaluated  for  samples
taken in 2009 and 2015. Not evaluated were changes to or from the 2012 survey
data.  The  2012  survey  covered  only  two  countries  and  an  interval  of  just  three
years  to  other  LUCAS  Soil  surveys.  It  would  be  difficult  to  substantiate  any
changes  over  such  a  period.  However,  the  results  from  the  2012  survey  were
considered  to  evaluate  the  temporal  stability  of  some  soil  parameters,  although
with very limited common data with 2009 and 2015 samples.

A  summary  of  the  number  of  cases  highlighted  by  the  Uniformity  Checks  for
temporal changes outside expected ranges are summarised in Table 27.

Table  27:  Uniformity  Check  Results  for  2009  and  2015  LUCAS  Soil
Survey, Section 2

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

1006

1012

1021

No.

516

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2009

122 MICRO_COOR_2009

22

MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015_G1

1022

101 MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015_G2

1024

1025

1026

4

MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015_G4

151

ORG_TO_MIN_2009_2015_G1

1

ORG_TO_MIN_2009_2015_G
2

1047

512

CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_G1

1048

6253 CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_G2

1049

1050

1055

3

165

930

CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_G3

CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_G4

CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G1

1056

8833 CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G2

1057

1063

1065

2

6

5

CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G3

CNG_CF_2009_2015_G3

CNG_CLAY_2009_2015_G3

Distance between GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Ambiguous link between LAB, DMT and Micro data.
Change from mineral soil to organic substrate.(from <=
120.00 to >= 200.00)
Change from mineral soil to organic substrate.(from <=
120.00 to >= 200.00)
Change from mineral soil to organic substrate.(from <=
120.00 to >= 200.00)
Change from organic substrate to mineral soil type.(from
>= 200.00 to <= 120.00)
Change from organic substrate to mineral soil type.(from
>= 200.00 to <= 120.00)

Temporal change of CACO3 not within expected
range.(+/- > 20%)
Temporal change of CACO3 not within expected
range.(+/- > 20%)
Temporal change of CACO3 not within expected
range.(+/- > 20%)
Temporal change of CACO3 not within expected
range.(+/- > 20%)
Temporal change of CEC not within expected range.(+/-
> 20%)
Temporal change of CEC not within expected range.(+/-
> 20%)
Temporal change of CEC not within expected range.(+/-
> 20%)
Temporal change of CF not within expected range.(+/- >
10%)
Temporal change of CLAY not within expected range.(+/-
> 10%)

56

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

1067

No.

982

CNG_K_2009_2015_G1

1068

8906 CNG_K_2009_2015_G2

4

CNG_K_2009_2015_G3

242

797

CNG_K_2009_2015_G4

CNG_N_2009_2015_G1

6765

CNG_N_2009_2015_G2

5

CNG_N_2009_2015_G3

190

CNG_N_2009_2015_G4

5

186

758

CNG_OC2009_2015_G3

CNG_OC2009_2015_G4

CNG_OC_2009_2015_G1

7154

CNG_OC_2009_2015_G2

406

3438

2

100

369

CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_2015_
G1

CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_2015_
G2

CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_2015_
G3

CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_2015_
G4

CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015_G
1

Temporal change of K not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of K not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of K not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of K not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of N not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of N not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of N not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of N not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of OC not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of OC not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of OC not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of OC not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

Temporal change of PH_H2O not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

3455

CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015_G
2

Temporal change of PH_H2O not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

3

100

CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015_G
3

CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015_G
4

868

CNG_P_2009_2015_G1

7024

CNG_P_2009_2015_G2

4

CNG_P_2009_2015_G3

183

CNG_P_2009_2015_G4

5

4

CNG_SAND_2009_2015_G3

CNG_SILT_2009_2015_G3

Temporal change of PH_H2O not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

Temporal change of PH_H2O not within expected
range.(+/- > 10%)

Temporal change of P not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of P not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of P not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of P not within expected range.(+/- >
20%)
Temporal change of SAND not within expected range.(+/-
> 10%)
Temporal change of SILT not within expected range.(+/-
> 10%)

1069

1070

1075

1076

1077

1078

1083

1084

1087

1088

1091

1092

1093

1094

1099

1100

1101

1102

1107

1108

1109

1110

1115

1117

Mineral Soil Exchanged with Soil High in Organic Carbon

The  test  for  changes  between  samples  taken  from  mineral  soils  or  from
soil with high OC content identified 127 cases, where a sample taken from
a  presumed  mineral  soil  in  2009  showed  a  high  organic  content  in  the

57

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

samples from 2015. Conversely, for samples from 152 sites where the OC
content  indicated  a  soil  high  in  OC  the  samples  form  2015  had
concentrations of OC that were compatible with mineral soils.

That  such  changes  are  present  in  samples  taken  at  the  same  sampling
point  is  possible  in  the  presence  of  organic  material,  such  as  litter  on
forests  soils.  For  a  better  understanding  of  the  areas  concerned  by  the
exceptional changes in OC for repeated samples the soil data was linked to
the  land  cover  information  of  the  LUCAS  LUC  data.  The  relative
occurrences  of  a  change  in  mineral/high  organic  by  land  cover  class  are
presented in Table 28.

58

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  28:  Relative  Occurrence  of  a  Change  in  Mineral/high  Organic
Carbon between 2009 and 2015 by LUCAS Land Cover Class

2015

r
e
v
o
c

e
e
r
t

e
s
r
a
p
s

h
t
i

w
d
n
a
b
u
r
h
S

l

t
u
o
h
t
i

w
d
n
a
b
u
r
h
S

l

r
e
v
o
c

e
e
r
t

e
s
r
a
p
s

h
t
i

w
d
n
a
l
s
s
a
r
G

r
e
v
o
c

b
u
r
h
s
/
e
e
r
t

t
u
o
h
t
i

w
d
n
a
l
s
s
a
r
G

r
e
v
o
c

b
u
r
h
s
/
e
e
r
t

-
e
r

y
l
s
u
o
e
n
a
t
n
o
p
S

s
e
c
a
f
r
u
s

d
e
t
a
t
e
g
e
v

l
i

o
s

e
r
a
b

r
e
h
t
O

s
d
n
a
l
t
e
w
d
n
a
n
I

l

l

d
n
a
d
o
o
w
d
e
x
M

i

LUCAS Land Cover

l

d
n
a
d
o
o
w
s
u
o
r
e
f
i
n
o
C

d
e
v
a
e
d
a
o
r
B

l

l

d
n
a
d
o
o
w

s
l
a
e
r
e
C

2009

Artificial non-built-up areas

0.4

Cereals

Temporary grassland

1.1

0.7

Broadleaved woodland

3.6

1.8

Coniferous woodland

0.7 33.0 6.1 0.4

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.4 0.4

Mixed woodland

2.5 9.7 22.9 1.1 0.4 0.4

0.4

Shrubland with sparse tree
cover

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

Shrubland without tree
cover

Grassland with sparse
tree/shrub cover

Grassland without
tree/shrub cover

Spontaneously re-
vegetated surfaces

Bare land and lichens

Inland wetlands

1.1 0.7

0.4 0.7

0.4 0.4

0.4 6.1

0.4

0.4

0.7

LC1 Level 1

The  table  indicates  that  most  of  the  changes  (80.3%)  occurred  for  soil
samples  taken  in  woodland.  One  third  concern  coniferous  woodland.
Problems  in  the  consistency  of  sampling  soils  in  woodlands  were  also
noted  for  dedicated  forest  soil  sampling  surveys  (Hiederer  et  al.,  2011;
Hiederer, 2018). While this may be one reason for exceptional changes in
OC content for repeated samples the table also indicates a certain amount
of “noise” in the classification of the samples, which amounts to 10.0% for

59

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

the samples with exceptional changes in OC. Changes in a main land cover
category  are  all  value  outside  the  boxed  areas.  An  assessment  of  the
consistency of the observations of the LUCAS LUC survey are outside the
scope of this evaluation, although this may affect the temporal consistency
of soil data from repeated samples.

Temporal Changes

The temporal changes of a parameter is assessed for each sample that is
associated with a LUCAS point in two surveys. This is taken as a repeated
sample. In the best of cases the repeated sample is taken at the location
of  the  previous  sample.  The  sites  are  not  marked  and  one  may  assume
that the repeated samples are taken in the vicinity of the place where the
previous sample was taken. Therefore, the changes in a parameter include
the variability of that parameter over an area that is larger than the area
from  which  the  soil  sample  is  collected.  It  should  be  interpreted  as  a
repeated sample from an area, not a point.

The  local  spatial  variability  may  explain  the  number  of  cases  highlighted
by  the  tests  for  temporal  changes.  To  obtain  an  indication  of  the
consistency  of  the  samples  taken  it  would  be  useful  to  have  such  results
for  parameters  that  may  be  safely  assumed  to  vary  very  little  over  a
period of 6 years. These are the particle size distribution and, to a lesser
degree, also pH. Other soil parameters are more subject to vary even over
a period of 6 years, for example as a result of land use change. However,
the  particle  size  distribution  was  excluded  from  being  measured  for
repeated  samples,  which  leaves  only  pH  as  a  parameter  to  assess
consistency of the parameter.

As  an  indicator  of  temporal  changes  or  consistency  the  relative  change
over the base year was used. For pH the range limit was set to 10%, for
all  other  parameters  to  20%.  This  results  in  a  rather  large  number  of
cases  outside  the  range  limits.  In  the  evaluation  of  the  check  results  is
turned out that these limits are too stringent.

One of the reasons contributing the the number of cases is the variability
at  low  levels  of  concentrations.  At  low  concentrations  an  absolute  limit
such  as  the  LOQ,  could  reduce  the  number  of  cases  that  are  within  the
range  of  local  variations.  For  higher  concentrations  the  re-analysis  of  the
same  samples  could  provide  some  guidelines  on  the  variability  of  the
laboratory  methods.  This  approach  may  seem  more  constructive  for
identifying  potentially  problematic  cases,  but  requires  a  deterministic
process of when to apply which method.

To better understand the variability in the temporal changes two graphical
presentations  of  data  properties  were  generated.  One  is  a  scatter  plot
graphing  the  parameter  value  of  the  base  year  against  the  changes  for
that  plot  during  a  subsequent  survey.  The  second  graph  depicts  the
frequency distribution of the relative change.

60

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Temporal Changes: pH(CaCl2) and pH(H2O)

The  distribution  of  the  changes  for  repeated  samples  is  comparable
between  PH_CACL2  and  PH_H2O.  The  frequency  distribution  is  narrow,
with 93% of all cases within +/- 20 from the base year, as shown in Figure
5.

a) Scatter Plot pH(CaCl2)

b) Frequency Distribution pH(CaCl2)

c) Scatter Plot pH(H2O)

d) Frequency Distribution pH(H2O

Figure 5: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameters pH(CaCl2) and pH(H2O)

Notable  is  the  perceptible  dependency  of  the  change  in  pH  with  pH  from
the  2009  and  2012  to  the  2015  survey  samples.  The  average  pH  of  all
repeated  samples  has  not  changed  between  surveys  (5.7  for  2009  to
2015; 6.1 for 2012 to 2015). Values below the mean tend to increase with
a lower pH, while pH units above the mean tend to decrease with pH.

For all repeated samples and surveys a trend in pH values in 2015 is not
present in the data. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 6.

61

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

a) pH(CaCl2)

b) pH(H2O)

Figure 6: Change in Soil Parameters pH(CaCl2) and pH(H2O) from 2009
and 2012 to 2015 for Repeated Soil Samples

It  can  be  considered  unusual  to  have  a  notable  increase  in  pH  in  the  soil
over a period of 3 years. The reanalysis of the 2009/2012 samples (2014
samples) indicates a slope of a linear regression of 1.01 for PH_CACL2 and
0.96 for PH_H2O. These values are reflected in the data of the resampled
soils.  While  there  is  no  discernible  change  in  the  overall  soil  pH  there
remains a notable variance at point level for a parameter that should have
low local and temporal variability.

Temporal Changes: Organic Carbon

The  changes  for  each  repeated  sample  and  the  frequency  distribution  of
the changes for OC are presented in Figure 7.

a) Scatter Plot Organic Carbon

b) Frequency Distribution Organic Carbon

Figure 7: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameter Organic Carbon

Of the changes for OC for repeated samples 46.3% are within the range of
+/- 20% of the 2009/2012 value. This is due to the steep increase in the
relative changes for mineral soils with OC content below approx. 80 g kg-
1, but also the interchanges of minerals and organic soils.

The  comparison  of  OC  data  in  samples  from  2009  and  2012  and  in
repeated samples form 2015 is graphically presented in Figure 8.

62

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

a) Scatter Plot Organic Carbon

b) Reanalysis Organic Carbon

Figure 8: Change in Soil Parameter Organic Carbon from 2009 and 2012
to 2015 for Repeated Soil Samples and Reanalysis of 2009/2012 Data

The  scatter  plot  of  OC  data  for  repeated  samples  shows  the  generally
stable  clusters  of  mineral  soils  and  soils  high  in  OC,  but  also  the
occurrence  of  exchanges  between  the  clusters.  The  Reanalysis  of  the  soil
samples  from  2009  and  2012  shows  consistent  results.  No  changes  from
or  to  mineral  soils  were  reported,  but  the  214  samples  of  the  Reanalysis
contain only 7 samples with OC content > 120 g kg-1.

Notable for the reanalysed data is a slope < 1 (0.92). The slope is to some
degree  affected  by  the  few  samples  from  soils  high  in  OC.  Limiting  the
linear regression of the original analysis to the reanalysed data to samples
from mineral soils provides a slope of 0.97. The confidence interval for the
slope at a 99% confidence level for all samples is 0.897 to 0.941 and for
only  mineral  soil  samples  0.945  to  0.988.  The  confidence  interval  for  the
difference  of  the  mean  for  the  reanalysed  data  is  1.431  +/-  1.673  (99%
confidence  level)  and  1.27  (95%  confidence  level).  With  the  H0  for  the
slope  (no  different  from  1)  could  be  rejected  at  the  95%  and  99%
confidence  level  the  H0  for  the  difference  of  the  mean  (no  difference  in
mean)  could  only  be  rejected  at  the  95%  confidence  level.  Under  the
assumption  that  there  is  no  systematic  change  introduced  by  the
laboratory method there is insufficient evidence to reject the H0 hypothesis
that there is no difference in the mean OC for the totality of the repeated
soil samples.

The  results  suggest  that  evaluating  changes  in  OC  should  be  treated
separately for mineral soils and soils high in OC. It may also be beneficial
to  the  evaluation  to  account  for  the  influence  of  changes  in  land  use  /
cover  when  comparing  data  from  different  sampling  periods.  Additional
analysis  was  performed  where  the  OC  content  was  limited  to  120  g  kg-1
and  restricted  to  plots  where  the  main  LUCAS  survey  did  not  indicate  a
change  in  land  use  or  cover.  Excluded  from  the  comparison  were  plots
with  an  OC  content  below  the  LOD  in  either  survey.  The  results  are
presented in Figure 9.

63

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

a) All Land Use types

b) All LC1 categories

c) Land Use type Grassland

d) LC1 category Grassland

e) Land Use type Arable Land

f) LC1 category Cropland

g) Land Use type Natural Land

h) LC1 categories Woodland and Shrubland

Figure  9:  Comparison  of  Soil  Parameter  Organic  Carbon  for  Samples  of
2009 and 2012 Repeated in 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey with same Land Use
Type and LC1 Category in Corresponding LUCAS LUC Surveys

64

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

For the land use type the LUCAS land cover categories were related to the
main Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) land use types:

Grassland corresponds to LC1 code E: Grassland

Long-term arable land corresponds to LC1 code B: Cropland

Natural  Land  is  approximated  by  LC1  code  C  (Woodland)  and  D
(shrubland).

For the comparison of LC1 categories the OC content of only those points
are included where the LC1 in the base year corresponds to the LC1 in the
repeated year. For cropland this means that the same crop was recorded
in the LUCAS LUC survey in 2015 as in the previous survey at a point.

A visual comparison indicated that by restricting the changes to the same
LU type in both year reduces the variability in the OC changes. This is an
expected  results,  because  land  use  is  one  of  the  main  factors  influencing
OC  over  a  short  period.  The  results  of  linear  regressions  for  the
comparisons are given in Figure 10.

Figure  10:  Linear  Regression  Parameters  for  Soil  Parameter  Organic
Carbon from Repeated Sampling for same Land Use Type and Land Cover
Category in both years, Mineral Soil Samples

LU / LC1

Same LU

Same LC1

Regression Slope

All LU

Grassland

Arable Land

Natural Land

0.89

0.98

0.91

0.84

r2

0.50

0.58

0.59

0.28

Regression Slope

0.94

0.90

0.90

0.89

r2

0.60

0.58

0.51

0.43

Compared  to  simply  pooling  all  data  on  OC  content  (regression  slope:
0.89;  r2:  0.46  for  2009  to  2015  repeated  samples)  the  coefficient  of
correlation r2 increased when restricting the samples to the same land use
type or land cover category to grassland or cropland. The variability in the
OC content seems to significantly larger in natural land than the other land
use  types,  which  would  explain  to  some  degree  the  variability  on  the
pooled data.

Common  to  all  changes  in  OC  content  is  that  the  slope  is  <  1.0.  This  is
also  the  case  for  the  repeated  samples  for  the  2012  LUCAS  soil  survey
(Bulgaria  and  Romania:  regression  slope:  0.96  for  same  LU).  One  would
not have expected a notable change in OC content for cropland remaining
cropland over a 3-year period.

The spread of the changes in OC at plot level poses a problem for selecting
a  range  limit  of  expected  changes  in  OC  at  the  level  of  the  plot.  In  this
case, neither a limit of relative changes nor an absolute limit would lead to
a meaningful reduction in the number of cases highlighted.

65

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Temporal Changes: CaCO3

For the results of the parameter CACO3 changes for each repeated sample
and the frequency distribution of the changes are presented in Figure 11.

a) Scatter Plot CaCO3

b) Frequency Distribution CaCO3

Figure 11: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameter CaCO3

The  scatter  plot  of  changes  in  CACO3  against  the  values  in  the  survey
base  year  show  an  accumulation  of  changes  >  +100%  below  a  value  of
approx. 350 g kg-1. This is also visible in the frequency distribution of the
changes, where the relative frequency of changes remain above 5% for all
bins.  Changes  of  <  +/-20%  were  found  for  42.9%  of  the  samples
analysed.  Very  notable  is  the  frequency  of  10.8%  of  changes  >  100%.
This does not include any change from or to values below the LOD or set
to  zero  in  2015  data.  The  notable  changes  for  repeated  samples  are  not
linked to cases where the OC content changed from a mineral soil type to
a  soil  high  in  OC  or  vice  versa.  for  279  cases  of  mineral/organic  changes
investigated  12  cases  showed  a  notable  change  CACO3.  Consistent  with
expectations  is  that  whenever  an  OC  content  increased  from  mineral  to
organic the CACO3 concentration did not  increase. Yet, there were only 5
cases with a CACO3 concentration > 3 g kg-1 that changed from mineral to
organic,  in  a  data  set  of  over  15,000  data  points.  No  correlation
whatsoever was found relating changes in CACO3 to changes in OC.

A  scatter  plot  of  the  CACO3  concentrations  reported  for  2009/2015  and
repeated  samples  in  2015  and  the  result  of  the  reanalysed  samples  are
presented in Figure 12.

66

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

a) Scatter Plot CaCO3

b) Reanalysis CaCO3

Figure 12: Change in Soil Parameter CaCO3 from 2009 and 2012 to 2015
for Repeated Samples and Reanalysis of 2009/2012 Data

The graph illustrates the variability in the parameter for repeated sampling
after  three  to  six  years.  The  correlation  of  the  originally  analysed  and
reanalysed  samples  shows  that  the  parameter  can  be  determined
consistently, although there is one unexplained outlier. Without the outlier
the regression slope is 0.97.

These  results  suggest  that  the  variability  in  the  changes  of  CACO3
between  the  first  and  the  second  samples  is  unlikely  a  result  of  the
laboratory measurements, but due to other factors, such as differences in
the properties of the soil sampled.

Temporal Changes: Total Nitrogen

For  the  soil  parameter  total  nitrogen  a  comparison  of  the  values  from
repeated sampling and the relative frequency distribution are presented in
Figure 13.

a) Scatter Plot Total Nitrogen

b) Frequency Distribution Total Nitrogen

Figure 13: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameter Total Nitrogen

The scatter plot as well as the Reanalysis of the 2009/2012 data show that
there is a problem with the data from the 2012 LUCAS soil survey. A closer
look at the data reveals a difference in the order of one magnitude. Very

67

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

likely  the  data  were  reported  in  the  wrong  unit,  i.e.  not  in  g  kg-1.  This
inconsistency in the data is also present in the reanalysed data, as shown
in Figure 14.

a) Reanalysis 2009 and 2012

b) Reanalysis 2009 data only

Figure 14: Laboratory Results from Repeated Analysis of Samples from
2009/2012 LUCAS Soil Surveys for Soil Parameter Total Nitrogen

Restricting  the  Reanalysis  to  the  2009  data  provides  a  good  fit  of  the
laboratory results.

Temporal Changes: Soluble Phosphor

For  the  parameter  soluble  phosphor  a  comparison  of  the  values  from
repeated sampling and the relative frequency distribution are presented in
Figure 15.

a) Scatter Plot Soluble Phosphor

b) Frequency Distribution Soluble Phosphor

Figure 15: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameter Soluble Phosphor

The scatter plot and the frequency distribution show a spread of the data
pairs  across  a  relative  change  of  +/-  80%.  About  30%  of  the  values
remain within a range of +/-20%. Notable is the relatively large group of
changes > 100%.

68

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

To  better  understand  the  situation  the  relative  frequency  distributions  of
the values reported for repeatedly surveyed points of the 2009 and 2015
LUCAS soil surveys were compared. The data are graphically is presented
in Figure 16.

a) Frequency Distribution Soluble Phosphor

b) Reanalysis Soluble Phosphor

Figure 16: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameter Soluble Phosphor

The  frequency  distribution  of  the  values  indicated  a  notable  difference  in
the presence of values of 10 to 20 mg kg-1 between the years. Zooming in
on  the  data  of  the  Reanalysis  and  values  of  <  50  mg  kg-1  displays  the
situation  for  lower  P  concentrations.  The  graphs  illustrates  that  for
samples  with  soluble  P  concentrations  below  the  LOD  in  2009  /  2012
(values  set  to  zero)  the  Reanalysis  found  non-negligible  amounts  for  the
nutrient  and  frequently  above  the  LOD.  There  is  also  a  notable  tendency
for  values  below  approx.  30  mg  P  kg-1  to  have  higher  values  in  the
Reanalysis This concerns 50% of the 2009 samples. When forcing the off-
set of the linear regression to zero this tendency will not be noticeable in
the slope.

There  is,  therefore,  some  uncertainty  in  the  consistency  of  the  change
analysis  for  concentrations  of  soluble  phosphor  below  30  mg  kg-1,
independently of the survey year.

Temporal Changes: Extractable Potassium

The  relative  changes  of  extractable  potassium  and  their  frequency
distribution are given in Figure 17.

69

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

a) Relative change Extractable Potassium

b) Frequency Distribution Extractable Potassium

Figure 17: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil
Parameter Extractable Potassium

The graphs indicate the considerable range of values in the soil samples. Also the
changes  in  extractable potassium  are  quite  sizable  at  lower  concentrations.  The
relative  frequency  of  the  changes  indicates  that  the  concentrations  declined  in
the  54%  of  cases  from  2009  and  60%  of  cases  from  2012  to  2015  repeated
samples.  The  regression  slope  for  2009  repeated  samples  in  2015  is  0.81  and
0.82 for 2012 repeated samples.

The  results  of  the  Reanalysis  of  the  2009  and  2012  data  be  the  laboratory  are
presented in Figure 18.

a) Reanalysis Extractable K, all data

b) Reanalysis Extractable K, < 1600 mg kg-1

Figure 18: Reanalysis of 2009 and 2012 Samples for Soil Parameter
Extractable Potassium

The  regression  slope  of  the  214  reanalysed  samples  of  2009  and  2012  is
largely  defined  by  a  single  sample  high  in  extractable  K.  Such  values  are
also found at other points, but are generally rare.

When  excluding  the  single  high  value  for  extractable  K  from  data  the  H0
for  the  regression  slope  is  outside  the  confidence  intervals  for  the  95%
and 99% confidence level:

99% confidence interval: 0.80919 ≤ β ≤ 0.89081

95% confidence interval: 0.81905 ≤ β ≤ 0.88095

70

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Another indicator for lower values in the reanalysed data than the original
data is that out of 211 data pairs the Reanalysis gives for 193 (91%) pairs
a lower concentration. The confidence limits for the difference of the mean
for the reanalysed data was found to be:

99% confidence interval: 34.58507 ≤ β ≤ 44.42251

95% confidence interval: 35.76579 ≤ β ≤ 43.24179

There  is  very  scant  substance  that  supports  the  Null-hypothesis  H0  of  no
difference  between  the  mean  of  the  original  and  the  reanalysed  samples.
Therefore,  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  changes  in  extractable  K  in  the
repeated  samples  are  significantly  influenced  by  the  differences  in  the
laboratory method.

Temporal Changes: Cation Exchange Capacity

The data of the first LUCAS Soil survey compared to the laboratory results
for  the  repeated  samples  of  the  2015  Soil  survey  for  CEC  are  given  in
Figure 19.

a) Scatter plot CEC

b) Frequency Distribution CEC

Figure 19: Scatter Plot of Resample Points and Relative Frequency
Distribution of Change for Soil Parameter Cation Exchange Capacity

The  data  pairs  of  first  and  repeated  samples  do  not  exhibit  a  consistent
relationship  between  surveys.  From  a  visual  interpretation  of  the  data  it
would  appear  that  for  repeated  2009  samples  with  70 cmol(+)  kg-1  the
2015 samples are restricted to a  CEC of 60  cmol(+) kg-1, while a limit of
40 cmol(+) kg-1 seems to exist for 2012 samples of less than 30 cmol(+)
kg-1.

The  relative  frequency  distribution  shows  a  marked  difference  in  the
changes  of  the  2009  and  2012  data.  The  CEC  for  samples  form  Bulgaria
and  Romania  decreases,  whereas  such  a  trend  is  not  present  in  the
resampled data of 2009 points.

The results of the reanalysed samples are presented in Figure 20.

71

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Figure 20: Reanalysed Samples of 2009 and 2012 for Soil Parameter
Cation Exchange Capacity

The  linear  regression  of  the  laboratory  data  from  the  reanalysed  samples
points to a non-zero off-set in the data and a low correlation between the
original  and  the  reanalysed  data.  From  the  information  available  the
reason 
inconsistent  results  of  the  Reanalysis  cannot  be
unequivocally identified. It may be assumed that the erratic results of the
Reanalysis of the 2009 and 2012 samples are at least in part responsible
for the lack of a consistent changes in the data of the resampled points.

for  the 

Links to Eurostat Micro Data

A summary of the cases highlighted by the checks for valid external links is given
in Table 28.

Table  29:  Summary  Results  for  Checks  of  and  Links  to  Eurostat  Micro-
Data for Survey Year

Check Cases Check Label

Message

ID

No.

1006

516

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2009

1007

65

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2012

1008

173

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_G1

1009

173

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_G2

1010

173

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_G3

1011

1012
1013
1014

173

134
1
2

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_G4

MICRO_COOR_2009
MICRO_COOR_2012
MICRO_COOR_2015

Distance between 2009 GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Distance between 2012 GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates and OBS_DIST
exceeds limit.
Ambiguous link between 2009 LAB, DMT and Micro data.
Ambiguous link between 2012 LAB, DMT and Micro data.
Ambiguous link between 2015 LAB, DMT and Micro data.

72

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Eurostat Micro Data Points

The check found 134 cases of ambiguous links of the Soil-DMT data to the
Eurostat micro-data for the 2009 survey. The number dropped to one case
for 2012 and 2 cases for 2015 data links. As regards linking the 2009 soil
data  to  other  information  there  are  some  restrictions  for  the  data  from
Cyprus and Malta.

Due  to  the  nature  of  the  2009  Malta  survey  the  results  of  the  19  soil
samples  cannot  be  linked  to  the  Eurostat  LUCAS  data  on  land  use/cover.
The  results  from  the  laboratory  analysis  can  be  assigned  geographic
locations using the additional data available. Rudimentary data on land use
was noted during the survey.

For the 2009 LUCAS Soil survey for Cyprus the co-ordinates of the 90 soil
sample  are  those  of  the  LUCAS  point  grid  location.  In  the  absence  of  a
concurrent  LUCAS  LUC  survey  information  on  the  distance  of  the
observation point to the grid location and any information on land use or
cover  of  a  soil  sample  can  only  be  deduced  from  the  2015  LUCAS  LUC
survey.

Distance of Observation

The test on the distance between the soil sample location and the point to
which  the  land  use  /  cover  information  relates  has  highlighted  516  cases
where  the  distance  exceeds  100  m  for  the  2009  survey.  For  the  2012
survey the distance limit was exceed for 65 samples and for 173 samples
for  the  2015  survey.  The  check  sets  a  warning  rather  than  an  error,
although  it  may  be  advisable  to  remove  the  data  of  the  soil  samples
concerned from further analysis.

73

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

5 Summary and Conclusions

The  detailed  assessment  of  the  results  of  the  evaluation  checks  includes  the
identification  of  each  item  highlighted  by  the  checks.  This  level  of  detail  is
needed to trace the source of any non-standard or peculiar conditions found. To
put  the  number  of  cases  highlighted  by  the  checks  into  perspective  the  results
are summarised by survey and expressed as a percentage of the total number of
items.

5.1 Compliance

This  section  contains  a  summary  of  the  groups  of  checks  that  assess  the
adherence to formal aspects of the files and data delivered.

Delivery Format

The files delivered with the results of the laboratory measurements were:

2009:  3  (20,000  samples,  incl.  Cyprus;  897  additional  samples;  19
samples for Malta)

2012: 2 (Bulgaria, Romania)

2015: 1 (Groups 1 to 4 in separate notebooks)

The summary of the compliance of the delivery format to the format specified in
is presented in Table 30.

Table 30: Summary of Compliance Check for Delivery Format

Survey

2009, 20,000 samples

2009, 897 additional samples

2009, Malta*

2012 Bulgaria

2012 Romania

2015 Group 1, 2, 3 and 4**

retrieved from ESDAC

* 
** single file with Groups on separate worksheets

Items

No.

1

1

1

1

1

1

Check Failed

No.

0

0

N/A

0

0

0

%

0.0

0.0

N/A

0.0

0.0

0.0

All LUCAS Soil survey data were available in the format specified in the technical
documents.  The  only  data  not  available  in  spreadsheet  format  were  the  results
from the 2009 survey for Malta. This survey was performed outside the frame of

74

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

LUCAS  and  no  document  specifying  the  file  format  for  the  delivery  of  the
laboratory results could be retrieved.

Parameter Position

The  position  of  parameters  in  the  spreadsheet  file  is  of  some  importance,
because data are frequently accessed by column number and not by parameter
or field name. A summary of the checks on parameter position is given in Table
31.

Table 31: Summary of Parameter Position Check

Survey

2009, 20,000 samples

2009, 897 additional samples

2009, Malta*

2012 Bulgaria*

2012 Romania*

2015 Group 1

2015 Group 2

2015 Group 3

2015 Group 4

* no documents with specifications

Items

No.

12

12

12

12

12

9

9

13

9

Check Failed

No.

0

0

N/A

12

12

9

9

13

9

%

0.0

0.0

N/A

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

More  problematic  than  a  general  shift  in  the  column  position  is  a  change  in  the
order  of  positions  of  some  parameters.  In  the  data  for  Malta  the  results  of  the
parameter  pH(H2O)  are  recorded  before  the  parameter  pH(CaCl2).  In  all  2015
files,  soluble  phosphor  is  recorded  before  total  nitrogen.  In  Group  3  the  results
for  SAND  are  exchanged  with  the  results  for  SILT.  Where  data  cover  similar
ranges of values, such as pH or particle size distribution, these alterations in the
position of a parameter in the file are not immediately obvious, but potentially of
consequence.

Reporting Decimals

The  number  of  decimals  of  the  values  reported  are  a  specified  in  the  technical
documents  for  each  parameter.  The  documents  are  not  consistent  in  all  cases
when specifying the number of decimals, mainly for pH(CaCl2) and total nitrogen.
In contrast to pH(H2O), which should be reported with two decimals, the results
for  pH(CaCl2)  should  be  reported  with  one  decimal.  Total  nitrogen  should  be
reported with zero decimals. A summary of the checks for decimals is presented
in Table 32.

75

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 32: Summary of Reporting Decimals Check

Survey

2009, 20,000 samples

2009, 897 additional samples

2009, Malta*

2012 Bulgaria

2012 Romania

2015 Group 1

2015 Group 2

2015 Group 3

2015 Group 4

Items

No.

12

12

12

12

12

9

9

13

9

Check Failed

No.

0

0

0

3

3

0

%

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.0

25.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Data  outside  the  specifications  were  found  for  the  2012  LUCAS  Soil  survey  for
Bulgaria  and  Romania  for  total  nitrogen  and  soluble  phosphor.  Data  were
reported  with  more  than  the  specified  decimals  and  the  effect  of  the  deviation
from the specifications on the use of the data should not be of consequence.

Parameter Data Type

The  file  format  used  to  submit  the  results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  does  not
require  a  single  data  type  to  be  used  for  a  parameter  (column  or  field),  nor  do
the technical documents provide any specifications for a data type. The check is
applied for completeness of the data evaluation, but also to identify and highlight
any non-numeric entries that are stored in the data for parameters. The result of
the evaluation is summarised in Table 33.

76

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 33: Summary of Parameter Type Check

Survey

2009, 20,000 samples

2009, 897 additional samples

2009, Malta*

2012 Bulgaria

2012 Romania

2015 Group 1

2015 Group 2

2015 Group 3

2015 Group 4

Items

No.

13

13

13

13

13

10

10

14

10

Check Failed

No.

10

6

1

3

3

0

2

0

0

%

76.9

46.2

7.7

25.0

25.0

0.0

20.0

0.0

0.0

The  only  parameter,  for  which  a  single  data  type  (numeric)  is  needed,  is  the
sample identifier that allows linking the soil data to information collected in other
LUCAS surveys. Entries of alpha-numeric type are present in the parameter data,
but  also  the  soil  identifier,  in  data  for  the  2009  LUCAS  Soil  survey  of  20,000
samples  and  the  897  additional  samples.  All  2012  data  correspond  to  the
expectations for the data type, including the sample identifier. The soil identifier
links to a LUCAS grid position. For 2015 data only Group 2 data contained some
inconsistent entries.

Reporting Units

The  units  in  which  the  results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  should  be  reported  are
specified  in  the  technical  documents  for  2009  and  2015  data.  No  information  is
available  for  the  2012  data.  A  summary  of  the  results  from  the  check  are
presented in Table 34.

Table 34: Summary of Parameter Unit Check

Survey

2009, 20,000 samples

2009, 897 additional samples

2009, Malta*

2012 Bulgaria

2012 Romania

2015 Group 1

2015 Group 2

Check Failed

No.

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

%

0.0

0.0

0.0

8.3

8.3

0.0

0.0

Items

No.

12

12

12

12

12

9

9

77

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Survey

Items

Check Failed

2015 Group 3

2015 Group 4

No.

13

9

No.

0

0

%

0.0

0.0

The  reporting  units  remained  unchanged  between  surveys.  The  only  deviation
from the specifications was found for total nitrogen of the 2012 surveys. The unit
was  not  specified,  but  is  an  order  of  magnitude  outside  the  range  of  mg  kg-1.
This  is  a  serious  error  and  the  check  results  in  an  error  message.  Without
adjustment the use of the data can lead to consequential misinterpretations.

5.2 Conformity

The  results  of  the  assessment  of  the  data  structure  and  values  reported  are
summarised  by  the  Section  of  the  Compliance  checks.  Some  of  the  results
require a presentation by survey, others by parameter.

5.2.1 Section 1: Data Structure

The status of data structure is governed by the rules set for data integrity of the
data  model  of  the  evaluation  database.  The  results  of  checks  performed  under
the section are:









Duplicate SOIL_ID in soil data (key violation);

SOIL_ID missing in DMT (referential integrity);

Duplicate DMT link data (key violation);

No. of valid links

Aspects of data integrity of the DMT data, such as duplicate identifiers for points
and soil samples, are checked and reported in the detailed results table, but not
included in the summary reports since they are external to the LUCAS Soil data.

2009 LUCAS Soil Survey

The checks for data integrity were performed separately for the main data
with  results  for  20,000  samples  and  the  additional  897  samples.  The
checks could not be applied to the 2009 samples from Malta, which are not
included in the DMT for that year. the results are summarised in Table 35.

78

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 35: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2009 Data

Check

Main Data

Additional

SOIL_ID missing in DMT

Duplicate SOIL_ID in soil data

Duplicate link

Valid links

No.

1,546

0

434

%

7.7

0.0

2.2

No.

104

0

17

%

11.6

0.0

1.9

18,019

90.1

776

86.5

Duplicate textural and pH data

Duplicate chemical data

8

0

<0.1

0.0

0

0

0.0

0.0

When linking the 2009 laboratory data to the DMT the use of the code “9”
in  the  soil  data  and  the  DMT  data  generates  48,885  duplicate  links.
Excluding the code “9” from the query result in 19,051 links.

For the main data of the 2009 survey duplicate links to the DMT file exist
for 434 soil identifiers, of which some appear more than twice. The 2009
DMT file itself has duplicate entries for all soil IDs < 30.

Of  the  soil  IDs  in  the  2009  soil  laboratory  data  1,546  have  no
corresponding entry in the DMT. Missing link entries in the DMT can have
several causes and are not necessarily a problem of the soil data. A cause
of inconsistency that can be attributed to the soil data is an alpha-numeric
entry for the soil identifier, which has to be of type numeric. The condition
is  assessed  as  part  of  the  Compliance  checks.  In  total,  1,981  soil
identifiers of the 2009 soil data cannot be linked to the DMT.

Of  the  897  additional  samples  of  the  2009  laboratory  data,  104  have  no
corresponding  entry  for  the  soil  ID  in  the  DMT,  while  17  soil  IDs  occur
more than once in the link. A valid link to the DMT could be established for
776  samples.  Duplicate  textural  data  are  caused  by  missing  data,  not  by
repeatedly recorded measurements.

2012 LUCAS Soil Survey

The  2012  soil  data  contain  the  information  of  the  corresponding  LUCAS
grid point in the soil laboratory data. A summary of the evaluation checks
for the survey data is presented in Table 36.

79

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 36: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2012 Data

Check

Bulgaria

Romania

SOIL_ID missing for LUCAS
point*

Duplicate SOIL_ID in soil data

Duplicate link

Valid links

Duplicate textural and pH
data

Duplicate chemical data

No.

0

3

N/A

655

0

0

%

0.0

0.5

N/A

No.

4

0

N/A

%

0.3

0.0

N/A

99.1

1,369

99.7

0.0

0.0

2

2

0.1

0.1

*

No DMT, LUCAS point data included in laboratory data

For the 661 points of the data for Bulgaria three Soil IDs have duplicates
in  the  file.  This  produces  an  invalid  link  for  six  records  of  the  laboratory
analysis and a number of 655 valid links.

For the 1,373 points of the soil data from Romania four point IDs have no
corresponding Soil ID. The number of points with soil data is thus reduced
to 1,369. The duplicate entries for textural and chemical data are caused
by samples with ”-999” entries in all parameter fields.

2015 LUCAS Soil Survey

The  results  of  the  laboratory  analysis  of  the  2015  LUCAS  Soil  data  are
stored separately for each of the four groups. Therefore, the data links are
assessed  for  each  of  the  groups.  However,  a  soil  ID  may  occur  in  more
than  one  group,  which  would  not  be  detected  when  assessing  the  group
data separately. Therefore, the occurrence of duplicate soil IDs in the soil
data  is  also  assessed  for  the  combined  2015  LUCAS  soil  data.  the
summary  of  the  highlighted  conditions  for  the  check  by  sample  Group  is
given in Table 37.

80

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 37: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2015 Group
Data

Check

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

SOIL_ID
missing in DMT

Duplicate
SOIL_ID in soil
data

Duplicate links

2

0

8

0.1

140

0.9

25
1,342

0.0

0.6

0

0

0.0

0.0

Valid links

1,324

99.3

15,789 98.6

Duplicate
textural and pH
data

Duplicate
chemical data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0

0.0

0

0.0

%

0.0

0.0

0.0

100

0.6
23.7

0.0

0.0

96.9
77.1

0

0

0

381

0.1

N/A

N/A

0.0

0

0.0

0

0

4,243
4,246

6

0

Note: 
italics:  all data, incl. non-EU28 countries

analysis of particle size distribution only available fore new sample locations (Group 3).

Of  the  Group  1  data  two  SOIL_IDs  of  the  soil  data  were  missing  in  DMT
data. There were no duplicates in of the IDs in the soil data, but 8 cases of
duplicate  links  with  DMT  data.  Overall,  1,324  samples  can  be  linked
without ambiguity to the DMT.

For  Group  2  data  140  soil  IDs  have  no  corresponding  entry  in  the  DMT
data.  An  unusual  condition  for  this  data  is  that  for  90  soil  IDs  duplicate
Point IDs are recorded in the DMT data. This generates duplicate soil IDs
when linking the data.

The  links  of  soil  data  of  Group  3  to  the  DMT  are  marked  by  a  notable
number of cases highlighted. An entry of the soil ID in the DMT is missing
for  1,342  samples,  which  concerns  23.7%  of  the  samples  of  that  group.
When  linking  the  data  to  the  DMT,  68  soil  IDs  appear  as  duplicates,
because  Point  IDs  are  associated  with  more  than  one  soil  ID  in  the  DMT.
Yet,  these  checks  are  performed  on  all  data  in  Group  3,  including  data
from  non-EU28  countries.  These  countries  lack  entries  in  the  link  field  in
the  DMT,  which  leads  to  the  high  number  of  missing  links.  When
restricting the check to EU28 data the number of missing SOIL_IDs is 25,
or 0.6% of the 4,381 samples.

No cases were highlighted when linking Group 4 data to the DMT.

For  the  combined  2015  LUCAS  Soil  survey  laboratory  data  for  23,386
samples are recorded. Combining all Group data into a single table creates
some  inconsistencies  in  the  data  structure.  A  summary  of  the  checks  on
data structure for the combined data are presented in Table 38.

81

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 38: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2015 Data of
Combined Group Data

Check

All

EU28

Missing Soil ID in
DMT

Duplicate Soil ID in
soil data

Duplicate Links

Valid links

No.

1,484

4

0

21,739

%

6.3

0.7

0.0

93.0

167

4

0

21,736

%

0.8

0.1

0.0

98.3

The difference between the valid links by Group and the combined Group
data is one sample. The automatic checks were not designed to check this
particular case and a manual analysis identified  [SAMPLE_ID] 56275 as a
duplicate  between  Groups  2  and  3.  It  is  also  assigned  to  Lithuania  and
Switzerland.  All  other  duplicated  are  assigned  to  Poland  (IDs:  41820;
41823; 41824).

The  number  of  valid  links  between  the  laboratory  results  and  the  DMT
(21,736) is lower than the the number of links between the soil IDs of the
two  tables  (22,067).  The  reason  for  the  lower  number  of  valid  links  are
162 cases where a soil ID is associated with more than one point ID. This
causes  ambiguous  relations  for  these  samples.  The  cases  are  distributed
unevenly between countries as given Table 39.

Table  39:  Duplicate  Links  of  Point  Identifiers  in  DMT  to  Soil
Identifiers in 2015 LUCAS Soil Laboratory Data of Combined Group
Data

Country

No.

% Country

No.

% Country

No.

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech

Denmark

12

2

14

86

2

8

4

2.8

Finland

1.4

France

2.3 Germany

42.4 Greece

2.6 Hungary

1.8

Ireland

1.8

Latvia

8

64

21

2

10

2

6

0.7

Lithuania

2.1

Poland

1.2

Portugal

0.3

Romania

2.4

Spain

1.0

Sweden

1.9

UK

4

33

6

4

20

14

4

%

1.1

2.4

1.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

0.8

Only  data  from  EU28  are  affected.  Overall,  1.4%  of  the  soil  samples  for
2015  are  affected.  At  the  level  of  countries  the  lowest  number  of  more
than one point ID assigend to a soil ID was found for Greece (0.3%), the
highest for Croatia (42.4%).

82

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

5.2.2 Section 2: Data Status

The checks of this section evaluate the degree to which data entries are conform
to expected codes, values or ranges of values.

Conformity for LUCAS 2009 Soil Survey Data

A summary of the results obtained from the checks of this section for 2009
LUCAS Soil data is presented in Table 40.

Table 40: Summary of Data Conformity Checks for 2009 LUCAS Soil Data

Check

Missing Data

Code for LOD

Numeric Range

Minimum < LOD

Parameter

l

)
2
C
a
C
(
H
p

)
O
2
H
(
H
p

3
O
C
a
C

C
O

y
a
l
C

t
l
i

S

F
C

d
n
a
S

C
E
N P K C

% % % % % % % % % % % %

0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0

0.1 0.8

0.0

0.0

Expected Range Min

2.2 0.5 0.4 24.5 1.4 5.5 1.1 2.7

Expected Range,
Max

0.2

0.2 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.6 4.5 1.2

The  summary  table  indicates  that  the  deviations  from  expected  values
remain below 5% of the data, with the exception of the minimum value of
the  expected  range  for  CaCO3  and  soluble  phosphor.  The  minimum  value
for CaCO3 was set to <3.0 g kg-1 for mineral soils and <1.0 g kg-1 for soils
high  in  organic  carbon.  The  limit  for  soil  high  in  OC  is  actually  below  the
LOD for the parameter, which means the values reported by the laboratory
are  zero  for  these  cases.  For  soluble  phosphor  the  minimum  expected
value was set to 12 mg kg-1. This is close to the LOD of 10 mg kg-1. Such
values are possible, but should be considered for a comparison with data
from repeated samples taken at the same point.

Conformity for LUCAS 2012 Soil Survey Data

The summary results for the second section of Conformity Checks for 2012
LUCAS Soil data are presented in Table 41.

83

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 41: Summary of Data Conformity Checks for 2012 LUCAS Soil Data

Check

Parameter

l

)
2
C
a
C
(
H
p

)
O
2
H
(
H
p

3
O
C
a
C

C
O

y
a
l
C

t
l
i

S

F
C

d
n
a
S

C
E
N P K C

% % % % % % % % % % % %

Missing Data

Code for LOD

Numeric Range

Minimum < LOD

Expected Range Min

Expected Range,
Max

0.6

0.7

0.1

0.1

0.7

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.1

1.1

11.4 33.4

31.2

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.1

2.0

0.1

0.1

0.7 34.8 0.3 27.3 0.1

6.3

0.0

0.3

0.1

88.3 1.1

2.1 10.3

The results of the analysis of the 2012 LUCAS Soil data shows inconsistent
entries  for  the  code  used  to  mark  results  below  the  LOD  for  the
parameters  OC,  CACO3  and  soluble  phosphor.  The  main  cause  is  the  use
of the entry ”-999”, which is undefined. The detailed analysis showed that
the  value  neither  signifies  missing  data,  nor  measurements  below  the
LOD.  Notable  is  also  the  number  of  cases  with  a  value  reported  that  is
below  the  minimum  of  the  expected  range  of  values.  The  relatively  high
proportion  cannot  be  explained  by  the  use  of  the  code  ”-999”,  of  which
there  are  only  13  (0.6%).  The  survey  only  covers  two  countries  and  one
cannot exclude that the limited spatial extent contributes to the condition.

As  noted,  the  values  reported  for  the  results  of  the  analysis  of  total
nitrogen  are  largely  out  of  range.  These  values  seem  to  be  reported  in  a
unit different from the one used for other years. A comparison with 2015
data  for  repeated  sites  suggest  that  a  simple  factor  can  be  applied  to
adjust he values.

Conformity for LUCAS 2015 Soil Survey Data

The group results of the laboratory analysis of the 2015 LUCAS Soil survey
samples  were  combined  to  a  single  survey.  A  summary  of  the  checks  for
data conformity is presented in Table 42.

84

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 42: Summary of Data Conformity Checks for 2015 LUCAS Soil Data

Check

Parameter

l

)
2
C
a
C
(
H
p

)
O
2
H
(
H
p

3
O
C
a
C

C
O

y
a
l
C

t
l
i

S

F
C

d
n
a
S

C
E
N P K C

% % % % % % % % % % % %

Missing Data

0.1

Code for LOD

Numeric Range

Minimum < LOD

Expected Range Min

Expected Range,
Max

0.3 49.1 0.1

8.2

0.6

1.6

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.8 65.5 1.2 28.5 2.7

3.2

1.5

0.3

0.3

1.4

1.3

2.0

1.9

3.5

1.5

The  summary  results  indicate  notable  inconsistencies  in  reporting  values
below  the  LOD  for  CaCO3  (49.1%)  and  to  a  lesser  degree  for  soluble
phosphor  (8.2%).  The  main  reason  for  highlighting  almost  half  the  data
for CaCO3 as failing the check is the use of the value zero (“0”) in 11,478
cases.  Assuming  that  a  value  of  “0”  indicates  a  sample  with  CaCO3
concentrations below the LOD there is also notable increase of such cases
over  2009  (37.6%).  The  same  applies  to  cases  where  the  reported  value
for CaCO3 is below the minimum of the expected range of concentrations.

Similarly,  there  is  a  very  notable  increase  in  the  number  of  cases  where
the value for soluble phosphor is below the expected range. Also here the
cause  is  the  use  of  a  value  “0”  instead  of  a  code  to  indicate  a
measurement  below  the  LOD.  In  the  2009  data  the  portion  of
measurements with a result below the LOD for the parameter was 22.5%,
but consistently coded.

5.3 Uniformity

The  summary  of  the  checks  for  data  Uniformity  presents  the  consistency  of
multiple  parameters  by  survey  (Section  1).  The  results  of  the  the  single-
parameter temporal consistency (Section 2) are presented by parameter.

5.3.1 Section 1: Multi-parameter, Single-survey

A summary of the results of the multi-parameter checks is given in Table 43.

85

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 43: Summary of Data Uniformity Multi-Parameter Checks

Check

LUCAS Soil Survey

2009

%

2012

%

2015

%

C/N Ratio Min.

C/N Ratio Max.

pH Difference

High pH for low CaCO3

Low CaCO3 for high pH

OC < LOD(CaCO3)

0.3

0.0

0.6

16.1

7.7

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.1

1.3

0.1

0.0

0.2

32.7

0.3

For the results of the laboratory analysis of the 2009 samples the checks
indicate an unexpectedly low carbonate content for a high pH for 16.1% of
the samples. This rate doubled for 2015 data, which is consistent with the
number of samples low in carbonate. A rate of values below the expected
minimum C:N Ratio of 7.7% was found after modifying the data for  total
nitrogen.  The  rate  can  be  considered  high,  although  the  limited  spatial
range of the sample sites should be considered.

5.3.2 Section 2: Single Parameter, Multiple Surveys

Over a period of no more than 6 years it can be reasonably expected that
changes  from  soils  with  a  OC  content  <  120  g  kg-1,  i.e.  mineral  soils,  to
soils  high  in  OC  content  are  very  limited.  This  would  involve  re-wettig
areas of former peat lands after drainage. The inverse change, from soils
high in OC to mineral soils, could occur over a short time period for soils
that  were  already  marginal  in  organic  material  and  after  a  land  use
change, typically from natural vegetation to arable. When setting the limit
for  soils  high  in  OC  to  >=  200  g  kg-1,  to  exclude  smaller  changes,  the
changes given in Table 44 were highlighted by the check.

86

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table  44:  Summary  of  Changes  from  Mineral  to  high  OC  and  vice
versa

Check

LUCAS Soil Survey

2009

2012

2015

Samples high in OC
(> 200 g kg-1)

Mineral OC to high OC

High OC to mineral OC

No.
%

1188
5.7%

151
12.7%

No.
%

0
0.0%

No.
%

853
3.6%
127
14.9%

The table shows that for repeated samples 14.9% of the soils high in  OC
(>=  200  g  C  kg-1)  contained  <  120  g  C  kg-1  in  2009.  The  inverse  trend,
i.e.  for  samples  with  soils  high  in  OC  in  2009  a  mineral  soil  OC  was
reported in 2015, was found for 12.7% of the repeated samples. Setting a
limit of 150 g C kg-1 to signify soils high in OC increases to the proportion
of change to over 20% of soils high in OC. No soils with OC >= 200  g C
kg-1 were reported for the 2012 samples.

This  rate  of  change  is  not  expected.  Possible  causes  of  these  exceptional
changes are discussed in the detailed section for the check

Temporal changes from 2009/2012 to 2015 are summarised in Table 45.

Table  45:  Summary  of  Temporal  Changes  from  2009/2012  LUCAS  Soil
Survey Samples to 2015

Check

Parameter

)
2
l
C
a
C
(
H
p

)
O
2
H
(
H
p

3
O
C
a
C

C
O

y
a
l
C

t
l
i

S

d
n
a
S

C
E
N P K C

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

No.
%

F
C

No.
%

Change 2009 to 2015

6

5

4

5

3946 3927 8103 6933 7757 8079 10134 9765

75.0 62.5 50.0 62.5 26.0 25.9 53.4 45.7 51.2 53.3 66.8 64.4

Change 2012 to 2015

0

0

0

0

320

346

646

756

1415

677

757

1003

22.6 24.4 45.5 53.3 99.7 47.7 53.3 70.7

87

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

The  percentages  are  expressed  over  the  total  number  of  revisited  points
between surveys, including for samples below LOD in any survey year.

The  checks  highlight  numerous  cases  of  changes  outside  the  expected
range. For parameters of the particle size distribution and pH the variation
limit  is  set  to  10%,  for  other  parameters  mostly  to  20%.  The  limits  for
temporal  variation  are  set  well  within  the  acceptable  variation  for  the
parameters for the repeated analysis of samples. This indicates that there
is  a  significant  amount  of  variation  between  the  soil  samples  at  revisited
points.  One  factor  contributing  to  the  temporal  variations  are  changes  at
very  low  concentrations.  This  would  affect  the  proportion  of  temporal
variations  for  parameters  CaCO3  or  phosphorous,  but  not  for  soil  texture
or pH.

5.4 Link of Soil Data to LUCAS Main Survey Point Data

The results from the laboratory analysis of the LUCAS soil samples can be related
to geographic locations and the observations of the main LUCAS survey through
information provided by Eurostat. The information relates the identifier of the soil
samples to the plot identifier of the main LUCAS survey. For the 2009 soil data
from  Cyprus  and  Malta  and  the  2012  data  from  Bulgaria  and  Romania  the
information on the geographic location and thus the corresponding LUCAS point
were  available  from  separate  tables.  LUCAS  soil  data  can  then  be  linked  to  the
LUCAS LUC data as available from the Eurostat LUCAS micro data files.

Although not directly part of the evaluation, the procedures include the option to
generate unambiguous links of the LUCAS soil data to the LUCAS micro data. The
summary of the check results are presented in Table 46.

Table  46:  Summary  of  Links  between  LUCAS  Soil  and  Eurostat  Micro-
Data

Check

LUCAS Soil Survey

Samples in LUCAS Soil

Links to LUCAS micro data

Portion of linked samples

2009

No.

20,897*

18,673

89.4%

2012

No

2,034

2,024

99.5%

2015

No.

23,390

21,736

92.9%

* samples from Cyprus and Malta excluded, because there was no LUCAS LUC survey in 2009

The  soil  data  linked  to  the  main  LUCAS  surveys  has  been  standardised  for  LOD
codes used and modified for any values below the LOD and adjusted to uniform
reporting  units.  The  output  can  be  used  as  the  basic  data  for  geographically
locating the LUCAS Soil data and adding context to the samples from the LUCAS
LUC  surveys.  The  files  contain  all  other  data,  including  values  considered
questionable.

88

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

89

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

5.5 Conclusions

The evaluation of the data provided by the central laboratory from the analysis of
samples  from  the  LUCAS  Soil  surveys  looked  at  the  compliance  of  the  data
submitted  to  formal  specification,  the  versatility  of  the  data  structure  and
plausibility  of  the  values  reported  as  well  as  consistency  of  values  within  and
between surveys.

The  results  of  the  checks  support  the  notion  that  the  soil  samples  have  been
consistently  analysed  and  that  most  of  the  data  can  be  used  to  dependably
estimate the physical and chemical status of European topsoils. Only the data for
cation exchange capacity appears to be of low reliability over the whole range of
values. Uncertainties for consistent data at low concentration were found for the
chemical parameters calcium carbonate and soluble phosphor. This uncertainty is
to  some  degree  in  the  nature  of  the  soil  parameter  (CaCO3),  but  also  the
laboratory analysis (soluble phosphor). The temporal stability of parameters was
found  to  be  considerably  higher  than  could  be  expected  from  repeated  samples
taken at the same location.

The  evaluation  of  the  formal  aspects  of  the  data  gives  mixed  results.  The  files
generally  provide  the  data  as  intended,  but  deviate  notably  from  the
specifications  on  the  position  of  the  data.  Each  delivery  has  different
arrangements  for  labelling  the  data  and  position  of  the  data  in  the  file.  The
specified  spreadsheet  file  format  may  be  considered  unsuitable  for  the  purpose
and  the  cause  of  some  inconsistencies.  It  is  recommended  to  use  a  more
inherently structured environment to analyse the data and a more data-focussed
file delivery format, such as CSV.

The documentation of the limits of detection of the laboratory analysis method is
conflicting  between  documents.  This  is  also  the  case  for  the  method  used  to
record  such  conditions  in  the  data.  The  use  of  numerical  codes  to  signify  the
condition of a measurement below the limit of detection of the instrument used is
strongly discouraged. This also applies to using a value of zero instead of a code,
as  in  2015  data.  Data  from  the  2012  LUCAS  Soil  survey  suffer  from  a  lack  of
documentation and some non-negligible deviations from data from the 2009 and
2015 surveys. A limit of detection of 6 g C kg-1 for OC, as opposed to 2 g C kg-1
as specified for the laboratory method for 2009, raises the question whether the
same  laboratory  was  used  in  2012.  Together  with  reporting  the  results  of  the
analysis  of  total  nitrogen  in  an  unknown,  but  conflicting,  unit  casts  a  more
general doubt about the authenticity of the 2012 soil data.

A consistent data structure is a prerequisite for geographically locating the sites
where  soil  samples  were  taken  and  associating  the  soil  data  with  land  use  and
cover. The degree to which the results of the laboratory analysis can be linked to
other LUCAS data have improved from 2009 (90.1%) to 2015 (98.3% for EU28).
The present file format for delivering teh results of the laboratory data is prone
to  introduce  errors.  Properly  asociating  the  laboratory  data  of  the  soil  samples
with  the  georaphic  context  preovided  by  the  LUCAS  land  use/cover  surveys  or
other  geograpically-coded  data  could  be  improved  by  respecting  the  rules  of  a
data model.

90

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

While  the  data  are  largely  consistent  between  the  parameters  checked  for  a
survey, the degree of the temporal stability of parameters between surveys was
found  to  be  markedly  higher  than  could  be  expected  from  repeated  samples
taken  from  the  same  location.  The  temporal  stability  was  tested  for  the  few
samples with repeated measurements of particle size and pH, a parameters with
low  temporal  variations.  An  analysis  of  extreme  changes  in  organic  carbon  and
changes to and from measurements below the limit of detection give support to
the perception that there is at times considerable variability in repeated samples.
This variability increases the difference required to detect a significant change in
a parameter.

91

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

References

Cools, N. & De Vos, B., 2010. 6th FSCC Interlaboratory Comparison, Brussels:

Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek (INBO), Brussel. 52pp.
https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/files/709645/Cools_DeVos_2010_6
thFSCCInterlaboratoryComparison.pdf

Eurostat, 2018. LUCAS 2018: Technical reference document D1 DMT User Guide,

Luxembourg: Eurostat. 141pp.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/205002/8072634/LUCAS+2018-
D1-DMT+User+Guide.pdf

Hiederer, R. et al., 2008. Forest Focus Monitoring Database System – Validation
Methodology, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities. 63pp.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC48468/esr20
06_final.pdf

Hiederer, R., Michéli, E. & Durrant, T., 2011. Evaluation of BioSoil Demonstration
Project - Soil Data Analysis, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. 155pp.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/159
05/1/lbna24729enc.pdf

Hiederer, R., 2018. Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Component Laboratory 2009 to

2015 Data on Soil Organic Carbon, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. 55pp.
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/public_path/shared_folder/JRC112711_luca
s_oc_data_evaluation_final.pdf

IFN-INRA, 2009. List of the checks performed for Biosoil data validation, s.l.:
Inventaire forestier national (IFN) and Institut national de la recherche
agronomique (INRA). 42pp.

JRC, 2009. Service Provision for technical support in the LUCAS study, provision
of central laboratory services for soil analysis. Service Contract No.
385355. Ispra (Varese): European Commission Joint Research Centre.
76pp.

JRC, 2016. Tender Specifications: Laboratory analysis of soil samples collected in

the context of the LUCAS 2015 survey. PROCEDURE no.:
JRC/IPR/2016/H.5/0004/OC. Ispra(Varese): European Commission Joint
Research Centre. 25pp.

Orgiazzi, A. et al., 2017. LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for

Europe: a review. European Journal of Soil Science, 11 November, 69(1),
pp. 140-153.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.12499

SGS, 2010. Kick-off Meeting Minutes LUCAS project: No 2009/S 122-176960,
Ispra, Italy: European Commission Joint Research Centre. pp. 3.

92

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

SGS, 2010. LUCAS Project: Preliminary Test Plan: No 2009/S 122-176960, SGS

Hungary LTD. Laboratory. 2pp.

SGS, 2010. LUCAS Project: Final Testing Plan: No 2009/S 122-176960,
Budapest, Hungary. SGS Hungary LTD. Laboratory. 13pp..

SGS, 2011. Final technical report and executive summary Lucas soil study,
Service contract No 385355, Budapest, Hungary. SGS Hungary LTD.
Laboratory. 750pp.

SGS, 2016. Template Specimen, Service Contract No. 930131, Nyiregyháza SGS

Hungary LTD. Laboratory. 1p.

SGS, 2016. LUCAS Project: Preliminary Test Plan 2016, Service Contract No.

930131, Nyiregyháza: SGS Hungary LTD. Laboratory. pp. 2.

SGS, 2018. Final Technical Report and Executive Summary: LUCAS 2015 Soil

Study, Service Contract No. 930131, Nyiregyháza: SGS Hungary LTD.
Laboratory. 113pp.

Tóth, G., Jones, A., Montanarella, L. (eds.), 2013. LUCAS Topsoil Survey -

methodology, data and results, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. 141pp.
https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/EUR2610
2EN.pdf

UNECE, ICP Forests Programme Co-ordinating Centre, 2016. Manual on methods
and criteria for harmonized sampling, assessment, monitoring and analysis
of the effects of air pollution on forests: Part XVI, Eberswalde, Germany:
Programme Co-ordinating Centre of ICP Forests. 46pp.
http://www.icp-forests.org/pdf/manual/2016/ICP_Manual_2016_01_part1
6.pdf

93

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

List of abbreviations and definitions

Acronym

Label

ASCII

CACO3

CEC

CF

CLAY

CSV

DMT

EC

Esri®

American Standard Code for Information Interchange

Calcium carbonate CaCO3

Cation exchange capacity

Coarse fragments

Clay content

Comma-separated values file

Data Management Tool by Eurostat

Electric conductivity

Environmental  Systems  Research  Institute,  Inc.,  380  New  York
Street, Redlands, CA 92373-8100 USA

ESDAC

European Soil Data Centre

EU

EU23

EU28

GIS

LOD

LOQ

ID

IPCC

K

LU

LUC

European Union

European Union of 23 Member States

European Union of 28 Member States

Geographic Information System

Limit of detection of the instrument used

Limit of quantification

Identifier in data file

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Extractable potassium

Land use

Land use and cover

LUCAS

Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey

N

OC

P

PH_CACL2

PH_H2O

RDB

RDBMS

SAND

Total nitrogen content

Organic carbon

Soluble phosphor content

pH in CaCl2

pH in H2O

Relational data base

Relational data base management system

Sand content

94

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Acronym

Label

SGS

SILT

SOC

TC

XLS

XLSX

Société Générale de Surveillance

Silt content

Soil organic carbon

Total carbon

Microsoft® Excel 97 -2003 Workbook

Microsoft® Office Open XML SpreadsheetML File Format

95

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

List of figures

Figure 1: Evaluation Steps of Compliance, Conformity and Uniformity Checks 3

Figure 1: Evaluation Steps of Compliance, Conformity and Uniformity Checks 3

Figure 2: Form to Import LUCAS Soil Laboratory Results (example: 2009 data)

7

Figure 3: Form to run Evaluation Checks of LUCAS Soil Laboratory Results (all

years)....................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Form to Generate Standard Data of LUCAS Soil Laboratory Results

(all years) ................................................................................. 9

Figure 5: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameters pH(CaCl2) and pH(H2O)..............................................61

Figure 6: Change in Soil Parameters pH(CaCl2) and pH(H2O) from 2009 and

2012 to 2015 for repeated soil samples ........................................62

Figure 7: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameter OC ...........................................................................62

Figure 8: Change in Soil Parameter OC from 2009 and 2012 to 2015 for

Repeated Soil Samples and Reanalysis of 2009/2012 Data ..............63

Figure 9: Comparison of Soil Parameter OC for Samples of 2009 and 2012

Repeated in 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey with same Land Use Type and
LC1 Category in Corresponding LUCAS LUC Surveys.......................64

Figure 10: Linear Regression Parameters for Soil Parameter OC from Repeated

Sampling for same Land Use Type and Land Cover Category in both
years, Mineral Soil Samples ........................................................65

Figure 11: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameter CaCO3 ......................................................................66

Figure 12: Change in Soil Parameter CaCO3 from 2009 and 2012 to 2015 for

Repeated Samples and Reanalysis of 2009/2012 Data ....................67

Figure 13: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameter Total Nitrogen ...........................................................67

Figure 14: Laboratory Results from Repeated Analysis of Samples from

2009/2012 LUCAS Soil Surveys for Soil Parameter Total Nitrogen ....68

Figure 15: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameter Soluble Phosphor .......................................................68

Figure 16: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameter Soluble Phosphor .......................................................69

Figure 17: Plot and Frequency Distribution of Temporal Change for Soil

Parameter Extractable Potassium.................................................70

Figure 18: Reanalysis of 2009 and 2012 Samples for Soil Parameter

Extractable Potassium ................................................................70

96

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Figure 19: Scatter Plot of Resample Points and Relative Frequency Distribution
of Change for Soil Parameter CEC ................................................71

Figure 20: Reanalysed Samples of 2009 and 2012 for Soil Parametre CEC ....72

97

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

List of tables

Table 1: Mandatory and Supplementary Soil Parameters to be Reported by the
Central Laboratory.....................................................................11

Table 2: Position of Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2009) .....................13

Table 3: Decimals for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2009)...................14

Table 4: Units for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2009) ........................15

Table 5: Position of Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2015) .....................17

Table 6: Decimals for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2015)...................18

Table 7: Units for Soil Parameters in Submitted File (2015) ........................19

Table 8: Limit of Detection for Soil Parameters (2009) ...............................21

Table 9: Limit of Detection for Soil Parameters (2012) ...............................22

Table 10: Limit of Detection for Soil Parameters (2015) .............................23

Table 11: Intrinsic Number Range for reporting Soil Parameters..................24

Table 12: Codes Present in Data for Test of Soil Parameter Value < LOD for

Conformity Check ......................................................................25

Table 13: Lower and Upper limits for Expected Value Range for Q0.025 and Q0.975

27

Table 14: Results of Compliance Check for 2009 LUCAS Soil Laboratory Data32

Table 15: Alpha-numeric Entries and Number of Occurrences in 2009 Data...33

Table 16: Results of Compliance Check for 2012 LUCAS Soil Laboratory Data

for Bulgaria and Romania ...........................................................35

Table 17: Results of Compliance Check for 2015 LUCAS Soil Laboratory Data38

Table 18: Conformity Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 1..41

Table 19: Conformity Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 2..41

Table 20: Conformity Check Results for 2012 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 1..44

9Table 21: Conformity Check Results for 2012 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 2 45

Table 22: LUCAS Soil 2015 Country Code data and Sample Number by Group..

47

Table 23: Conformity Check Results for 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 1..48

Table 24: Conformity Check Results for 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 2..49

Table 25: Codes for Limit of Detection and Minimum Value for Parameters in

Data ........................................................................................53

Table 26: Uniformity Check Results for 2009 LUCAS Soil Survey, Section 1 ..55

Table 27: Uniformity Check Results for 2009 and 2015 LUCAS Soil Survey,

Section 2..................................................................................56

98

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Table 28: Relative Occurrence of a Change in Mineral/high Organic between

2009 and 2015 by LUCAS Land Cover Class ..................................59

Table 29: Summary Results for Checks of and Links to Eurostat Micro-Data for
Survey Year..............................................................................72

Table 30: Summary of Compliance Check for Delivery Format.....................74

Table 31: Summary of Parameter Position Check ......................................75

Table 32: Summary of Reporting Decimals Check......................................76

Table 33: Summary of Parameter Type Check ..........................................77

Table 34: Summary of Parameter Unit Check ...........................................77

Table 35: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2009 Data ......79

Table 36: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2012 Data ......80

Table 37: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2015 Group Data

81

Table 38: Summary of Data Structure Checks for LUCAS Soil 2015 Data of

Combined Group Data................................................................82

Table 39: Duplicate Links of Point Identifiers in DMT to Soil Identifiers in 2015

LUCAS Soil Laboratory Data of Combined Group Data.....................82

Table 40: Summary of Data Conformity Checks for 2009 LUCAS Soil Data .......83

Table 41: Summary of Data Conformity Checks for 2012 LUCAS Soil Data....84

Table 42: Summary of Data Conformity Checks for 2015 LUCAS Soil Data....85

Table 43: Summary of Data Uniformity Multi-Parameter Checks ..................86

Table 44: Summary of Changes from Mineral to high OC and vice versa  ......86

Table 45: Summary of Temporal Changes from 2009/2012 LUCAS Soil Survey

Samples to 2015 .......................................................................87

Table 46: Summary of Links between LUCAS Soil and Eurostat Micro-Data ...88

99

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Annex I

LUCAS Data Sources

ID Survey Type

Survey Data

Data Type

Date

Comment

LUCAS Land
cover/use

Eurostat Web site

Eurostat LUCAS Web site

According to the text the following data should be available from the site:

 micro-data

photos

statistical tables and soil data

The site “Primary Data” lists soil data as available from the site. The site
provides a link to ESDAC for the 2009 LUCAS Soil data.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Reference data 2009

point

31.03.2011

EU-23, 234707 records, no fields related to soil (LUCA_2009_SH.zip)

LUCAS micro data 2009

LUCAS micro data 2012

LUCAS micro data 2015

GISCO.LUCA_PT_2009

GISCO.LUCA_PT_2012

GISCO.LUCA_PT_2015

CSV

CSV

CSV

point

point

point

No reference for other years on the Web-site.

25.11.2016

EU-23 cover (EU23_2009_20161125.csv)

19.10.2016

EU-28 cover (EU-2012-20161019.csv)

28.10.2016

EU-28 cover (EU28_2015_20161028.csv)

234709 records, includes LUCA_SOIL_LABL

270276 records, includes LUCA_SOIL_LABL

348536 records, includes LUCA_SOIL_LABL

LUCAS Soil

ESDAC Web site

Information and download of “LUCAS 2009 TOPSOIL data”.

Soil data 2009

JRC internal

XLS

05.09.2013

(LUCAS_TOPSOIL_v1.xls)

Server or shared

Survey: LUCAS Soil 2009

CSV

14.01.2011 Data for ESTAT (Folder)

MOSES: 2009 survey results

XLS

14.06.2011

This is preliminary data with several stages of modifications (see readme -
LUCAS2009_estat.docx)

Final results of the contract no. 385355 to SGS to analyse the LUCAS soil
samples.
Report, (5.6.LUCAS_Results of 20,000 soil samples.xls)

MOSES: 2009 Wageningen

XLS

14.06.2011 Analysis of lab samples (5.5.LUCAS_results of Wageningen tests in 2010-

2011.xls)

100

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

ID Survey Type

Survey Data

Data Type

Date

Comment

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

MOSES: 2009 extra samples

Shared: 2009/12 Reanalysis

XLS

XLS

05.10.2011

Extra samples (LUCAS_RECORD_2011-09-27_Results_897_extra samples.xls)

18.03.2018 Reanalysis of 2009/12 lab data (Re_analysis_LUCAS2009_2012.xlsx)

Local: Malta

?: Cyprus

Shared: 2009 survey

MOSES: 2009/12 survey results

MOSES: 2009/12 survey results

DBF, XLS

08.11.2011

2009 survey, only plot data (malta_lucas.*)

?

XLS

SHP

SHP

?

No original survey data found.

11.05.2017 All 2009 data (LUCAS_2009.xlsx)

17.06.2016

Point data (LUCAS_2009_plusBulgariaRomania), includes BG, MT and RO

15.07.2016

Point data (LUCAS_LAEA_ALL), includes BG, CY, MT and RO

LUCAS Topsoil survey 2012

XLS, CSV

23.07.2015 Bulgaria, separate data file (Bulgaria.xlsx), CSV generated later

XLS, CSV

23.07.2015 Romania, separate data file (Romania.xlsx), CSV generated later

LUCAS 2015

JRC internal

MOSES: 2009/12 + HM data

XLS

XLS

XLS

XLS

XLS

XLS

12.03.2018 Bulgaria, separate data file (LUCAS_2012_BG.xlsx)

12.03.2018 Romania, separate data file (LUCAS_2012_RO.xlsx)

12.03.2018 Repeated sample sites

(LUCAS2015_2009_repeated_points_mineral_soils.xlsx)

12.03.2018 Repeated sample sites

(LUCAS2015_2009_repeated_points_organic_soils.xlsx)

12.03.2018 Repeated sample sites for BG and RO

(LUCAS2015_2012_repeated_points_BG_RO.xlsx)

14.03.2018 Consolidated data with heavy metal data

(All_Reference_Working.xlsx)

MOSES: 2009/12 point

SHP

14.03.2018

Points of consolidated data with heavy metal data
(ConsolidatedFile.shp)

1 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/GISCO/geodatafiles/LUCA_2009_SH.zip
2 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/205002/208938/EU23_2009_20161125.csv
3 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/lucas/EU-2012-20161019.csv
4 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/205002/6786255/EU28_2015_20161028.csv
5 GISCO SDE
6 GISCO SDE
7 GISCO SDE

101

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

8 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS-2009-data-as-distributed-by-ESDAC/LUCAS_TOPSOIL_v1.xlsx
9 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/lucas2009_estat/readme%20-%20LUCAS2009_estat.docx
10 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_project/LUCAS_SOIL_2009/DATA/Final_Report/5.6.LUCAS_Results%20of%2020,000%20soil%20samples.xls
11
file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_project/LUCAS_SOIL_2009/DATA/Final_Report/5.5.LUCAS_results%20of%20Wageningen%20tests%20in%2020
10-2011.xls
12 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_project/LUCAS_SOIL_2009/DATA/LUCAS_RECORD_2011-09-27_Results_897_extra%20samples.xls
13 \\ies.jrc.it\H05\SOIL\share\OihaneFernandezUgalde\LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey\Quality_control_lab_analyses\Re_analysis_LUCAS2009_2012.xlsx
14 N/A
15 N/A
16 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/share/OihaneFernandezUgalde/LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey/LUCAS_2009/LUCAS_2009.xlsx
17 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_2009_plusBulgariaRomania-shapefile/
18 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_2009_plusBulgariaRomaniaCyprus-shapefile/
19 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_Romania_Bulgaria/Bulgaria.xlsx
20 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS_Romania_Bulgaria/Romania.xlsx
21 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/share/OihaneFernandezUgalde/LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey/LUCAS_2012/LUCAS_2012_BG.xlsx
22 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/share/OihaneFernandezUgalde/LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey/LUCAS_2012/LUCAS_2012_RO.xlsx
23 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/share/OihaneFernandezUgalde/LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey/LUCAS_2015_repeated_points/LUCAS2015_2009_repeated_points_mineral_soils.xlsx
24 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/share/OihaneFernandezUgalde/LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey/LUCAS_2015_repeated_points/LUCAS2015_2009_repeated_points_organic_soils.xlsx
25 file://///ies.jrc.it/H05/SOIL/share/OihaneFernandezUgalde/LUCAS_Topsoil_Survey/LUCAS_2015_repeated_points/LUCAS2015_2012_repeated_points_BG_RO.xlsx
26 file://///ies-ud01.jrc.it/soil/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS-2009-2012-consolidated+ESTAT+HM/All_Reference_Working.xlsx
27 file://///ies-ud01.jrc.it/soil/ESDAC/MOSES%20data/LUCAS-2009-2012-consolidated+ESTAT+HM/

102

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

Annex II

List of Evaluation Checks

ID

1

2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

18

19
20
21
22

23

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Compliance EXCEL_COMPATIBLE

XLS OR XLSX Warning

File not in 100% Excel-compatible format.

Compliance DEC_CACO3_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_CACO3_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_CACO3_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_CACO3_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_CACO3_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_CACO3_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_CACO3_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_CACO3_2015_G4
Compliance DEC_CEC_2009_D1
Compliance DEC_CEC_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_CEC_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_CEC_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_CEC_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_CEC_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_CEC_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_CEC_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_CF_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_CF_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_CF_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_CF_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_CF_2015_G3

Compliance DEC_CLAY_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_CLAY_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_CLAY_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_CLAY_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_CLAY_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_EC_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_EC_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_EC_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_EC_2015_G4

0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2

Warning

CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 not reported with 0 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.
CEC not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning

CF not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

CF not reported with 0 decimal.
CF not reported with 0 decimal.
CF not reported with 0 decimal.
CF not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning

CLAY not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

CLAY not reported with 0 decimal.
CLAY not reported with 0 decimal.
CLAY not reported with 0 decimal.
CLAY not reported with 0 decimal.
EC not reported with 2 decimals.
EC not reported with 2 decimals.
EC not reported with 2 decimals.
EC not reported with 2 decimals.

103

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

32

33
34
35
36
37
38
39

40

41
42
43
44
45
46
47

48

49
50
51
52
53
54
55

56

57
58
59
60
61
62
63

64

65
66
67
68

Compliance DEC_K_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_K_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_K_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_K_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_K_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_K_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_K_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_K_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_N_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_N_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_N_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_N_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_N_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_N_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_N_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_N_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_OC_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_OC_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_OC_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_OC_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_OC_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_OC_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_OC_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_OC_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_PH_CACL2_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2015_G1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2

2
2
2
1
1
1
1

2

2
2
2
2

Warning

K not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

K not reported with 1 decimal.
K not reported with 1 decimal.
K not reported with 1 decimal.
K not reported with 1 decimal.
K not reported with 1 decimal.
K not reported with 1 decimal.
K not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning

N not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

N not reported with 1 decimal.
N not reported with 1 decimal.
N not reported with 1 decimal.
N not reported with 1 decimal.
N not reported with 1 decimal.
N not reported with 1 decimal.
N not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning

OC not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

OC not reported with 1 decimal.
OC not reported with 1 decimal.
OC not reported with 1 decimal.
OC not reported with 1 decimal.
OC not reported with 1 decimal.
OC not reported with 1 decimal.
OC not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning

PH_CACL2 not reported with 2 decimals.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

PH_CACL2 not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_CACL2 not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_CACL2 not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_CACL2 not reported with 1 decimal.
PH_CACL2 not reported with 1 decimal.
PH_CACL2 not reported with 1 decimal.
PH_CACL2 not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning

PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.

104

RULE_SOURCE

Source

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_PH_H2O_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_P_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_P_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_P_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_P_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_P_2015_G1
Compliance DEC_P_2015_G2
Compliance DEC_P_2015_G3
Compliance DEC_P_2015_G4

Compliance DEC_SAND_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_SAND_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_SAND_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_SAND_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_SAND_2015_G3

Compliance DEC_SILT_2009_D1

Compliance DEC_SILT_2009_D2
Compliance DEC_SILT_2012_BG
Compliance DEC_SILT_2012_RO
Compliance DEC_SILT_2015_G3

Compliance POS_CACO3_2009_D1

Compliance POS_CACO3_2012_BG

Compliance POS_CACO3_2012_RO

Compliance POS_CACO3_2015_G1

Compliance POS_CACO3_2015_G2

Compliance POS_CACO3_2015_G3

Compliance POS_CACO3_2015_G4

Compliance POS_CACO3_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_CEC_2009_D1

2
2
2

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0

0
0
0
0

0

0
0
0
0

9

9

9

11

11

11

11

9

13

Warning
Warning
Warning

PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.
PH_H2O not reported with 2 decimals.

Warning

P not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

P not reported with 1 decimal.
P not reported with 1 decimal.
P not reported with 1 decimal.
P not reported with 1 decimal.
P not reported with 1 decimal.
P not reported with 1 decimal.
P not reported with 1 decimal.

Warning

SAND not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

SAND not reported with 0 decimal.
SAND not reported with 0 decimal.
SAND not reported with 0 decimal.
SAND not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning

SILT not reported with 0 decimal.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

SILT not reported with 0 decimal.
SILT not reported with 0 decimal.
SILT not reported with 0 decimal.
SILT not reported with 0 decimal.
CACO3 results not included as 9th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 9th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 9th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 11th
parameter.
CACO3 results not included as 9th
parameter.

Warning

CEC results not included as 13th parameter.

105

ID

69
70
71

72

73
74
75
76
77
78
79

80

81
82
83
84

85

86
87
88
89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
According to 2009 LAB reference.
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

2009 specifications applied.

2009 specifications applied.

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ID

99
100
101
102
103
104

105

106

107
108
109

110

112

113

114

115
116
117
118
119
120

121

122
123
124
125
126
127

128

129
130
131
132
133

Compliance POS_CEC_2012_BG
Compliance POS_CEC_2012_RO
Compliance POS_CEC_2015_G1
Compliance POS_CEC_2015_G2
Compliance POS_CEC_2015_G3
Compliance POS_CEC_2015_G4

Compliance POS_CEC_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_CF_2009_D1

Compliance POS_CF_2012_BG
Compliance POS_CF_2012_RO
Compliance POS_CF_2015_G3

Compliance POS_CF_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_CLAY_2009_D1

Compliance POS_CLAY_2015_G3

Compliance POS_CLAY_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_CLAY_2012_BG
Compliance POS_CLAY_2012_RO
Compliance POS_EC_2015_G1
Compliance POS_EC_2015_G2
Compliance POS_EC_2015_G3
Compliance POS_EC_2015_G4

Compliance POS_K_2009_D1

Compliance POS_K_2012_BG
Compliance POS_K_2012_RO
Compliance POS_K_2015_G1
Compliance POS_K_2015_G2
Compliance POS_K_2015_G3
Compliance POS_K_2015_G4

Compliance POS_K_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_LAB_ID_2015_G1
Compliance POS_LAB_ID_2015_G2
Compliance POS_LAB_ID_2015_G3
Compliance POS_LAB_ID_2015_G4
Compliance POS_LAB_ID_2015_G4

13
13
15
15
15
15

13

2

2
2
3

2

3

4

3

3
3
9
9
9
9

12

12
12
14
14
14
14

12

1
1
1
1
1

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

CEC results not included as 13th parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
CEC results not included as 13th parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
CEC results not included as 15th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
CEC results not included as 15th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
CEC results not included as 15th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
CEC results not included as 15th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf

Warning

CEC results not included as 13th parameter.

Warning

CF results not included as 2nd parameter.

Warning
Warning
Warning

CF results not included as 2nd parameter.
CF results not included as 2nd parameter.
CF results not included as 3rd parameter.

Warning

CF results not included as 2nd parameter.

Warning

CLAY results not included as 3rd parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
2009 specifications applied.
2009 specifications applied.
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning

CLAY results not included as 4th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf

Warning

CLAY results not included as 3rd parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

CLAY results not included as 3rd parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
CLAY results not included as 3rd parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.
EC results not included as 9th parameter.

Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
2009 specifications applied.
2009 specifications applied.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning

K results not included as 12th parameter.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

K results not included as 12th parameter.
K results not included as 12th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.
K results not included as 14th parameter.

Warning

K results not included as 12th parameter.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Laboratory ID not included as 1st parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
Laboratory ID not included as 1st parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
Laboratory ID not included as 1st parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
Laboratory ID not included as 1st parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
Laboratory ID not included as 1st parameter. Template_specimen.pdf

106

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ID

134

135
136
137
138
139
140

141

142

143
144
145
146
147
148

149

Compliance POS_N_2009_D1

Compliance POS_N_2012_BG
Compliance POS_N_2012_RO
Compliance POS_N_2015_G1
Compliance POS_N_2015_G2
Compliance POS_N_2015_G3
Compliance POS_N_2015_G4

Compliance POS_N_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_OC_2009_D1

Compliance POS_OC_2012_BG
Compliance POS_OC_2012_RO
Compliance POS_OC_2015_G1
Compliance POS_OC_2015_G2
Compliance POS_OC_2015_G3
Compliance POS_OC_2015_G4

Compliance POS_OC_D2009_D2

150

Compliance

POS_PH_CACL2_2009_D1
_20

151

Compliance POS_PH_CACL2_2012_BG

152

Compliance POS_PH_CACL2_2012_RO

153

Compliance POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G1

154

Compliance POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G2

155

Compliance POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G3

156

Compliance POS_PH_CACL2_2015_G4

157

Compliance

158

Compliance

159

Compliance

POS_PH_CACL2_D2009_D
2
POS_PH_CACL2_ID_2012
_BG
POS_PH_CACL2_ID_2012
_RO

160

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2009_D1

10

10
10
13
13
13
13

10

8

8
8
10
10
10
10

8

6

6

6

7

7

7

7

6

7

7

7

Warning

N results not included as 10th parameter.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

N results not included as 10th parameter.
N results not included as 10th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.
N results not included as 13th parameter.

Warning

N results not included as 10th parameter.

Warning

OC results not included as 8th parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
2009 specifications applied.
2009 specifications applied.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
2009 specifications applied.
2009 specifications applied.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

OC results not included as 8th parameter.
OC results not included as 8th parameter.
OC results not included as 10th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
OC results not included as 10th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
OC results not included as 10th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf
OC results not included as 10th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf

Warning

OC results not included as 8th parameter.

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

PH_CACL2 results not included as 6th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 6th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 6th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 6th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_CACL2 results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 7th
parameter.

107

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

2009 specifications applied.

2009 specifications applied.

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

2009 specifications applied.

2009 specifications applied.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

161

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2012_BG

162

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2012_RO

163

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2015_G1

164

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2015_G2

165

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2015_G3

166

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_2015_G4

167

Compliance POS_PH_H2O_D2009_D2

168

169
170
171
172
173
174

175

176

177

178

179
180

181

182

183

184
185

186

Compliance POS_P_2009_D1

Compliance POS_P_2012_BG
Compliance POS_P_2012_RO
Compliance POS_P_2015_G1
Compliance POS_P_2015_G2
Compliance POS_P_2015_G3
Compliance POS_P_2015_G4

Compliance POS_P_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_SAND_2009_D1

Compliance POS_SAND_2015_G3

Compliance POS_SAND_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_SAND_ID_2012_BG
Compliance POS_SAND_ID_2012_RO

Compliance POS_SILT_2009_D1

Compliance POS_SILT_2015_G3

Compliance POS_SILT_D2009_D2

Compliance POS_SILT_ID_2012_BG
Compliance POS_SILT_ID_2012_RO

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2009_D1

187

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2009_D2

7

7

8

8

8

8

7

11

11
11
12
12
12
12

11

5

6

5

5
5

4

5

4

4
4

1

1

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

PH_H2O results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 7th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 8th
parameter.
PH_H2O results not included as 7th
parameter.

Warning

P results not included as 11th parameter.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

P results not included as 11th parameter.
P results not included as 11th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.
P results not included as 12th parameter.

Warning

P results not included as 11th parameter.

Warning

SAND results not included as 5th parameter.

RULE_SOURCE

Source

2009 specifications applied.

2009 specifications applied.

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
2009 specifications applied.
2009 specifications applied.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning

SAND results not included as 6th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf

Warning

SAND results not included as 5th parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning
Warning

SAND results not included as 5th parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
SAND results not included as 5th parameter. 2009 specifications applied.

Warning

SILT results not included as 4th parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning

SILT results not included as 5th parameter. Template_specimen.pdf

Warning

SILT results not included as 4th parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Warning
Warning

Warning

Warning

SILT results not included as 4th parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
SILT results not included as 4th parameter. 2009 specifications applied.
Soil sample identifier not included as 1st
parameter.
Soil sample identifier not included as 1st
parameter.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

108

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

188

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2012_BG

189

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2012_RO

190

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2015_G1

191

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2015_G2

192

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2015_G3

193

194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223

Compliance POS_SOIL_ID_2015_G4

Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_CACO3_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_CEC_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_CF_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_CF_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_CF_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_CF_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_CF_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_CF_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_CF_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2009_D2

1

1

2

2

2

2

NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Soil sample identifier not included as 1st
parameter.
Soil sample identifier not included as 1st
parameter.
Soil sample identifier not included as 2nd
parameter.
Soil sample identifier not included as 2nd
parameter.
Soil sample identifier not included as 2nd
parameter.
Soil sample identifier not included as 2nd
parameter.
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field

109

RULE_SOURCE

Source

2009 specifications applied.

2009 specifications applied.

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Template_specimen.pdf

Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

ID

224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261

262

Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_CLAY_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_EC_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_EC_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_EC_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_EC_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_K_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_K_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_K_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_K_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_K_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_K_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_K_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_K_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_K_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_K_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_N_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_N_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_N_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_N_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_N_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_N_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_N_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_N_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_N_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_N_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_OC_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_OC_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_OC_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_OC_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_OC_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_OC_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_OC_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_OC_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_OC_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_OC_2015_G4

Compliance

263

Compliance

TYPE_PH_CACL2_2009_C
Y
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2009_D
1

NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

110

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

264

Compliance

265

Compliance

266

Compliance

267

Compliance

268

Compliance

269

Compliance

270

Compliance

TYPE_PH_CACL2_2009_D
2
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2009_M
T
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2012_B
G
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2012_R
O
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2015_G
1
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2015_G
2
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2015_G
3
TYPE_PH_CACL2_2015_G
4

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Intrinsic requirement

271

272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297

Compliance

NUMBER

Warning

Character in data field

Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_PH_H2O_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_P_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_P_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_P_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_P_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_P_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_P_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_P_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_P_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_P_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_P_2015_G4
Compliance TYPE_SAND_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_SAND_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_SAND_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_SAND_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_SAND_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_SAND_2012_RO

NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field

111

Intrinsic requirement

Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

ID

298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315

316

317

318

319

320
321
322
323
324
325
326

327

Compliance TYPE_SAND_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_SILT_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2009_CY
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2009_D1
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2009_D2
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2009_MT
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2012_BG
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2012_RO
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2015_G1
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2015_G2
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2015_G3
Compliance TYPE_SOIL_ID_2015_G4

Compliance TYPE_SOIL_LABEL

NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
NUMBER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER
INTEGER

INTEGER

Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2009_CY

G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2009_D1

G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2009_D2

G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2015_G1
Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2015_G2
Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_CACO3_2015_G4

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2009_CY

328

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2009_D1

329

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2009_D2

330

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2009_MT

331

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2012_BG

G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in data field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
Character in integer field
LUCAS DMT: Character in Soil Label data
field.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.

CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.

CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.

CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.
CACO3 not reported in g kg-1.

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement
Intrinsic requirement

Intrinsic requirement

Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Based on specifications for other results.

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Based on specifications for other results.

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Based on specifications for other results.

112

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

332

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2012_RO

333

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2015_G1

334

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2015_G2

335

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2015_G3

Compliance UNIT_CEC_2015_G4

Compliance UNIT_CF_2009_CY

CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
CMOL_P_PER
_KG
PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_CF_2009_D1

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_CF_2009_D2

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_CF_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_CF_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_CF_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_CF_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2009_CY

PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2009_D1

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2009_D2

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_CLAY_2015_G3

Compliance UNIT_EC_2015_G1

352

Compliance UNIT_EC_2015_G2

353

Compliance UNIT_EC_2015_G3

Compliance UNIT_EC_2015_G4

Compliance UNIT_K_2009_CY

PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
MSIEMENS_P
ER_METER
MSIEMENS_P
ER_METER
MSIEMENS_P
ER_METER
MSIEMENS_P
ER_METER
MG_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_K_2009_D1

MG_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_K_2009_D2

MG_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_K_2009_MT

MG_PER_KG

336

337

338

339

340
341
342
343
344

345

346

347
348
349
350

351

354

355

356

357

358

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Based on specifications for other results.

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

CEC not reported in cmol(+) kg-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

CF not reported in %.

CF not reported in %.

CF not reported in %.

CF not reported in %.
CF not reported in %.
CF not reported in %.
CF not reported in %.
CLAY not reported in %.

CLAY not reported in %.

CLAY not reported in %.

CLAY not reported in %.
CLAY not reported in %.
CLAY not reported in %.
CLAY not reported in %.

Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf

EC not reported as mS m-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

EC not reported as mS m-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

EC not reported as mS m-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

EC not reported as mS m-1.

Template_specimen.pdf

K not reported in mg kg-1.

K not reported in mg kg-1.

K not reported in mg kg-1.

K not reported in mg kg-1.

113

Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

ID

359
360
361
362
363
364
365

366

367

368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375

376

377

378
379
380
381
382
383
384

385

Compliance UNIT_K_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_K_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_K_2015_G1
Compliance UNIT_K_2015_G2
Compliance UNIT_K_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_K_2015_G4
Compliance UNIT_N_2009_CY

MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_N_2009_D1

G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_N_2009_D2

Compliance UNIT_N_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_N_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_N_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_N_2015_G1
Compliance UNIT_N_2015_G2
Compliance UNIT_N_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_N_2015_G4
Compliance UNIT_OC_2009_CY

G_PER_KG

G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_OC_2009_D1

G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_OC_2009_D2

G_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_OC_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_OC_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_OC_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_OC_2015_G1
Compliance UNIT_OC_2015_G2
Compliance UNIT_OC_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_OC_2015_G4

G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG
G_PER_KG

K not reported in mg kg-1.
K not reported in mg kg-1.
K not reported in mg kg-1.
K not reported in mg kg-1.
K not reported in mg kg-1.
K not reported in mg kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.

N not reported in g kg-1.

N not reported in g kg-1.

N not reported in g kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.
N not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.

OC not reported in g kg-1.

OC not reported in g kg-1.

OC not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.
OC not reported in g kg-1.

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf

Compliance

386

Compliance

387

Compliance

388

Compliance

389

Compliance

390

Compliance

UNIT_PH_CACL2_2009_C
Y
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2009_D
1
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2009_D
2
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2009_M
T
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2012_B
G
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2012_R
O

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Based on specifications for other results.

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Based on specifications for other results.

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Based on specifications for other results.

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Based on specifications for other results.

114

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

391

Compliance

392

Compliance

393

Compliance

Compliance

UNIT_PH_CACL2_2015_G
1
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2015_G
2
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2015_G
3
UNIT_PH_CACL2_2015_G
4

Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2009_CY

Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2009_D1

Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2009_D2

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH

PH

Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2015_G1
Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2015_G2
Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_PH_H2O_2015_G4
Compliance UNIT_P_2009_CY

PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
MG_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_P_2009_D1

MG_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_P_2009_D2

MG_PER_KG

Compliance UNIT_P_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_P_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_P_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_P_2015_G1
Compliance UNIT_P_2015_G2
Compliance UNIT_P_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_P_2015_G4
Compliance UNIT_SAND_2009_CY

MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
MG_PER_KG
PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_SAND_2009_D1

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_SAND_2009_D2

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_SAND_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_SAND_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_SAND_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_SAND_2015_G3
Compliance UNIT_SILT_2009_CY

PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE

394

395

396

397

398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405

406

407

408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415

416

417

418
419
420
421
422

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Template_specimen.pdf

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

PH_CACL2 not reported as pH.

Template_specimen.pdf

PH_H2O not reported as pH.

PH_H2O not reported as pH.

PH_H2O not reported as pH.

PH_H2O not reported as pH.
PH_H2O not reported as pH.
PH_H2O not reported as pH.
PH_H2O not reported as pH.
PH_H2O not reported as pH.
PH_H2O not reported as pH.
PH_H2O not reported as pH.
P not reported in mg kg-1.

P not reported in mg kg-1.

P not reported in mg kg-1.

P not reported in mg kg-1.
P not reported in mg kg-1.
P not reported in mg kg-1.
P not reported in mg kg-1.
P not reported in mg kg-1.
P not reported in mg kg-1.
P not reported in mg kg-1.
SAND not reported in %.

SAND not reported in %.

SAND not reported in %.

SAND not reported in %.
SAND not reported in %.
SAND not reported in %.
SAND not reported in %.
SILT not reported in %.

115

Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Template_specimen.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

423

Compliance UNIT_SILT_2009_D1

PERCENTAGE

Error

SILT not reported in %.

424

425
426
427
428

429

Compliance UNIT_SILT_2009_D2

PERCENTAGE

Compliance UNIT_SILT_2009_MT
Compliance UNIT_SILT_2012_BG
Compliance UNIT_SILT_2012_RO
Compliance UNIT_SILT_2015_G3

PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error

Conformity CODE_LOD_CACO3_2009

< 1

Warning

430

Conformity CODE_LOD_CACO3_2012

< 0.5

Warning

431

Conformity

432

Conformity

433

Conformity

434

Conformity

435

Conformity

CODE_LOD_CACO3_2015
_G1
CODE_LOD_CACO3_2015
_G2
CODE_LOD_CACO3_2015
_G2
CODE_LOD_CACO3_2015
_G3
CODE_LOD_CACO3_2015
_G4

< 1

< 1

< 1

< 1

< 1

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

436

Conformity CODE_LOD_CEC_2009

< 2.0

Warning

437

Conformity CODE_LOD_CEC_2012

< 2.0

Warning

438

Conformity

439

Conformity

440

Conformity

441

Conformity

CODE_LOD_CEC_2015_G
1
CODE_LOD_CEC_2015_G
2
CODE_LOD_CEC_2015_G
3
CODE_LOD_CEC_2015_G
4

442

Conformity CODE_LOD_CF_2009

443

Conformity CODE_LOD_CF_2012

444

Conformity CODE_LOD_CF_2015_G3

445

Conformity CODE_LOD_CLAY_2009

< 2.0

Warning

< 2.0

Warning

< 2.0

Warning

< 2.0

Warning

< 1

< 1

< 1

< 1

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

SILT not reported in %.

SILT not reported in %.
SILT not reported in %.
SILT not reported in %.
SILT not reported in %.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CACO3
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CEC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CF
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CF
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CF
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CLAY
results.

116

RULE_SOURCE

Source

SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
SGS_contract_385355_including_tender_and_
offer.pdf
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Based on specifications for other results.
Template_specimen.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

From field decimal specifications.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

From field decimal specifications.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

446

Conformity CODE_LOD_CLAY_2012

447

Conformity

CODE_LOD_CLAY_2015_
G3

< 1

< 1

Warning

Warning

448

Conformity CODE_LOD_EC_2015_G1

< 2.0

Warning

449

Conformity CODE_LOD_EC_2015_G2

< 2.0

Warning

450

Conformity CODE_LOD_EC_2015_G3

< 2.0

Warning

451

Conformity CODE_LOD_EC_2015_G4

< 2.0

Warning

452

Conformity CODE_LOD_K_2009

< 10.0

Warning

453

Conformity CODE_LOD_K_2012

< 10.0

Warning

454

Conformity CODE_LOD_K_2015_G1

< 5.0

Warning

455

Conformity CODE_LOD_K_2015_G2

< 5.0

Warning

456

Conformity CODE_LOD_K_2015_G3

< 5.0

Warning

457

Conformity CODE_LOD_K_2015_G4

< 5.0

Warning

458

Conformity CODE_LOD_N_2009

< 0.2

Warning

459

Conformity CODE_LOD_N_2012

< 0.2

Warning

460

Conformity CODE_LOD_N_2015_G1

< 0.2

Warning

461

Conformity CODE_LOD_N_2015_G2

< 0.2

Warning

462

Conformity CODE_LOD_N_2015_G3

< 0.2

Warning

463

Conformity CODE_LOD_N_2015_G4

< 0.2

Warning

464

Conformity CODE_LOD_OC_2009

< 2.0

Warning

465

Conformity CODE_LOD_OC_2012

< 6.0

Warning

466

Conformity CODE_LOD_OC_2015_G1

< 2.0

Warning

Invalid code for quantification limit of CLAY
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of CLAY
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of EC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of EC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of EC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of EC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of K
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of K
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of K
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of K
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of K
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of K
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of N
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of N
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of N
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of N
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of N
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of N
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC
results.

117

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

Not available or specified.

Not available or specified.

Not available or specified.

Not available or specified.

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Not specified, derived from data.

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

467

Conformity CODE_LOD_OC_2015_G2

< 2.0

Warning

468

Conformity CODE_LOD_OC_2015_G3

< 2.0

Warning

469

Conformity CODE_LOD_OC_2015_G4

< 2.0

Warning

470

Conformity CODE_LOD_P_2009

< 10.0

Warning

471

Conformity CODE_LOD_P_2012

< 5.0

Warning

472

Conformity CODE_LOD_P_2015_G1

< 10.0

Warning

473

Conformity CODE_LOD_P_2015_G2

< 10.0

Warning

474

Conformity CODE_LOD_P_2015_G3

< 10.0

Warning

475

Conformity CODE_LOD_P_2015_G4

< 10.0

Warning

< 1

< 1

< 1

< 1

< 1

< 1

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

476

Conformity CODE_LOD_SAND_2009

477

Conformity CODE_LOD_SAND_2012

478

Conformity

CODE_LOD_SAND_2015_
G3

479

Conformity CODE_LOD_SILT_2009

480

Conformity CODE_LOD_SILT_2012

481

Conformity

CODE_LOD_SILT_2015_G
3

482

Conformity DUPLICATE_CHEM_2009

483

Conformity DUPLICATE_CHEM_2012

484

Conformity DUPLICATE_CHEM_2015

485

Conformity

486

Conformity

487

Conformity

DUPLICATE_DMT_POINT_
2009
DUPLICATE_DMT_POINT_
2012
DUPLICATE_DMT_POINT_
2015

Invalid code for quantification limit of OC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of OC
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of P
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of P
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of P
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of P
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of P
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of P
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of SAND
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of SAND
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of SAND
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of SILT
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of SILT
results.
Invalid code for quantification limit of SILT
results.

RULE_SOURCE

Source

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

2_Preliminary_Test_Plan.pdf

From field decimal specifications.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

From field decimal specifications.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

Not specified, defiened as 2009.

COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1

Warning

LUCAS SOIL: Chemical data is duplicated.

Indicator for sample labelling problem.

Warning

LUCAS SOIL: Chemical data is duplicated.

Indicator for sample labelling problem.

Warning

LUCAS SOIL: Chemical data is duplicated.

Indicator for sample labelling problem.

Error

LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for point.

Requirement for key.

Error

LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for point.

Requirement for key.

Error

LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for point.

Requirement for key.

118

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

488

Conformity

489

Conformity

490

Conformity

491

Conformity

492

Conformity

493

Conformity

494

Conformity

DUPLICATE_DMT_SOIL_2
009
DUPLICATE_DMT_SOIL_2
012
DUPLICATE_DMT_SOIL_2
012
DUPLICATE_DMT_SOIL_2
015
DUPLICATE_LAB_SOIL_20
09
DUPLICATE_LAB_SOIL_20
12
DUPLICATE_LAB_SOIL_20
15

495

Conformity DUPLICATE_TEXT_2009

496

Conformity DUPLICATE_TEXT_2012

Conformity DUPLICATE_TEXT_2015

Conformity MISSING_CACO3_2009
Conformity MISSING_CACO3_2012

Conformity

501

Conformity

502

Conformity

Conformity

MISSING_CACO3_2015_G
1
MISSING_CACO3_2015_G
2
MISSING_CACO3_2015_G
3
MISSING_CACO3_2015_G
4

Conformity MISSING_CEC_2009
Conformity MISSING_CEC_2012
Conformity MISSING_CEC_2015_G1
Conformity MISSING_CEC_2015_G2
Conformity MISSING_CEC_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_CEC_2015_G4
Conformity MISSING_CF_2009
Conformity MISSING_CF_2012
Conformity MISSING_CF_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_CLAY_2009
Conformity MISSING_CLAY_2012
Conformity MISSING_CLAY_2015_G3

497

498
499

500

503

504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515

COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
COUNT ALL =
1
BLANK
BLANK

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning
Warning

LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS DMT: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS SOIL: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS SOIL: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS SOIL: Duplicate identifier for soil
sample.
LUCAS SOIL: Texture + pH data is
duplicated.
LUCAS SOIL: Texture + pH data is
duplicated.
LUCAS SOIL: Texture + pH data is
duplicated.
A value is missing for parameter CACO3.
A value is missing for parameter CACO3.

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Requirement for reference.

Requirement for reference.

Requirement for reference.

Requirement for reference.

Requirement for database model.

Requirement for database model.

Requirement for database model.

Indicator for sample labelling problem.

Indicator for sample labelling problem.

Indicator for sample labelling problem.

Completeness.
Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter CACO3.

Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter CACO3.

Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter CACO3.

Completeness.

BLANK

BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter CACO3.

Completeness.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

A value is missing for parameter CEC.
A value is missing for parameter CEC.
A value is missing for parameter CEC.
A value is missing for parameter CEC.
A value is missing for parameter CEC.
A value is missing for parameter CEC.
A value is missing for parameter CF.
A value is missing for parameter CF.
A value is missing for parameter CF.
A value is missing for parameter CLAY.
A value is missing for parameter CLAY.
A value is missing for parameter CLAY.

Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.

119

ID

516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537

538

543

544
545

546

CHECK

Step

Label

Conformity MISSING_EC_2015_G1
Conformity MISSING_EC_2015_G2
Conformity MISSING_EC_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_EC_2015_G4
Conformity MISSING_K_2009
Conformity MISSING_K_2012
Conformity MISSING_K_2015_G1
Conformity MISSING_K_2015_G2
Conformity MISSING_K_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_K_2015_G4
Conformity MISSING_N_2009
Conformity MISSING_N_2012
Conformity MISSING_N_2015_G1
Conformity MISSING_N_2015_G2
Conformity MISSING_N_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_N_2015_G4
Conformity MISSING_OC_2009
Conformity MISSING_OC_2012
Conformity MISSING_OC_2015_G1
Conformity MISSING_OC_2015_G2
Conformity MISSING_OC_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_OC_2015_G4

Conformity

539

Conformity

540

Conformity

541

Conformity

542

Conformity

Conformity

MISSING_PH_CACL2_200
9
MISSING_PH_CACL2_201
2
MISSING_PH_CACL2_201
5_G1
MISSING_PH_CACL2_201
5_G2
MISSING_PH_CACL2_201
5_G3
MISSING_PH_CACL2_201
5_G4

Conformity MISSING_PH_H2O_2009
Conformity MISSING_PH_H2O_2012

Conformity

547

Conformity

548

Conformity

MISSING_PH_H2O_2015_
G1
MISSING_PH_H2O_2015_
G2
MISSING_PH_H2O_2015_
G3

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

RULE_SOURCE

Limit

BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK

BLANK

Level

Message

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

A value is missing for parameter EC.
A value is missing for parameter EC.
A value is missing for parameter EC.
A value is missing for parameter EC.
A value is missing for parameter K.
A value is missing for parameter K.
A value is missing for parameter K.
A value is missing for parameter K.
A value is missing for parameter K.
A value is missing for parameter K.
A value is missing for parameter N.
A value is missing for parameter N.
A value is missing for parameter N.
A value is missing for parameter N.
A value is missing for parameter N.
A value is missing for parameter N.
A value is missing for parameter OC.
A value is missing for parameter OC.
A value is missing for parameter OC.
A value is missing for parameter OC.
A value is missing for parameter OC.
A value is missing for parameter OC.

Source

Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_CACL2. Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_CACL2. Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_CACL2. Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_CACL2. Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_CACL2. Completeness.

BLANK

BLANK
BLANK

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_CACL2. Completeness.

Warning
Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_H2O.
A value is missing for parameter PH_H2O.

Completeness.
Completeness.

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_H2O.

Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_H2O.

Completeness.

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_H2O.

Completeness.

120

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ID

549

550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563

564

Conformity

MISSING_PH_H2O_2015_
G4

Conformity MISSING_P_2009
Conformity MISSING_P_2012
Conformity MISSING_P_2015_G1
Conformity MISSING_P_2015_G2
Conformity MISSING_P_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_P_2015_G4
Conformity MISSING_SAND_2009
Conformity MISSING_SAND_2012
Conformity MISSING_SAND_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_SILT_2009
Conformity MISSING_SILT_2012
Conformity MISSING_SILT_2015_G3
Conformity MISSING_SOIL_ID_2009
Conformity MISSING_SOIL_ID_2012

Conformity

565

Conformity

566

Conformity

567

Conformity

568

Conformity

569

Conformity

570

Conformity

571

Conformity

572

Conformity

573

Conformity

574

Conformity

575

Conformity

576

Conformity

MISSING_SOIL_ID_2015_
G1
MISSING_SOIL_ID_2015_
G2
MISSING_SOIL_ID_2015_
G3
MISSING_SOIL_ID_2015_
G4
EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_200
9
EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_201
2
EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_201
5_G1
EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_201
5_G2
EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_201
5_G3
EXP_CACO3_MAX_M_201
5_G4
EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_200
9
EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_201
2
EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_201
5_G1

BLANK

BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK
BLANK

BLANK

Warning

A value is missing for parameter PH_H2O.

Completeness.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Error
Error

A value is missing for parameter P.
A value is missing for parameter P.
A value is missing for parameter P.
A value is missing for parameter P.
A value is missing for parameter P.
A value is missing for parameter P.
A value is missing for parameter SAND.
A value is missing for parameter SAND.
A value is missing for parameter SAND.
A value is missing for parameter SILT.
A value is missing for parameter SILT.
A value is missing for parameter SILT.
A value is missing for soil sample identifier. Requirement for database model.
A value is missing for soil sample identifier. Requirement for database model.

Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.

Error

A value is missing for soil sample identifier. Requirement for database model.

BLANK

Error

A value is missing for soil sample identifier. Requirement for database model.

BLANK

Error

A value is missing for soil sample identifier. Requirement for database model.

BLANK

Error

A value is missing for soil sample identifier. Requirement for database model.

600

600

600

600

600

600

200

200

200

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for mineral soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for mineral soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for mineral soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for mineral soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for mineral soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for mineral soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for organic soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for organic soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for organic soil.

121

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

577

Conformity

578

Conformity

579

Conformity

EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_201
5_G2
EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_201
5_G3
EXP_CACO3_MAX_O_201
5_G4

580

Conformity EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2009

581

Conformity EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2012

582

Conformity

583

Conformity

584

Conformity

585

Conformity

EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015
_G1
EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015
_G2
EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015
_G3
EXP_CACO3_MIN_M_2015
_G4

586

Conformity EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2009

587

Conformity EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2012

588

Conformity

589

Conformity

590

Conformity

591

Conformity

EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015
_G1
EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015
_G2
EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015
_G3
EXP_CACO3_MIN_O_2015
_G4

592

Conformity EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2009

593

Conformity EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2012

594

Conformity

595

Conformity

596

Conformity

597

Conformity

EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_
G1
EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_
G2
EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_
G3
EXP_CEC_MAX_M_2015_
G4

200

200

200

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

50

50

50

50

50

50

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for organic soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for organic soil.
Maximum CACO3 value above expected
range for organic soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CACO3 value below expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for mineral soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for mineral soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for mineral soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for mineral soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for mineral soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

122

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

598

Conformity EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2009

599

Conformity EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2012

600

Conformity

601

Conformity

602

Conformity

603

Conformity

EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_
G1
EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_
G2
EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_
G3
EXP_CEC_MAX_O_2015_
G4

604

Conformity EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2009

605

Conformity EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2012

606

Conformity

607

Conformity

608

Conformity

609

Conformity

EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G
1
EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G
2
EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G
3
EXP_CEC_MIN_M_2015_G
4

610

Conformity EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2009

611

Conformity EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2012

612

Conformity

613

Conformity

614

Conformity

Conformity

EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G
1
EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G
2
EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G
3
EXP_CEC_MIN_O_2015_G
4

Conformity EXP_CF_MAX_M_2009
Conformity EXP_CF_MAX_M_2012
Conformity EXP_CF_MAX_M_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_CF_MAX_O_2009
Conformity EXP_CF_MAX_O_2012
Conformity EXP_CF_MAX_O_2015_G3

615

616
617
618
619
620
621

105

105

105

105

105

105

3

3

3

3

3

3

8

8

8

8

8

8

60
60
60
60
60
60

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Maximum CEC value above expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CEC value above expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for mineral soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for organic soil.
Minimum CEC value below expected range
for organic soil.
Maximum CF value above expected range.
Maximum CF value above expected range.
Maximum CF value above expected range.
Maximum CF value above expected range.
Maximum CF value above expected range.
Maximum CF value above expected range.

123

RULE_SOURCE

Source

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ID

622
623
624
625
626
627

628

629

630

631

632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643

644

Conformity

Conformity EXP_CF_MIN_M_2009
Conformity EXP_CF_MIN_M_2012
Conformity EXP_CF_MIN_M_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_CF_MIN_O_2009
Conformity EXP_CF_MIN_O_2012
Conformity EXP_CF_MIN_O_2015_G3
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G
1
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G
2
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G
3
EXP_EC_MAX_M_2015_G
4

Conformity

Conformity

Conformity

Conformity EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G1
Conformity EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G2
Conformity EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_EC_MAX_O_2015_G4
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G1
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G2
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_M_2015_G4
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G1
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G2
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_EC_MIN_O_2015_G4

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_M_2009

645

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_M_2012

646

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G1

647

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G2

648

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G3

649

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_M_2015_G4

650

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_O_2009

651

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_O_2012

0
0
0
0
0
0

100

100

100

100

250
250
250
250
3
3
3
3
12
12
12
12

720

720

720

720

720

720

650

650

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Minimum CF value below expected range.
Minimum CF value below expected range.
Minimum CF value below expected range.
Minimum CF value below expected range.
Minimum CF value below expected range.
Minimum CF value below expected range.

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

Maximum EC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Maximum EC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Maximum EC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Maximum EC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Maximum EC value above expected range.
Maximum EC value above expected range.
Maximum EC value above expected range.
Maximum EC value above expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Minimum EC value below expected range.
Maximum K value above expected range for
mineral.
Maximum K value above expected range for
mineral.
Maximum K value above expected range for
mineral.
Maximum K value above expected range for
mineral.
Maximum K value above expected range for
mineral.
Maximum K value above expected range for
mineral.
Maximum K value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum K value above expected range for
organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

124

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

652

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G1

653

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G2

654

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G3

655

Conformity EXP_K_MAX_O_2015_G4

656

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_M_2009

657

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_M_2012

658

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G1

659

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G2

660

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G3

661

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_M_2015_G4

662

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_O_2009

663

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_O_2012

664

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G1

665

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G2

666

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G3

667

Conformity EXP_K_MIN_O_2015_G4

668

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_M_2009

669

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_M_2012

670

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G1

671

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G2

672

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G3

650

650

650

650

20

20

20

20

20

20

40

40

40

40

40

40

8

8

8

8

8

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Maximum K value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum K value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum K value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum K value above expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum K value below expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
mineral soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
mineral soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
mineral soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
mineral soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
mineral soil.

125

RULE_SOURCE

Source

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

673

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_M_2015_G4

674

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_O_2009

675

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_O_2012

676

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G1

677

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G2

678

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G3

679

Conformity EXP_N_MAX_O_2015_G4

680

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_M_2009

681

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_M_2012

682

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G1

683

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G2

684

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G3

685

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_M_2015_G4

686

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_O_2009

687

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_O_2012

688

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_O_2015_G1

689

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_O_2015_G2

690

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_O_2015_G3

8

25

25

25

25

25

25

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

4

4

4

4

4

4

691

692
693

694

Conformity EXP_N_MIN_O_2015_G4

Conformity EXP_OC_MAX_M_2009
Conformity EXP_OC_MAX_M_2012

Conformity

EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G
1

120
120

120

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning
Warning

Maximum N value above expected range for
mineral soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum N value above expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
mineral soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
organic soil.
Minimum N value below expected range for
organic soil.
Maximum OC value above expected range.
Maximum OC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

EUR_23020_EN2.pdf
EUR_23020_EN2.pdf

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

EUR_23020_EN2.pdf

126

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

697

698
699

700

703

704
705

706

709

710
711
712
713
714
715

716

695

Conformity

696

Conformity

Conformity

EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G
2
EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G
3
EXP_OC_MAX_M_2015_G
4

Conformity EXP_OC_MAX_O_2009
Conformity EXP_OC_MAX_O_2012

Conformity

701

Conformity

702

Conformity

Conformity

EXP_OC_MAX_O_2015_G
1
EXP_OC_MAX_O_2015_G
2
EXP_OC_MAX_O_2015_G
3
EXP_OC_MAX_O_2015_G
4

Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_M_2009
Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_M_2012

Conformity

707

Conformity

708

Conformity

Conformity

EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G
1
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G
2
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G
3
EXP_OC_MIN_M_2015_G
4

Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_O_2009
Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_O_2012
Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_O_2015_G1
Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_O_2015_G2
Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_O_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_OC_MIN_O_2015_G4

Conformity

717

Conformity

718

Conformity

719

Conformity

720

Conformity

EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_
2009
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_
2012
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_
2015_G1
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_
2015_G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_
2015_G3

120

120

120

550
550

550

550

550

550

3
3

3

3

3

3

120
120
120
120
120
120

8.1

8.1

8.1

8.1

8.1

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

EUR_23020_EN2.pdf

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

EUR_23020_EN2.pdf

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

EUR_23020_EN2.pdf

Warning
Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.
Maximum OC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Warning

Maximum OC value above expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Warning
Warning

Minimum OC value below expected range.
Minimum OC value below expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.
LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Minimum OC value below expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Minimum OC value below expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Minimum OC value below expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning

Minimum OC value below expected range.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Minimum OC value below expected range.
Minimum OC value below expected range.
Minimum OC value below expected range.
Minimum OC value below expected range.
Minimum OC value below expected range.
Minimum OC value below expected range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.

127

EUR_23020_EN2.pdf
EUR_23020_EN2.pdf
EUR_23020_EN2.pdf
EUR_23020_EN2.pdf
EUR_23020_EN2.pdf
EUR_23020_EN2.pdf

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

721

Conformity

722

Conformity

723

Conformity

724

Conformity

725

Conformity

726

Conformity

727

Conformity

728

Conformity

729

Conformity

730

Conformity

731

Conformity

732

Conformity

733

Conformity

734

Conformity

735

Conformity

736

Conformity

737

Conformity

738

Conformity

739

Conformity

740

Conformity

741

Conformity

EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_M_
2015_G4
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2
009
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2
012
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2
015_G1
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2
015_G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2
015_G3
EXP_PH_CACL2_MAX_O_2
015_G4
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2
009
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2
012
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2
015_G1
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2
015_G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2
015_G3
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_M_2
015_G4
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2
009
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2
012
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2
015_G1
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2
015_G2
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2
015_G3
EXP_PH_CACL2_MIN_O_2
015_G4
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_20
09
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_20
12

8.1

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

6.6

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

8.5

8.5

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.

128

RULE_SOURCE

Source

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

742

Conformity

743

Conformity

744

Conformity

745

Conformity

746

Conformity

747

Conformity

748

Conformity

749

Conformity

750

Conformity

751

Conformity

752

Conformity

753

Conformity

754

Conformity

755

Conformity

756

Conformity

757

Conformity

758

Conformity

759

Conformity

760

Conformity

761

Conformity

762

Conformity

EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_20
15_G1
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_20
15_G2
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_20
15_G3
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_M_20
15_G4
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_20
09
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_20
12
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_20
15_G1
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_20
15_G2
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_20
15_G3
EXP_PH_H2O_MAX_O_20
15_G4
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_200
9
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_201
2
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_201
5_G1
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_201
5_G2
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_201
5_G3
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_M_201
5_G4
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_200
9
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_201
2
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_201
5_G1
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_201
5_G2
EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_201
5_G3

8.5

8.5

8.5

8.5

7

7

7

7

7

7

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.3

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.

129

RULE_SOURCE

Source

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for mineral soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

763

Conformity

764

Conformity

765

Conformity

766

Conformity

767

Conformity

768

Conformity

769

Conformity

770

Conformity

771

Conformity

772

Conformity

773

Conformity

774

Conformity

775

Conformity

EXP_PH_H2O_MIN_O_201
5_G4
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MAX_M
_2009
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MAX_M
_2012
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MAX_M
_2015_G3
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MAX_O
_2009
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MAX_O
_2012
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MAX_O
_2015_G3
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MIN_M_
2009
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MIN_M_
2012
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MIN_M_
2015_G3
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MIN_O_
2009
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MIN_O_
2012
EXP_PSD_TOTAL_MIN_O_
2015_G3

776

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_M_2009

777

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_M_2012

778

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G1

779

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G2

780

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G3

781

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_M_2015_G4

782

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_O_2009

783

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_O_2012

3.3

101

101

101

101

101

101

99

99

99

99

99

99

120

120

120

120

120

120

125

125

Warning

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Minimum PH_H2O value below expected
range.
Maximum PSD_TOTAL value above expected
range.
Maximum PSD_TOTAL value above expected
range.
Maximum PSD_TOTAL value above expected
range.
Maximum PSD_TOTAL value above expected
range.
Maximum PSD_TOTAL value above expected
range.
Maximum PSD_TOTAL value above expected
range.
Minimum PSD_TOTAL value below expected
range.
Minimum PSD_TOTAL value below expected
range.
Minimum PSD_TOTAL value below expected
range.
Minimum PSD_TOTAL value below expected
range.
Minimum PSD_TOTAL value below expected
range.
Minimum PSD_TOTAL value below expected
range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

130

RULE_SOURCE

Source

LUCAS Soil quantile for organic soil.

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

implicit from Unit

ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

784

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G1

785

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G2

786

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G3

Conformity EXP_P_MAX_O_2015_G4

Conformity EXP_P_MIN_M_2009
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_M_2012
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G1
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G2
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_M_2015_G4
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_O_2009
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_O_2012
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G1
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G2
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G3
Conformity EXP_P_MIN_O_2015_G4
Conformity LOD_CACO3_MIN_2009
Conformity LOD_CACO3_MIN_2012

Conformity

803

Conformity

804

Conformity

Conformity

LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G1
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G2
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G3
LOD_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G4

Conformity LOD_CEC_MIN_2009
Conformity LOD_CEC_MIN_2012
Conformity LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity LOD_CEC_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity LOD_K_MIN_2009
Conformity LOD_K_MIN_2012
Conformity LOD_K_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity LOD_K_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity LOD_K_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity LOD_K_MIN_2015_G4

787

788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801

802

805

806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817

125

125

125

125

12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
1
1

1

1

1

1

2
2
2
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning

Maximum P value above expected range.

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning
Error
Error

Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum P value below expected range.
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.
Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
http://al-labs-plains.com/soil/2511974
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
2009 parameter specifications used.

Error

Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Error

Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Error

Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Minimum CACO3 value below LOD.

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Minimum CEC value below LOD.
Minimum CEC value below LOD.
Minimum CEC value below LOD.
Minimum CEC value below LOD.
Minimum CEC value below LOD.
Minimum CEC value below LOD.
Minimum K value below LOD.
Minimum K value below LOD.
Minimum K value below LOD.
Minimum K value below LOD.
Minimum K value below LOD.
Minimum K value below LOD.

131

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
2009 parameter specifications used.
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
2009 parameter specifications used.
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ID

818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835

836

841

842
843

844

847

848
849

Conformity LOD_N_MIN_2009
Conformity LOD_N_MIN_2012
Conformity LOD_N_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity LOD_N_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity LOD_N_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity LOD_N_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity LOD_OC_MIN_2009
Conformity LOD_OC_MIN_2012
Conformity LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity LOD_OC_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity LOD_P_MIN_2009
Conformity LOD_P_MIN_2012
Conformity LOD_P_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity LOD_P_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity LOD_P_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity LOD_P_MIN_2015_G4

0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
2
6
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5

Conformity NUM_CACO3_MAX_2009

1000

837

Conformity NUM_CACO3_MAX_2012

1000

838

Conformity

839

Conformity

840

Conformity

Conformity

NUM_CACO3_MAX_2015_
G1
NUM_CACO3_MAX_2015_
G2
NUM_CACO3_MAX_2015_
G3
NUM_CACO3_MAX_2015_
G4

1000

1000

1000

1000

Conformity NUM_CACO3_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_CACO3_MIN_2012

Conformity

845

Conformity

846

Conformity

Conformity

NUM_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G1
NUM_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G2
NUM_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G3
NUM_CACO3_MIN_2015_
G4

Conformity NUM_CEC_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_CEC_MIN_2012

0
0

0

0

0

0

0
0

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error
Error

Error

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
2009 parameter specifications used.
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
Derived from data.
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
2009 parameter specifications used.
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf
5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Minimum N value below LOD.
Minimum N value below LOD.
Minimum N value below LOD.
Minimum N value below LOD.
Minimum N value below LOD.
Minimum N value below LOD.
Minimum OC value below LOD.
Minimum OC value below LOD.
Minimum OC value below LOD.
Minimum OC value below LOD.
Minimum OC value below LOD.
Minimum OC value below LOD.
Minimum P value below LOD.
Minimum P value below LOD.
Minimum P value below LOD.
Minimum P value below LOD.
Minimum P value below LOD.
Minimum P value below LOD.
Maximum CACO3 value above numeric
range.
Maximum CACO3 value above numeric
range.
Maximum CACO3 value above numeric
range.
Maximum CACO3 value above numeric
range.
Maximum CACO3 value above numeric
range.
Maximum CACO3 value above numeric
range.
Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Error

Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Error

Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Error

Error
Error

Minimum CACO3 value below numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Minimum CEC value below numeric range.
Minimum CEC value below numeric range.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.

132

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

ID

850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861

862

863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Conformity NUM_CEC_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_CEC_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_CEC_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_CEC_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_CF_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_CF_MAX_2012
Conformity NUM_CF_MAX_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_CF_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_CF_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_CF_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_CLAY_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_CLAY_MAX_2012

Conformity

NUM_CLAY_MAX_2015_G
3

Conformity NUM_CLAY_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_CLAY_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_CLAY_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_EC_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_EC_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_EC_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_EC_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_K_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_K_MAX_2012
Conformity NUM_K_MAX_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_K_MAX_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_K_MAX_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_K_MAX_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_K_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_K_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_K_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_K_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_K_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_K_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_N_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_N_MAX_2012
Conformity NUM_N_MAX_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_N_MAX_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_N_MAX_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_N_MAX_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_N_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_N_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_N_MIN_2015_G1

0
0
0
0
100
100
100
0
0
0
100
100

100

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000000
1000000
1000000
1000000
1000000
1000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
0

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CEC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CEC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CEC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CEC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum CF value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum CF value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum CF value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CF value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum CF value below numeric range.
Minimum CF value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum CLAY value above numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum CLAY value above numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Maximum CLAY value above numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Minimum CLAY value below numeric range.
Minimum CLAY value below numeric range.
Minimum CLAY value below numeric range.
Minimum EC value below numeric range.
Minimum EC value below numeric range.
Minimum EC value below numeric range.
Minimum EC value below numeric range.
Maximum K value above numeric range.
Maximum K value above numeric range.
Maximum K value above numeric range.
Maximum K value above numeric range.
Maximum K value above numeric range.
Maximum K value above numeric range.
Minimum K value below numeric range.
Minimum K value below numeric range.
Minimum K value below numeric range.
Minimum K value below numeric range.
Minimum K value below numeric range.
Minimum K value below numeric range.
Maximum N value above numeric range.
Maximum N value above numeric range.
Maximum N value above numeric range.
Maximum N value above numeric range.
Maximum N value above numeric range.
Maximum N value above numeric range.
Minimum N value below numeric range.
Minimum N value below numeric range.
Minimum N value below numeric range.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.

133

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

ID

891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919

920

921
922

923

924
925
926
927
928
929

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

Conformity NUM_N_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_N_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_N_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_OC_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_OC_MAX_2012
Conformity NUM_OC_MAX_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_OC_MAX_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_OC_MAX_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_OC_MAX_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_OC_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_OC_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_OC_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_OC_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_OC_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_OC_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_P_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_P_MAX_2012
Conformity NUM_P_MAX_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_P_MAX_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_P_MAX_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_P_MAX_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_P_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_P_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_P_MIN_2015_G1
Conformity NUM_P_MIN_2015_G2
Conformity NUM_P_MIN_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_P_MIN_2015_G4
Conformity NUM_SAND_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_SAND_MAX_2012

Conformity

NUM_SAND_MAX_2015_G
3

Conformity NUM_SAND_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_SAND_MIN_2012

Conformity

NUM_SAND_MIN_2015_G
3

Conformity NUM_SILT_MAX_2009
Conformity NUM_SILT_MAX_2012
Conformity NUM_SILT_MAX_2015_G3
Conformity NUM_SILT_MIN_2009
Conformity NUM_SILT_MIN_2012
Conformity NUM_SILT_MIN_2015_G3

0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000000
1000000
1000000
1000000
1000000
1000000
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100

100

0
0

0

100
100
100
0
0
0

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Error

Error
Error

Error

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum N value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum N value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum N value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum OC value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum OC value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum OC value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum OC value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum OC value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum OC value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum OC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum OC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum OC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum OC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum OC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum OC value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum P value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum P value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum P value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum P value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum P value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum P value above numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum P value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum P value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum P value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum P value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum P value below numeric range.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Minimum P value below numeric range.
Maximum SAND value above numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Maximum SAND value above numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Maximum SAND value above numeric range. Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Minimum SAND value below numeric range.
Minimum SAND value below numeric range.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Minimum SAND value below numeric range.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.

Maximum SILT value above numeric range.
Maximum SILT value above numeric range.
Maximum SILT value above numeric range.
Minimum SILT value below numeric range.
Minimum SILT value below numeric range.
Minimum SILT value below numeric range.

Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.
Implicit from paramter type and unit.

134

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

930

Conformity

931

Conformity

932

Conformity

933

Conformity

934

Conformity

935

Conformity

936

Conformity

937

Conformity

938

Conformity

939

Conformity

940

Conformity

941

Conformity

REP_PH_CACL2_MAX_200
9
REP_PH_CACL2_MAX_201
2
REP_PH_CACL2_MAX_201
5_G1
REP_PH_CACL2_MAX_201
5_G2
REP_PH_CACL2_MAX_201
5_G3
REP_PH_CACL2_MAX_201
5_G4
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_200
9
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_201
2
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_201
5_G1
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_201
5_G2
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_201
5_G3
REP_PH_CACL2_MIN_201
5_G4

942

Conformity REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2009

943

Conformity REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2012

944

Conformity

945

Conformity

946

Conformity

947

Conformity

REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2015_
G1
REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2015_
G2
REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2015_
G3
REP_PH_H2O_MAX_2015_
G4

948

Conformity REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2009

949

Conformity REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2012

950

Conformity

REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2015_
G1

10

10

10

10

10

10

2

2

2

2

2

2

10

10

10

10

10

10

2

2

2

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

Maximum PH_CACL2 value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_CACL2 value above reporting
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_CACL2 value below reporting
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting
range.
Maximum PH_H2O value above reporting
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting
range.

135

RULE_SOURCE

Source

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

951

Conformity

952

Conformity

953

Conformity

REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2015_
G2
REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2015_
G3
REP_PH_H2O_MIN_2015_
G4

954

Conformity LINK_SOIL_PARENT_2009

955

Conformity LINK_SOIL_PARENT_2012

956

Conformity LINK_SOIL_PARENT_2015

957

Conformity LINK_SOIL_VALID_2009

958

Conformity LINK_SOIL_VALID_2012

959

Conformity LINK_SOIL_VALID_2015

960

Conformity LNIK_SOIL_CHILD_2009

961

Conformity LNIK_SOIL_CHILD_2012

2

2

2

COUNT ALL =
0
COUNT ALL =
0
COUNT ALL =
0
COUNT ALL
<> 1
COUNT ALL
<> 1
COUNT ALL
<> 1
COUNT ALL =
0
COUNT ALL =
0
COUNT ALL =
0
GPS_EW

962

963

964

Conformity LNIK_SOIL_CHILD_2015

Conformity VALID_GPS_EW

Conformity VALID_GPS_LAT_MAX

88.9

965

Conformity VALID_GPS_LAT_MIN

0

966

Conformity VALID_GPS_LONG_MAX

88.9

967

Conformity VALID_GPS_LONG_MIN

0

Error

Error

Error

Warning

Warning

Warning

Error

Error

Error

Warning

Warning

Warning

Error

Error

Error

Error

Error

968

Conformity VALID_NA_GPS_LAT

CODE_NA

Warning

969

Conformity VALID_NA_GPS_LONG

CODE_NA

Warning

970

Uniformity CACO3_PH_M_2009

971

Uniformity CACO3_PH_M_2012

3

3

Warning

Warning

Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting
range.
Minimum PH_H2O value below reporting
range.
DMT Soil Label without correspondence in
Laboratory Soil ID data.
DMT Soil Label without correspondence in
Laboratory Soil ID data.
DMT Soil Label without correspondence in
Laboratory Soil ID data.
Ambiguous link between DMT Soil Label and
Laboratory Soil ID.
Ambiguous link between DMT Soil Label and
Laboratory Soil ID.
Ambiguous link between DMT Soil Label and
Laboratory Soil ID.
Laboratory Soil ID without correspondence in
DMT Soil Label data.
Laboratory Soil ID without correspondence in
DMT Soil Label data.
Laboratory Soil ID without correspondence in
DMT Soil Label data.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid code for E/W.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid maximum x-coordinate
of point.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid minimum x-coordinate
of point.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid maximum y-coordinate
of point.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid minimum y-coordinate
of point.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid code for N/A of point
latitude.
LUCAS DMT: Invalid code for N/A of point
longitude.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral
soil with high PH_CACL2.

136

RULE_SOURCE

Source

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

5.8.2.LUCAS_Final_Test_Plan.pdf

Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
Requirement for reference to geograqphic co-
ordinates and land cover.
LUCAS Survey 2015 Record descriptor of CSV

Intrinsic requirement

Intrinsic requirement

Intrinsic requirement

Intrinsic requirement

LUCAS Survey 2015 Record descriptor of CSV

LUCAS Survey 2015 Record descriptor of CSV

ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

972

Uniformity CACO3_PH_M_2015_G1

973

Uniformity CACO3_PH_M_2015_G2

974

Uniformity CACO3_PH_M_2015_G3

975

Uniformity CACO3_PH_M_2015_G4

976

Uniformity CACO3_PH_O_2009

977

Uniformity CACO3_PH_O_2012

978

Uniformity CACO3_PH_O_2015_G1

979

Uniformity CACO3_PH_O_2015_G2

980

Uniformity CACO3_PH_O_2015_G3

Uniformity CACO3_PH_O_2015_G4

Uniformity

Uniformity

Uniformity CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2009
Uniformity CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2012
CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2015
_G1
CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2015
_G2
CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2015
_G3
CN_RATIO_MAX_M_2015
_G4

Uniformity

Uniformity

Uniformity CN_RATIO_MAX_O_2009
Uniformity CN_RATIO_MAX_O_2012

Uniformity

991

Uniformity

992

Uniformity

Uniformity

CN_RATIO_MAX_O_2015_
G1
CN_RATIO_MAX_O_2015_
G2
CN_RATIO_MAX_O_2015_
G3
CN_RATIO_MAX_O_2015_
G4

Uniformity CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2009
Uniformity CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2012

981

982
983

984

985

986

987

988
989

990

993

994
995

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

100
100

100

100

100

100

75
75

75

75

75

75

5
5

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning
Warning

Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for mineral
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic
soil with high PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly low CACO3 value for organic
soil with high PH_CACL2.
C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning
Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly high for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning
Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

137

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

996

Uniformity

997

Uniformity

998

Uniformity

999

Uniformity

CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2015_
G1
CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2015_
G2
CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2015_
G3
CN_RATIO_MIN_M_2015_
G4

Uniformity CN_RATIO_MIN_O_2009
Uniformity CN_RATIO_MIN_O_2012

1000
1001

1002

Uniformity

1003

Uniformity

1004

Uniformity

1005

Uniformity

CN_RATIO_MIN_O_2015_
G1
CN_RATIO_MIN_O_2015_
G2
CN_RATIO_MIN_O_2015_
G3
CN_RATIO_MIN_O_2015_
G4

1006

Uniformity DIST_SOIL_POINT_2009

1007

Uniformity DIST_SOIL_POINT_2012

1008

Uniformity

1009

Uniformity

1010

Uniformity

1011

Uniformity

DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_
G1
DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_
G2
DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_
G3
DIST_SOIL_POINT_2015_
G4

1012

Uniformity MICRO_COOR_2009

count all = 1

Error

1013

Uniformity MICRO_COOR_2012

count all = 1

Error

Uniformity MICRO_COOR_2015

count all = 1

1014

1015
1016

1017

Uniformity OC_LOD_CACO3_2009
Uniformity OC_LOD_CACO3_2012

Uniformity

1018

Uniformity

OC_LOD_CACO3_2015_G
1
OC_LOD_CACO3_2015_G
2

5

5

5

5

3
3

3

3

3

3

100

100

100

100

100

100

2
6

2

2

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for mineral soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning
Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf
C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

C/N Ratio unexpectedly low for organic soil. List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Error

Error
Error

Error

Distance between 2009 GPS co-ordinates
and OBS_DIST exceeds limit.
Distance between 2012 GPS co-ordinates
and OBS_DIST exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates
and OBS_DIST exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates
and OBS_DIST exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates
and OBS_DIST exceeds limit.
Distance between 2015 GPS co-ordinates
and OBS_DIST exceeds limit.
Ambiguous link between 2009 LAB, DMT and
Micro data.
Ambiguous link between 2012 LAB, DMT and
Micro data.
Ambiguous link between 2015 LAB, DMT and
Micro data.
OC value below LOD of CACO3.
OC value below LOD of CACO3.

OC value below LOD of CACO3.

Manual for Soil Component sampling.

Manual for Soil Component sampling.

Manual for Soil Component sampling.

Manual for Soil Component sampling.

Manual for Soil Component sampling.

Manual for Soil Component sampling.

Referential integrity.

Referential integrity.

Referential integrity.

Implicit rule.
Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Error

OC value below LOD of CACO3.

Implicit rule.

138

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

1019

Uniformity

1020

Uniformity

1021

Uniformity

1022

Uniformity

1023

Uniformity

1024

Uniformity

1025

Uniformity

1026

Uniformity

1027

Uniformity

1028

Uniformity

OC_LOD_CACO3_2015_G
3
OC_LOD_CACO3_2015_G
4
MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015
_G1
MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015
_G2
MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015
_G3
MIN_TO_ORG_2009_2015
_G4
ORG_TO_MIN_2009_2015
_G1
ORG_TO_MIN_2009_2015
_G2
ORG_TO_MIN_2009_2015
_G3
ORG_TO_MIN_2009_2015
_G4

1029

Uniformity PH_CACO3_M_2009

1030

Uniformity PH_CACO3_M_2012

1031

Uniformity PH_CACO3_M_2015_G1

1032

Uniformity PH_CACO3_M_2015_G2

1033

Uniformity PH_CACO3_M_2015_G3

1034

Uniformity PH_CACO3_M_2015_G4

1035

Uniformity PH_CACO3_O_2009

1036

Uniformity PH_CACO3_O_2012

1037

Uniformity PH_CACO3_O_2015_G1

1038

Uniformity PH_CACO3_O_2015_G2

1039

Uniformity PH_CACO3_O_2015_G3

2

2

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

15

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Error

OC value below LOD of CACO3.

Implicit rule.

Error

OC value below LOD of CACO3.

Implicit rule.

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Change from mineral soil to organic
substrate.
Change from mineral soil to organic
substrate.
Change from mineral soil to organic
substrate.
Change from mineral soil to organic
substrate.
Change from organic substrate to mineral
soil type.
Change from organic substrate to mineral
soil type.
Change from organic substrate to mineral
soil type.
Change from organic substrate to mineral
soil type.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for mineral
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic
soil with low PH_CACL2.

139

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

Implicit rule.

ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3
ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

1040

Uniformity PH_CACO3_O_2015_G4

1041

Uniformity PH_DIFF_2009

1042

Uniformity PH_DIFF_2012

1043

Uniformity PH_DIFF_2015_G1

1044

Uniformity PH_DIFF_2015_G2

1045

Uniformity PH_DIFF_2015_G3

1046

Uniformity PH_DIFF_2015_G4

1047

Uniformity

1048

Uniformity

1049

Uniformity

1050

Uniformity

1051

Uniformity

1052

Uniformity

1053

Uniformity

1054

Uniformity

CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_
G1
CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_
G2
CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_
G3
CNG_CACO3_2009_2015_
G4
CNG_CACO3_2012_2015_
G1
CNG_CACO3_2012_2015_
G2
CNG_CACO3_2012_2015_
G3
CNG_CACO3_2012_2015_
G4

1055

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G1

1056

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G2

1057

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G3

1058

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2009_2015_G4

1059

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2012_2015_G2

1060

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2012_2015_G3

3

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Unexpectedly high CACO3 value for organic
soil with low PH_CACL2.
Unexpected difference between PH_CACL2
and PH_H2O.
Unexpected difference between PH_CACL2
and PH_H2O.
Unexpected difference between PH_CACL2
and PH_H2O.
Unexpected difference between PH_CACL2
and PH_H2O.
Unexpected difference between PH_CACL2
and PH_H2O.
Unexpected difference between PH_CACL2
and PH_H2O.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CACO3 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.

140

RULE_SOURCE

Source

ICP_Manual_2016_01_part16.pdf, paragraph
3.3.2.2.3

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

1061

Uniformity CNG_CEC_2012_2015_G4

1062

Uniformity CNG_CEC_212_2015_G1

1063

Uniformity CNG_CF_2009_2015_G3

1064

Uniformity CNG_CF_2012_2015_G3

1065

Uniformity

1066

Uniformity

CNG_CLAY_2009_2015_G
3
CNG_CLAY_2012_2015_G
3

1067

Uniformity CNG_K_2009_2015_G1

1068

Uniformity CNG_K_2009_2015_G2

1069

Uniformity CNG_K_2009_2015_G3

1070

Uniformity CNG_K_2009_2015_G4

1071

Uniformity CNG_K_2012_2015_G1

1072

Uniformity CNG_K_2012_2015_G2

1073

Uniformity CNG_K_2012_2015_G3

1074

Uniformity CNG_K_2012_2015_G4

1075

Uniformity CNG_N_2009_2015_G1

1076

Uniformity CNG_N_2009_2015_G2

1077

Uniformity CNG_N_2009_2015_G3

1078

Uniformity CNG_N_2009_2015_G4

1079

Uniformity CNG_N_2012_2015_G1

1080

Uniformity CNG_N_2012_2015_G2

1081

Uniformity CNG_N_2012_2015_G3

20

20

10

10

10

10

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CEC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CF not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CF not within expected
range.
Temporal change of CLAY not within
expected range.
Temporal change of CLAY not within
expected range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of K not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of N not within expected
range.

141

RULE_SOURCE

Source

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

C1-Soil-3 (FL)_soil ring test 2009_report
4329_1006.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

C1-Soil-3 (FL)_soil ring test 2009_report
4329_1006.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

1082

Uniformity CNG_N_2012_2015_G4

1083

Uniformity CNG_OC2009_2015_G3

1084

Uniformity CNG_OC2009_2015_G4

1085

Uniformity CNG_OC2012_2015_G3

1086

Uniformity CNG_OC2012_2015_G4

1087

Uniformity CNG_OC_2009_2015_G1

1088

Uniformity CNG_OC_2009_2015_G2

1089

Uniformity CNG_OC_2012_2015_G1

1090

Uniformity CNG_OC_2012_2015_G2

1091

Uniformity

1092

Uniformity

1093

Uniformity

1094

Uniformity

1095

Uniformity

1096

Uniformity

1097

Uniformity

1098

Uniformity

1099

Uniformity

1100

Uniformity

1101

Uniformity

1102

Uniformity

CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_20
15_G1
CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_20
15_G2
CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_20
15_G3
CNG_PH_CACL2_2009_20
15_G4
CNG_PH_CACL2_2012_20
15_G1
CNG_PH_CACL2_2012_20
15_G2
CNG_PH_CACL2_2012_20
15_G3
CNG_PH_CACL2_2012_20
15_G4
CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015
_G1
CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015
_G2
CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015
_G3
CNG_PH_H2O_2009_2015
_G4

20

20

20

15

15

20

20

15

15

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Temporal change of N not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of OC not within expected
range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_CACL2 not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.

142

RULE_SOURCE

Source

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

Data Evaluation of LUCAS Soil Survey Laboratory Data
Survey 2009, 2012 and 2015

CHECK

RANGE

SEVERITY CHECK

ID

Step

Label

Limit

Level

Message

RULE_SOURCE

Source

1103

Uniformity

1104

Uniformity

1105

Uniformity

1106

Uniformity

CNG_PH_H2O_2012_2015
_G1
CNG_PH_H2O_2012_2015
_G2
CNG_PH_H2O_2012_2015
_G3
CNG_PH_H2O_2012_2015
_G4

1107

Uniformity CNG_P_2009_2015_G1

1108

Uniformity CNG_P_2009_2015_G2

1109

Uniformity CNG_P_2009_2015_G3

1110

Uniformity CNG_P_2009_2015_G4

1111

Uniformity CNG_P_2012_2015_G1

1112

Uniformity CNG_P_2012_2015_G2

1113

Uniformity CNG_P_2012_2015_G3

1114

Uniformity CNG_P_2012_2015_G4

1115

Uniformity

1116

Uniformity

1117

Uniformity

1118

Uniformity

CNG_SAND_2009_2015_
G3
CNG_SAND_2012_2015_
G3
CNG_SILT_2009_2015_G
3
CNG_SILT_2012_2015_G
3

10

10

10

10

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

10

10

10

10

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Warning

Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of PH_H2O not within
expected range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of P not within expected
range.
Temporal change of SAND not within
expected range.
Temporal change of SAND not within
expected range.
Temporal change of SILT not within expected
range.
Temporal change of SILT not within expected
range.

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

List_of_checks_2009_10_21_V2.pdf

143

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU

In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the
address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this
service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at:
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en).

K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
0
9
2
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/791714

ISBN 978-92-76-15648-2