## 4 Discussion
### Comparison with Existing Maps
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Region**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Source 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**PSF**} & **Mean (\%)** & **SD** & **Min (\%)2** & **Max (\%)2** & **Skew** & **Kurtosis** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{BQ} & \multirow{3}{*}{CDSL} & clay & 14.7 & 2.0 & 11.3 & 17.1 & \(-\)0.14 & \(-\)1.79 \\  & & silt & 39.6 & 3.5 & 32.7 & 44.7 & \(-\)0.36 & \(-\)1.07 \\  & & sand & 45.7 & 3.5 & 39.3 & 51.5 & \(-\)0.33 & \(-\)1.11 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{3}{*}{CSCD} & clay & 13.0 & 3.4 & 7.7 & 21.8 & 0.86 & 0.24 \\  & & silt & 41.2 & 8.6 & 28.9 & 53.9 & 0.31 & \(-\)1.62 \\  & & sand & 45.8 & 10.5 & 24.4 & 61.0 & \(-\)0.35 & \(-\)1.09 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{3}{*}{SG250} & clay & 18.6 & 1.4 & 14.7 & 21.5 & \(-\)0.09 & \(-\)0.24 \\  & & silt & 37.2 & 2.1 & 32.7 & 40.9 & \(-\)0.26 & \(-\)0.81 \\  & & sand & 44.2 & 1.8 & 39.5 & 48.0 & \(-\)0.33 & \(-\)0.34 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{3}{*}{ILR-RF} & clay & 8.8 & 1.7 & 5.4 & 12.6 & 0.03 & \(-\)0.79 \\  & & silt & 41.9 & 9.0 & 23.2 & 56.7 & \(-\)0.34 & \(-\)0.73 \\  & & sand & 49.3 & 9.9 & 32.5 & 67.0 & 0.14 & \(-\)0.93 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{WQ} & \multirow{3}{*}{CDSL} & clay & 14.4 & 1.7 & 12.3 & 17.9 & 0.56 & \(-\)1.24 \\  & & silt & 38.6 & 2.6 & 32.9 & 43.7 & 0.73 & 0.04 \\  & & sand & 47.0 & 2.1 & 39.6 & 51.6 & \(-\)1.47 & 3.07 \\ \cline{2-10}  & \multirow{3}{*}{CSCD} & clay & 15.6 & 2.0 & 10.4 & 22.6 & 1.79 & 6.37 \\  & & silt & 39.3 & 7.2 & 30.3 & 52.6 & 0.46 & \(-\)0.56 \\  & & sand & 45.2 & 7.4 & 28.6 & 54.5 & \(-\)0.45 & \(-\)0.44 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{WG} & \multirow{3}{*}{SG250} & clay & 19.8 & 1.6 & 16.3 & 23.4 & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)0.55 \\  & & silt & 41.5 & 2.3 & 34.8 & 46.3 & \(-\)0.23 & 0.01 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & sand & 38.7 & 1.9 & 35.5 & 43.4 & 0.47 & \(-\)0.30 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{ILR-RF} & clay & 13.6 & 4.0 & 6.3 & 21.3 & \(-\)0.03 & \(-\)0.93 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & silt & 9.3 & 2.0 & 5.3 & 13.1 & \(-\)0.23 & \(-\)0.61 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & sand & 77.0 & 5.8 & 66.3 & 87.8 & 0.06 & \(-\)0.88 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\dagger}\)CDSL represents for the China dataset of soil properties for land surface modeling, CSCD represents for the China soil characteristic dataset, SG250 represents for the SoilGrids250m dataset, and ILR-RF represents for the prediction given by this study. The same below. 2 SD stands for standard deviation, Min stands for the minimum and Max stands for the maximum.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of soil particle size fractions. soil maps. Therefore, both are needed from local to global scales. Thirdly, the initial spatial scales and spatial resolution of the datasets are different. This study was conducted at 1 km spatial resolution in two local areas. The CDSL and CSCD were developed in mainland China with a spatial resolution of 1 km, while SoilGrids250m was developed for the global scale with a spatial resolution of 250 m. When used at a local scale, they may not be able to depict the detailed information precisely. [PERSON] et al. (2020) found that the SoilGrids250m and polygon-linkage-based maps showed lower accuracy than their predictive maps of soil PSFs in China. Figure 6: Spatial distribution of soil particle size fractions (PSFs) at the BQ region using isometric log-ratio (ILR)-random forest (RF) and extracted from three soil datasets.