Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations
Abstract Geochemical mapping is a crucial tool that can provide valuable insights for a wide range of applications, including mineral resources prospecting, environmental impact assessment, geological process understanding, and climate change research. Despite its significance, geochemical mapping r...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-03-01
|
| Series: | Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011301 |
| _version_ | 1797205612963037184 |
|---|---|
| author | J. Wang R. Zuo |
| author_facet | J. Wang R. Zuo |
| author_sort | J. Wang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Geochemical mapping is a crucial tool that can provide valuable insights for a wide range of applications, including mineral resources prospecting, environmental impact assessment, geological process understanding, and climate change research. Despite its significance, geochemical mapping requires spatial modeling based on sparse, heterogeneous, and potentially inaccurate data sets. Moreover, the underlying geological processes are often imperfectly understood. Therefore, uncertainty quantification (UQ) is vital in geochemical mapping to ensure accurate and reliable results, ultimately facilitating well‐informed decision‐making. In this contribution, we distinguish two primary types of uncertainties: systemic and stochastic. We identify the key sources of uncertainties in geochemical mapping and review the techniques that have been employed or hold potential for uncertainty quantification, communication, visualization, and sensitivity analysis. This contribution also illustrates the general procedure of UQ in geochemical mapping by a case study of mapping geochemical anomalies associated with gold mineralization in northwestern Sichuan Province, China. We also explore potential strategies for mitigating the critical uncertainties, such as gathering more geochemical data, developing more effective models, enhancing our understanding of the geochemical dispersion process, or leveraging other thematic information or knowledge. Future research should prioritize addressing underexplored uncertainties and implementing more practical applications to validate the UQ procedure in geochemical mapping. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:53:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0264f29be30e4d569dd57e0df72c54a6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1525-2027 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T08:53:54Z |
| publishDate | 2024-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems |
| spelling | doaj.art-0264f29be30e4d569dd57e0df72c54a62024-04-16T08:35:30ZengWileyGeochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems1525-20272024-03-01253n/an/a10.1029/2023GC011301Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and RecommendationsJ. Wang0R. Zuo1College of Earth Sciences Chengdu University of Technology Chengdu ChinaState Key Laboratory of Geological Processes and Mineral Resources China University of Geosciences Wuhan ChinaAbstract Geochemical mapping is a crucial tool that can provide valuable insights for a wide range of applications, including mineral resources prospecting, environmental impact assessment, geological process understanding, and climate change research. Despite its significance, geochemical mapping requires spatial modeling based on sparse, heterogeneous, and potentially inaccurate data sets. Moreover, the underlying geological processes are often imperfectly understood. Therefore, uncertainty quantification (UQ) is vital in geochemical mapping to ensure accurate and reliable results, ultimately facilitating well‐informed decision‐making. In this contribution, we distinguish two primary types of uncertainties: systemic and stochastic. We identify the key sources of uncertainties in geochemical mapping and review the techniques that have been employed or hold potential for uncertainty quantification, communication, visualization, and sensitivity analysis. This contribution also illustrates the general procedure of UQ in geochemical mapping by a case study of mapping geochemical anomalies associated with gold mineralization in northwestern Sichuan Province, China. We also explore potential strategies for mitigating the critical uncertainties, such as gathering more geochemical data, developing more effective models, enhancing our understanding of the geochemical dispersion process, or leveraging other thematic information or knowledge. Future research should prioritize addressing underexplored uncertainties and implementing more practical applications to validate the UQ procedure in geochemical mapping.https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011301geochemical mappinguncertainty quantificationsensitivity |
| spellingShingle | J. Wang R. Zuo Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems geochemical mapping uncertainty quantification sensitivity |
| title | Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations |
| title_full | Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations |
| title_fullStr | Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations |
| title_full_unstemmed | Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations |
| title_short | Uncertainty Quantification in Geochemical Mapping: A Review and Recommendations |
| title_sort | uncertainty quantification in geochemical mapping a review and recommendations |
| topic | geochemical mapping uncertainty quantification sensitivity |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GC011301 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jwang uncertaintyquantificationingeochemicalmappingareviewandrecommendations AT rzuo uncertaintyquantificationingeochemicalmappingareviewandrecommendations |