4.4 Article

Estimating a Soil Quality Index with VNIR Reflectance Spectroscopy

期刊

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
卷 79, 期 2, 页码 637-649

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2014.09.0390

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sensor-based approaches to assessment and quantification of soil quality are important to facilitate cost-effective, site-specific soil management. The objective of this research was to evaluate the ability of visible, near-infrared (VNIR) diffuse reflectance spectroscopy to estimate multiple soil quality indicators (SQIs) and Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) scores. A total of 234 soil samples from two depths (0-5 and 5-15 cm) were obtained in 2008 from 17 agricultural management systems located in the Central Claypan Region of Missouri, USA. The VNIR spectra were obtained on oven-dried and field-moist soil, and calibration models were developed with partial least squares (PLS) regression. Models were evaluated using the coefficient of determination (R-2), residual prediction deviation (RPD), and the ratio of prediction error to interquartile range (RPIQ). The most reliable estimation results were achieved using oven-dry soil for organic C, beta-glucosidase, total N, the biological SMAF score, the organic C score, and the beta-glucosidase score (R-2 >= 0.76, RPD >= 2.0, RPIQ >= 3.2). Using field-moist soils, the most reliable estimation results were achieved for organic C and the organic C score (R-2 >= 0.80, RPD >= 2.1, RPIQ >= 3.6). Incorporating the bulk density score and P score as auxiliary variables with the VNIR spectra improved estimation of the overall SMAF soil quality score for oven-dry soil (R-2 = 0.76, RPD = 2.0, RPIQ = 3.1) and field-moist soil (R-2 = 0.75, RPD = 1.9, RPIQ = 2.8). These results demonstrate the robustness of VNIR estimation of biological SQIs, and illustrate the potential for rapid, in-field quantification of soil quality by fusing VNIR sensors with auxiliary data obtained from complementary sensors or supplemental analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据