4.4 Article

Mid-infrared spectroscopy for prediction of soil health indicators in the United States

期刊

SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA JOURNAL
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 251-261

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/saj2.20009

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2017-67003-26481]
  2. Robert and Ida Gordon Family Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying the holistic notion of soil health requires a large suite of measurements spanning the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. The cost of measuring the full suite of soil health indicators via traditional methods is cost prohibitive for the spatial and temporal monitoring many land managers would like. Here we investigated the ability to make predictions of numerous soil health indicators from the large mid-infrared (MIR) spectral library developed by the National Soil Survey Center. We developed nationally applicable models with test-set validation coefficient of determination (R-2 ) > 0.80 for water retention (WT), bulk density (BD), texture (as percentages of sand, silt and clay), cation exchange capacity (CEC), exchangeable bases, base saturation (BS), electrical conductivity (EC), pH, soil organic carbon (SOC) and total nitrogen (TN). Using the memory-based learning (MBL) model, a locally weighted approach, we found that this database could also predict aggregate stability, plant available P and K with an R-2 > 0.70 on independent validation samples. Models for nitrate and micronutrients were less successful but these properties were only sparsely represented in the database. Two test cases were used to demonstrate the utility of MIR spectroscopy in providing a wealth of data for a fraction of the time and cost involved with traditional analyses. While MIR spectroscopy-based predictions may not always be appropriate for applications requiring very high levels of accuracy, results from this work and elsewhere suggest that this technology can replace, or at least supplement, traditional analyses for many purposes.

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