Estimating soil water content from surface digital image gray level measurements under visible spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zhu, Y., Wang, Y., Shao, M. and Horton, R. 2011. Estimating soil water content from surface digital image gray level measurements under visible spectrum. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 69–76. Determining soil water content (SWC) is fundamental for soil science, ecology and hydrology. Many methods are put forward to measure SWC, such as drying soil samples, neutron probes, time domain reflectrometry (TDR) and remote sensing. Sampling and drying soil is time-consuming. A neutron probe cannot determine SWC of surface soil accurately because neutrons escape when they are emitted near soil surface and TDR is, to some extent, influenced by soil salinity and temperature. Remote sensing can obtain SWC over a large area across a range of temporal and spatial scales. Complicated terrain and atmospheric conditions often make remote sensing data unreliable. Determining SWC from surface gray level (GL) measurements in the visible spectrum may have advantages over other remote sensing techniques, because surface soil images can be easily acquired by digital cameras, even with complicated landforms and meteorological conditions. However, few studies use this method, and further work is required to develop the ability of visible spectrum digital images to accurately estimate SWC. In this study, 42 soil samples were collected to investigate the relationship between surface GL and SWC using computer processing of soil surface images acquired by a digital camera. After establishing an equation to describe this relationship, a simple calibrated model was developed. The calibrated model was validated by an independent set of 48 soil samples. The results indicate that surface GL was sensitive to SWC. There was a negative linear relationship between surface GL and the square of SWC for the 42 calibration soil samples (correlation coefficients >0.91). Based on this negative relationship, a model was established to estimate SWC from surface GL. The results of model validation showed the estimated SWCs by surface GL were very close to the measured SWCs (correlation coefficient=0.99 at a significant level of 0.01). Generally, SWC could be estimated from surface GL for a given soil, and the model could be used to quickly and accurately determineg SWC from surface GL measurements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".