Delineation of management zones with measurements of soil apparent electrical conductivity in the southeastern pampas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peralta, N. R., Costa, J. L., Balzarini, M. and Angelini, H. 2013. Delineation of management zones with measurements of soil apparent electrical conductivity in the southeastern pampas. Can. J. Soil Sci. 93: 205–218. Site-specific management demands the identification of subfield regions with homogeneous characteristics (management zones). However, determination of subfield areas is difficult because of complex correlations and spatial variability of soil properties responsible for variations in crop yields within the field. We evaluated whether apparent electrical conductivity (EC a ) is a potential estimator of soil properties, and a tool for the delimitation of homogeneous zones. EC a mapping of a total of 647 ha was performed in four sites of Argentinean pampas, with two fields per site composed of several soil series. Soil properties and EC a were analyzed using principal components (PC)–stepwise regression and ANOVA. The PC–stepwise regression showed that clay, soil organic matter (SOM), cation exchange capacity (CEC) and soil gravimetric water content (θ g ) are key loading factors, for explaining the EC a (R 2 ≥0.50). In contrast, silt, sand, extract electrical conductivity (EC ext ), pH values and [Formula: see text]-N content were not able to explain the EC a . The ANOVA showed that EC a measurements successfully delimited three homogeneous soil zones associated with spatial distribution of clay, soil moisture, CEC, SOM content and pH. These results suggest that field-scale EC a maps have the potential to design sampling zones to implement site-specific management strategies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".