Analysis of Four Delineation Methods to Identify Potential Management Zones in a Commercial Potato Field in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management zones (MZs) are delineated areas within an agricultural field with relatively homogenous soil properties, and therefore similar crop fertility requirements. Consequently, such MZs can often be used for site-specific management of crop production inputs. This study evaluated the effectiveness of four classification methods for delineating MZs in an 8-ha commercial potato field located in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) at two depths from a commercial Veris sensor were used to delineate MZs using three classification methods without spatial constraints (i.e., fuzzy k-means, ISODATA and hierarchical) and one with spatial constraints (i.e., spatial segmentation method). Soil samples (0.0–0.15 m depth) from 104 sampling points was used to measure soil physical and chemical properties and their spatial variation in the field were used as reference data to evaluate four delineation methods. Significant Pearson correlations between ECa and soil properties were obtained (0.22 < r < 0.85). The variance reduction indicated that two to three MZs were optimal for representing the field’s spatial variability of soil properties. For two MZs, most soil physical and chemical properties differed significantly between MZs for all four delineation methods. For three MZs, there was greater discrimination among MZs for several soil properties for the spatial segmentation-based method compared with other delineation methods. Moreover, consideration of the spatial coordinates of the data improved the delineation of MZs and thereby increased the number of significant differences among MZs for individual soil properties. Therefore, the spatial segmentation method had the greatest efficiency in delineation of MZs from statistical and agronomic perspectives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".