MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210705141 · doi:10.1111/ejss.13220

Modelling soil water retention and water‐holding capacity with visible–near‐infrared spectra and machine learning

2022· article· en· W4210705141 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Baumann, Juhwan Lee, Thorsten Behrens, Asim Biswas, Johan Six, Gordon McLachlan, Raphael A. Viscarra Rossel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Soil Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCurtin University of TechnologyGrains Research and Development Corporation
KeywordsPermanent wilting pointPedotransfer functionSoil waterField capacitySoil scienceAvailable water capacityWater contentMean squared errorWater retentionEnvironmental scienceMathematicsBulk densityHydraulic conductivityGeologyGeotechnical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We need measurements of soil water retention (SWR) and available water capacity (AWC) to assess and model soil functions, but methods are time‐consuming and expensive. Our aim here was to investigate the modelling of AWC and SWR with visible–near‐infrared spectra (vis–NIR) and the machine‐learning method cubist . We used soils from 54 locations across Australian agricultural regions, from three depths: 0–15 cm, 15–30 cm and 30–60 cm. The volumetric water content of the samples and their vis–NIR spectra were measured at seven matric potentials from −1 kPa to −1500 kPa. We modelled the following: (i) AWC directly with the average spectra of the samples measured at different water contents, (ii) water contents at field capacity and permanent wilting point and calculated AWC from those estimates, (iii) AWC with spectra of air‐dried soils, and (iv) parameters of the Kosugi and van Genuchten SWR models, then reconstructed the SWR curves to calculate AWC. We compared the estimates with those from a local pedotransfer function (PTF) and an established Australian PTF. The accuracy of the spectroscopic approaches varied but was generally better than the PTFs. The spectroscopic methods are also more practical because they do not require additional soil properties for the modelling. The root‐mean squared‐error (RMSE) of the spectroscopic methods ranged from 0.033 cm 3 cm −3 to 0.059 cm 3 cm −3 . The RMSEs of the PTFs were 0.050 cm 3 cm −3 for the local and 0.077 cm 3 cm −3 for the general PTF. Spectroscopy with machine learning provides a rapid and versatile method for estimating the AWC and SWR characteristics of diverse agricultural soils. Highlights Soil available water capacity can be estimated with vis‐NIR specta. Parameters of water retention models can be estimated with vis‐NIR spectra. vis‐NIR spectroscopy performed better than pedotransfer functions. The results apply to a diverse range of soils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207