Evaluation of Two Portable Hyperspectral-Sensor-Based Instruments to Predict Key Soil Properties in Canadian Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast with classic bench-top hyperspectral (multispectral)-sensor-based instruments (spectrophotometers), the portable ones are rugged, relatively inexpensive, and simple to use; therefore, they are suitable for field implementation to more closely examine various soil properties on the spot. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two portable spectrophotometers to predict key soil properties such as texture and soil organic carbon (SOC) in 282 soil samples collected from proportional fields in four Canadian provinces. Of the two instruments, one was the first of its kind (prototype) and was a mid-infrared (mid-IR) spectrophotometer operating between ~5500 and ~11,000 nm. The other instrument was a readily available dual-type spectrophotometer having a spectral range in both visible (vis) and near-infrared (NIR) regions with wavelengths ranging between ~400 and ~2220 nm. A large number of soil samples (n = 282) were used to represent a wide variety of soil textures, from clay loam to sandy soils, with a considerable range of SOC. These samples were subjected to routine laboratory soil analysis before both spectrophotometers were used to collect diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) measurements. After data collection, the mid-IR and vis-NIR spectra were randomly divided into calibration (70%) and validation (30%) sets. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was used with leave one out cross-validation techniques to derive the spectral calibrations to predict SOC, sand, and clay content. The performances of the calibration models were reevaluated on the validation set. It was found that sand content can be predicted more accurately using the portable mid-IR spectrophotometer and clay content is better predicted using the readily available dual-type vis-NIR spectrophotometer. The coefficients of determination (R2) and root mean squared error (RMSE) were determined to be most favorable for clay (0.82 and 78 g kg−1) and sand (0.82 and 103 g kg−1), respectively. The ability to predict SOC content precisely was not particularly good for the dataset of soils used in this study with an R2 and RMSE of 0.54 and 4.1 g kg−1. The tested method demonstrated that both portable mid-IR and vis-NIR spectrophotometers were comparable in predicting soil texture on a large soil dataset collected from agricultural fields in four Canadian provinces.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".