Quantitative Study of the Effect of Water Content on Soil Texture Parameters and Organic Matter Using Proximal Visible—Near Infrared Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous monitoring of soil quality is a challenging task in agricultural activity. To meet this need, scientists have succeeded in developing a quick and inexpensive method to characterize soil properties. Thus, spectroscopy has become a promising method for quantifying soil parameters. However, this method remains sensitive to several factors such as water content (WC). The present study aims to quantify the effect of WC on the estimation of soil texture parameters (sand, silt, and clay) and organic matter (OM) using spectroscopy. Reflectance measurements in the laboratory on 68 soil samples were performed by varying the WC in each sample. The analysis revealed a significant influence of WC on spectra acquired from visible to near infrared (V/NIR) spectroscopy data and that spectra can be divided into two classes. To quantify the effect of WC, calibration/validation steps were performed on soil texture parameters and OM with and without taking WC into account. Calibration was performed using the partial least square regression algorithm, and the validation was assessed using four statistical evaluation indices (R2, Nash criterion (Nash), root-mean-square error (RMSE), and BIAS). Results showed a systematic increase in the accuracy of all studied soil particles when the WC is considered. Clay and OM were less influenced, while silt and sand were much more influenced by the WC. The study also highlighted that estimates of soil texture parameters using V/NIR data achieved relatively higher levels of accuracy (R2 > 0.80 and Nash > 0.80) than OM estimation (R2 = 0.83 and Nash = 0.78).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".