Proximal and Remote Sensing Data Integration to Assess Spatial Soil Heterogeneity in Wild Blueberry Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wild blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) are often cultivated uniformly despite significant within-field variations in topography and crop density. This study was conducted to relate apparent soil electrical conductivity (ECa), topographic attributes, and multi-spectral satellite imagery to fruit yield and soil attributes and evaluate the potential of site-specific management (SSM) of nutrients. Elevation and ECa at multiple depths were collected from two experimental fields (referred as FieldUnd, FieldFlat) in Normandin, Quebec, Canada. Soil samples were collected at two depths (0–0.05 m and 0.05–0.15 m) and analyzed for a range of soil properties. Statistical analyses of fruit yield, soil, and sensor data were used to characterize within-field variability. Fruit yield showed large variability in both fields (CVUnd = 54.4%, CVFlat = 56.5%), but no spatial dependence. However, several soil attributes showed considerable variability and moderate to strong spatial dependence. Elevation and the shallowest depths of both the Veris (0.3 m) and DUALEM (0.54 m) ECa sensors showed moderate to strong spatial dependence and correlated significantly to most soil properties in both study sites, indicating the feasibility of SSM. In place of management zone delineation, a quadrant analysis of the shallowest ECa depth vs. elevation provided four sensor combinations (scenarios) for theoretical field conditions. ANOVA and Tukey–Kramer’s post hoc test showed that the greatest differentiation of soil properties in both fields occurred between the combinations of high ECa/low elevation versus low ECa/high elevation. Vegetation indices (VIs) obtained from satellite data showed promise as a biomass indicator, and bare spots classified with satellite imagery in FieldUnd revealed significantly distinct soil properties. Combining proximal and multispectral data predicted within-field variations of yield-determining soil properties and offered three theoretical scenarios (high ECa/low elevation; low ECa/high elevation; bare spots) on which to base SSM. Future studies should investigate crop response to fertilization between the identified scenarios.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".