Estimation of soil water content using electromagnetic induction sensors under different land uses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The complex nature of podzolic soils makes investigating their subsurface challenging. Near-surface geophysical techniques, like electromagnetic induction (EMI), offer significant assistance in studying podzolic soils. Multi-coil (MC-EMI) and multi-frequency (MF-EMI) sensors were selected to maximize soil water content (SWC) prediction in this study. The objectives were to (i) compare apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) measurements from the MC and MF-EMI sensors under different land use conditions, (ii) investigate the spatial variation of ECa, SWC, texture, soil organic matter (SOM), and bulk density (BD) under different land use conditions, and (iii) use statistical and geostatistical analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of ECa measurements in characterizing SWC under different land use conditions, considering the texture, SOM, and BD contents. The study found that MC-EMI had statistically significant relations (p-value < 0.05) with SWC relative to the MF-EMI. Multiple linear regression (MLR) models were also shown to be more effective in representing SWC variations (higher coefficient of determination and lower root mean square error) than simple linear regression models. MC-EMI sensor provided better SWC predictions compared to the MF-EMI sensor, possibly due to larger sampling depths differences between time domain reflectometry measured SWC (SWCTDR) and MF-EMI sensor than those between SWCTDR and MC-EMI sensor. Lastly, cokriging of measured SWC was found to offer more accurate maps than cokriging of predicted SWC obtained from MLR across different land use conditions. The study has shown that EMI may not be highly effective for shallow depths, and ECa can be affected by various soil properties, making it difficult to extrapolate other parameters. However, EMI still shows promise as a reliable method for predicting SWC in boreal podzolic soils. Research into EMI’s usefulness for this purpose has yielded promising results, as indicated in this study. Further investigation is needed to fully harness the potential of this promising technique.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".