Advancing toward Personalized and Precise Phosphorus Prescription Models for Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) through Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional approach of prescribing phosphate fertilizer solely based on soil test P (STP) has faced criticism from scientists and agriculturists pushing farmers to seek phosphate fertilization models that incorporate additional factors. By embracing integrated approaches, farmers can receive more precise recommendations that align with their specific conditions and fertilization techniques. This study aimed to utilize artificial intelligence prediction to replicate soybean response curves to fertilizer by integrating edaphic and climatic factors. Literature data on soybean response to P fertilization were collected, and the Random Forest (RF) algorithm was applied to predict response curves. The predictions utilized seven predictors: P dose, STP, soil pH, texture, % OM, precipitation, and P application methods. These predictions were compared to the traditional STP-based approach. The STP-based P prescription models exhibited extremely low robustness values (R2) of 1.53% and 0.88% for the PBray-1 and POlsen diagnostic systems, respectively. In contrast, implementing the RF algorithm allowed for more accurate prediction of yield gains at various P doses, achieving robustness values of 87.4% for the training set and 60.9% for the testing set. The prediction errors remained below 10% throughout the analysis. Implementing artificial intelligence modeling enabled the study to achieve precise predictions of the optimal P dose and customized fertilization recommendations tailored to farmers’ specific soil conditions, climate, and individual fertilization practices.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".