Temporal Stability of Management Zone Patterns: Case Study with Contact and Non-Contact Soil Electrical Conductivity Sensors in Dryland Pastures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision agriculture (PA) intends to validate technological tools that capture soil and crop spatial variability, which constitute the basis for the establishment of differentiated management zones (MZs). Soil apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) sensors are commonly used to survey soil spatial variability. It is essential for surveys to have temporal stability to ensure correct medium- and long-term decisions. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal stability of MZ patterns using different types of ECa sensors, namely an ECa contact-type sensor (Veris 2000 XA, Veris Technologies, Salina, KS, USA) and an electromagnetic induction sensor (EM-38, Geonics Ltd., Mississauga, ON, Canada). These sensors were used in four fields of dryland pastures in the Alentejo region of Portugal. The first survey was carried out in October 2018, and the second was carried out in September 2020. Data processing involved synchronizing the geographic coordinates obtained using the two types of sensors in each location and establishing MZs based on a geostatistical analysis of elevation and ECa data. Although the basic technologies have different principles (contact versus non-contact sensors), the surveys were carried out at different soil moisture conditions and were temporarily separated (about 2 years); the ECa measurements showed statistically significant correlations in all experimental fields (correlation coefficients between 0.449 and 0.618), which were reflected in the spatially stable patterns of the MZ maps (averaging 52% of the total area across the four experimental fields). These results provide perspectives for future developments, which will need to occur in the creation of algorithms that allow the spatial variability and temporal stability of ECa to be validated through smart soil sampling and analysis to generate recommendations for sustained soil amendment or fertilization.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".