Assessing Soil Prediction Distributions for Forest Management Using Digital Soil Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Texture, soil organic matter (SOM), and soil depth (SoD) are crucial properties in forest management because they can supply spatial information on forest site productivity and guide fertilizer applications. However, soil properties possess an inherent uncertainty that must be mapped to enhance decision making in management applications. Most digital soil mapping predictions primarily concentrate on the mean of the distribution, often neglecting the estimation of local uncertainty in soil properties. Additionally, there is a noticeable scarcity of practical soil examples to demonstrate the prediction uncertainty for the benefit of forest managers. In this study, following a digital soil mapping (DSM) approach, a Quantile Regression Forest (QRF) model was developed to generate high-resolution maps and their uncertainty regarding the texture, SoD, and SOM, which were expressed as standard deviation (Sd) values. The results showed that the SOM (R2 = 0.61, RMSE = 2.03% and with an average Sd = 50%), SoD (R2 = 0.74 and RMSE = 19.4 cm), clay (R2 = 0.63, RMSE = 10.5% and average Sd = 29%), silt (R2 = 0.59, RMSE = 6.26% and average Sd = 33%), and sand content (R2 = 0.55, RMSE = 9.49% and average Sd = 35%) were accurately estimated for forest plantations in central south Chile. A practical demonstration of precision fertilizer application, utilizing the predictive distribution of SOM, effectively showcased how uncertainty in soil attributes can be leveraged to benefit forest managers. This approach holds potential for optimizing resource allocation and maximizing economic benefits.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".