MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409872409 · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110448

Evaluation and estimation of boreal podzol soil nutrient concentrations using electromagnetic induction sensors

2025· article· en· W4409872409 on OpenAlexafffund
Golam Rabbani, C. M. Smeaton, Mumtaz Cheema, Lakshman Galagedara

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers and Electronics in Agriculture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicScientific Research Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNewfoundland and LabradorNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of NewfoundlandResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsPodzolEstimationEnvironmental scienceTaigaNutrientSoil nutrientsBorealSoil scienceElectromagnetic inductionGeologyEcologySoil waterEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Non-destructive approach to predict soil available N and P under different land uses. • Multi-coil EMI sensor performed well compared to multi-frequency for estimating soil NH 4 + , NO 3 − and PO 4 3− concentration. • Soil water content was a major driving factor in predicting soil nutrients. • Soil nutrient management can be much easier with EMI sensors than traditional assessments. Monitoring the spatial variability of soil properties by intrusive methods can be complicated and time-consuming; nevertheless, digital mapping of apparent electrical conductivity (EC a ) can assist in the investigation of shallow podzol soils. We hypothesized that EC a measured as a soil proxy using electromagnetic induction (EMI) sensors can be used to estimate spatiotemporal variability of soil nutrients. This study evaluated the relationship between EC a and selected soil nutrients (ammonium – NH 4 + , nitrate – NO 3 − and orthophosphate – PO 4 3− ) and developed regression models to predict those nutrients. Multi-coil (MC) and multi-frequency (MF) EMI sensors were selected to predict nutrients within two land uses (grassland – GL and agricultural land – AL). The study revealed that MC-EMI responded statistically significantly (p-value < 0.05) relative to MF-EMI to correlate with soil NH 4 + , NO 3 − and PO 4 3− . Although highly significant correlations (p < 0.001) were observed between EC a values and nutrients, simple linear regression (SLR) models suggested nutrients did not effectively explain the EC a variations (low coefficient of determination and high root mean square error). Multiple linear regression (MLR) models were more effective than SLR in representing EC a with the inclusion of saturation percentage and bulk density with each nutrient. MC EMI-based MLR models provided better nutrient predictions than the MF EMI sensor, possibly due to the sensor’s sampling depth differences and sensitivity to moisture availability in the soil. The study also revealed that if textural variability and organic matter content remain temporally stable, soil water content acts as the main driving factor for both EC a and nutrient variability. While these results suggest the potential use of EMI sensors to rapidly assess the spatial and temporal variability of podzol soil nutrients; further research on different agronomic treatments and their effect on EC a and soil nutrient relation is required to improve nutrient prediction accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers and Electronics in AgricultureSame topicScientific Research Methodologies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207