Predicting soil health properties across different agricultural land use systems using mid-infrared spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mid-infrared (MIR) - diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) combined with chemometrics offers a rapid, cost-effective approach for predicting soil properties, yet accuracy varies across soil attributes and validation methodologies. This study calibrated and validated partial least squares regression (PLSR) models for 30 soil health properties using MIR spectra (4000–600 cm−1) from 829 samples representing eight cropping systems in Nova Scotia, Canada. Models were assessed via two statistical techniques: an 80–20 random holdback split, and a leave group out cross validation (LGOCV) based on cropping system. Results demonstrated strong predictive performance for soil pH, total organic carbon, total nitrogen, aluminum, water stable aggregates, sand, and silt under both validation methods (RPIQ 2.2–3.7). Conversely, clay (averaged 12%) proved challenging to model. Labile nutrient fractions (ammonium, nitrate, total soluble nitrogen) and Mehlich-3 extractable nutrients (P2O5, K2O, sulfur, boron, copper, zinc) exhibited limited predictability (RPIQ < 2). Across all properties, validation method influenced accuracy, with the 80–20 split averaging 18.1% higher RPIQ for properties that outperformed LGOCV. The largest declines under LGOCV were for active carbon, respiration, ACE protein, cation exchange capacity, total base saturation, and available water content. Total organic carbon, total nitrogen, organic matter, sand, silt, and pH maintained strong predictive accuracy (RPIQ = 2.2–3.7) despite modest declines under LGOCV, while calcium, aluminum, and clay performed slightly better under LGOCV (RPIQ = 2.0–2.8). These findings highlight the risk of overestimating performance when cropping system heterogeneity is ignored and the value of group-based validation for assessing model robustness.
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".