Integrating UAV-LiDAR and Field Experiments to Survey Soil Erosion Drivers in Citrus Orchards Using an Exploratory Machine Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citrus orchards are especially vulnerable owing to low inter-row vegetation cover, and frequent tillage. Here, we combine controlled field experiments with proximal remote sensing–derived geomorphometric variables and machine learning (ML) to identify key factors of erosion in a Mediterranean climate citrus plantation located close to Seville and the National Park of Doñana (Southern Spain) on Gleyic Regosols (clayic, arenic). We conducted rainfall simulations with 30 s sampling, measured infiltration (mini-disc infiltrometer), saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs; Guelph permeameter), compaction (penetrologger), and soil respiration (gas analyzer) at multiple points, and derived high resolution morphometric indices from proximal sensing (UAV-LiDAR). Linear models and Random Forests were trained to explain three responses: soil loss, sediment concentration (SC), and runoff. Results show that soil loss is most strongly associated with maximum compaction and Kfs (multiple regression: R2 = 0.68; adjusted R2 = 0.52; p = 0.063), while SC increases with surface compaction and exhibits weak relationships with topographic metrics. Runoff decreases with average infiltration, which is related to compaction (β = −4.83 ± 2.38; R2 = 0.34; p = 0.077). Diagnostic checks indicate centered residuals with mild heteroscedasticity and a few high leverage observations. Random Forests captured part of the variance for soil loss (≈29%) but performed poorly for runoff, consistent with limited sample size and modest nonlinear signal. Morphometric analysis revealed gentle relief but pronounced convergent–divergent patterns that modulate hydrological connectivity. There were strong differences in the experiments conducted close to the trees and in the tractor trails. We conclude that compaction and near surface hydraulic properties are the most influential and measurable controls of erosion at plot scale and the UAV-LiDAR could not give us extra-insights. We highlight that integrating standardized field protocols with proximal morphometrics and ML can be the best method to prioritize a small set of explanatory variables, helping to reduce experimental effort while maintaining explanatory power.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".