Effect of training sample size, sampling design and prediction model on soil mapping with proximal sensing data for precision liming
-
Published:2024-02-24
Issue:3
Volume:25
Page:1529-1555
-
ISSN:1385-2256
-
Container-title:Precision Agriculture
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Precision Agric
Author:
Schmidinger Jonas,Schröter Ingmar,Bönecke Eric,Gebbers Robin,Ruehlmann Joerg,Kramer Eckart,Mulder Vera L.,Heuvelink Gerard B. M.,Vogel Sebastian
Abstract
AbstractSite-specific estimation of lime requirement requires high-resolution maps of soil organic carbon (SOC), clay and pH. These maps can be generated with digital soil mapping models fitted on covariates observed by proximal soil sensors. However, the quality of the derived maps depends on the applied methodology. We assessed the effects of (i) training sample size (5–100); (ii) sampling design (simple random sampling (SRS), conditioned Latin hypercube sampling (cLHS) and k-means sampling (KM)); and (iii) prediction model (multiple linear regression (MLR) and random forest (RF)) on the prediction performance for the above mentioned three soil properties. The case study is based on conditional geostatistical simulations using 250 soil samples from a 51 ha field in Eastern Germany. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were used to evaluate model performances. Results show that with increasing training sample sizes, relative improvements of RMSE and CCC decreased exponentially. We found the lowest median RMSE values with 100 training observations i.e., 1.73%, 0.21% and 0.3 for clay, SOC and pH, respectively. However, already with a sample size of 10, models of moderate quality (CCC > 0.65) were obtained for all three soil properties. cLHS and KM performed significantly better than SRS. MLR showed lower median RMSE values than RF for SOC and pH for smaller sample sizes, but RF outperformed MLR if at least 25–30 or 75–100 soil samples were used for SOC or pH, respectively. For clay, the median RMSE was lower with RF, regardless of sample size.
Funder
Leibniz-Institut für Agrartechnik und Bioökonomie e.V. (ATB)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference59 articles.
1. Adamchuk, V. I., Morgan, M. T., & Lowenberg-Deboer, J. M. (2004). A model for agro-economic analysis of soil pH mapping. Precision Agriculture, 5, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PRAG.0000022357.28154.eb 2. Adamchuk, V. I., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Marx, D. B., & Samal, A. K. (2011). Using targeted sampling to process multivariate soil sensing data. Geoderma, 163, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.04.004 3. Bertsimas, D., & Tsitsiklis, J. (1993). Simulated annealing. Statistical Science, 8(4), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011077 4. Biswas, A., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Sampling designs for validating digital soil maps: A review. Pedosphere, 28, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60001-3 5. Bönecke, E., Meyer, S., Vogel, S., Schröter, I., Gebbers, R., Kling, C., Kramer, E., Lück, K., Nagel, A., Philipp, G., Gerlach, F., Palme, S., Scheibe, D., Zieger, K., & Rühlmann, J. (2021). Guidelines for precise lime management based on high-resolution soil pH, texture and SOM maps generated from proximal soil sensing data. Precision Agriculture, 22, 493–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09766-8
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|