The Effect of Sample Size and Data Numbering on Precision of Calibration Model to predict Soil Properties

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 18, Volume 7, Issue 2 - Serial Number 14, 2017, Pages 536-545   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v7i2.57501

Author

H. Mohamadi-Monavar^*

Mechanics of Biosytem Engineering, Department of Agriculture, Bu-ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Precision agriculture (PA) is a technology that measures and manages within-field variability, such as physical and chemical properties of soil. The nondestructive and rapid VIS-NIR technology detected a significant correlation between reflectance spectra and the physical and chemical properties of soil. On the other hand, quantitatively predict of soil factors such as nitrogen, carbon, cation exchange capacity and the amount of clay in precision farming is very important. The emphasis of this paper is comparing different techniques of choosing calibration samples such as randomly selected method, chemical data and also based on PCA. Since increasing the number of samples is usually time-consuming and costly, then in this study, the best sampling way -in available methods- was predicted for calibration models. In addition, the effect of sample size on the accuracy of the calibration and validation models was analyzed.
Materials and Methods
Two hundred and ten soil samples were collected from cultivated farm located in Avarzaman in Hamedan province, Iran. The crop rotation was mostly potato and wheat. Samples were collected from a depth of 20 cm above ground and passed through a 2 mm sieve and air dried at room temperature. Chemical analysis was performed in the soil science laboratory, faculty of agriculture engineering, Bu-ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran. Two Spectrometer (AvaSpec-ULS 2048- UV-VIS) and (FT-NIR100N) were used to measure the spectral bands which cover the UV-Vis and NIR region (220-2200 nm). Each soil sample was uniformly tiled in a petri dish and was scanned 20 times. Then the pre-processing methods of multivariate scatter correction (MSC) and base line correction (BC) were applied on the raw signals using Unscrambler software. The samples were divided into two groups: one group for calibration 105 and the second group was used for validation. Each time, 15 samples were selected randomly and tested the accuracy of models, then other15 samples were added randomly to the previous set and it was done continuously. Finally, seven groups (15, 30... 105) were placed in each category.
Results and Discussion
All regression models on the whole pre-processed soil spectra were obtained in absorption mode. By increasing the number of samples in the calibration set of random group, RMSE was decreased from 0.2 to 0.13 nonlinearly. RMSE in the chemical test was also decreased almost linearly from 0.17 to 0.11. At the same time, R² and RPD were increased from 0.46 to 0.72 and from 1.3 to 2.0 respectively. Finally, in categories based on PCA, the RMSE fell down almost linearly (0.19-0.13). Potassium prediction model with the least amount of R² (0.48) and phosphorus with highest number of errors (RMSE = 5.28) were the weakest models in whole data. Other properties of the soil had a higher coefficient of determination (R²> 0.5). Therefore, prediction models had acceptable accuracy. At least 77, 105 and 105 samples are required for precise calibration model of OC, nitrogen and pH respectively. Due to the different conditions of farms, comparing these results with previous findings is very complex. Furthermore, model accuracy did not improve by increasing data of calibration models to the total number of samples. While in previous studies, more precise model was calibrated by considering the entire data sets. Among all factors of soil, acidity has little dependence on the other soil properties. The pH modeling is also confirmed by Moros (2009) however, the more error was reported here. There is no certain pH range in the NIR spectra, and usually it is distinguishable from the other properties of the soil (Kuang and Mouazen, 2011).
Conclusion
Spectroscopic methods exhibited good potential for detecting soil properties. MSC and BC can effectively remove irrelevant information to improve prediction accuracy. Using different methods to select numbers of data for the calibration models presented similar results, but in the meantime PCA technique provided the best answer. Supplementary, the ever-increasing number of data does not always improve modeling accuracy. It is better to choose numbers of data according to principal components (PCs) of PCA to obtain acceptable answer. It must be noted that every crops requires a specific soil and nutrients, so it is necessary to develop models for other soil properties.

Keywords

Calibration model; Number of sample; Soil properties; Visible and NIR spectroscopy

References

1. Afzali, M. J., and E. Javaheri. 2013. The effect of tillage on soil penetration resistance, technical indices and yield of wheat. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 3 (1): 24-31. (In Farsi).

2. Ahmadi Moghadam, P., L. Eftekhari, A. Mardani, and H. Khodaverdilou. 2014. Determination the amount of plant debris, physical and mechanical properties of soil in different tillage systems. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 6 (1): 102-113. (In Farsi).

3. Aïchi, H., Y. Fouad, C. Walter, R. A. Viscarra Rossel, Z. Lili-Chabaane, and M. Sanaa. 2009. Regional predictions of soil organic carbon spectral reflectance measurements. Biosystems Engineering 104 (3): 442-446.

4. Baradaran Motie, J., M. H. Aghkhani. M. H. Abaspour Fard, and A. Lakzian. 2011. Construction and assessment the on the go mapping system of soil electrical conductivity. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Engineering 1 (1): 25-33. (In Farsi).

5. Brown, D. J., R. S. Bricklemyer, and P. R. Miller. 2005. Validation requirements for diffuse reflectance soil characterization models with a case study of VNIR soil C prediction in Montana. Geoderma 129 (3-4): 251-267.

6. Chang, C. W., and D. A. Laird. 2002. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy analysis of soil C and N. Soil Science 167 (2): 110-116.

7. Chodak, M. 2008. Application of near infrared spectroscopy for analysis of soils, litter and plant materials. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 17 (5): 631-642.

8. Dunn, B. W., H. G. Beecher, G. D. Batten, and S. Ciavarella. 2002. The potential of near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for soil analysis- a case study from the Riverine Plain of south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42 (5): 607-614.

9. Guerrero, C., R. Zornoza, I. Gomez, and J. Mataix-Beneyto. 2010. Spiking of NIR regional models using samples from target sites: effect of model size on prediction accuracy. Geoderma 158 (1-2): 66-77.

10. He, Y., H. Y. Song, A. G. Pereira, and A. H. Gomez. 2005. Measurements and analysis of soil nitrogen and organic matter content using near-infrared spectroscopy techniques. Journal of Zhejiang University B. 6B (11): 1081-1086.

11. Kuang, B., and A. M. Mouazen. 2011. Calibration of visible and near infrared spectroscopy for soil analysis at the field scale on three European farms. European Journal of Soil Science 62: 629-636.

12. Kuang, B. and A. M. Mouazen. 2012. Influence of the number of samples on prediction error of visible and near infrared spectroscopy of selected soil properties at the farm scale. European Journal of Soil Science 36: 421-429.

13. Ladoni, M., H. A. Bahrami, S. K. Alavipanah, and A. A. Norouzi. 2010. Estimating soil organic carbon from soil reflectance; a review. Precision Agriculture 11 (1): 82-99.

14. Matejovic, I. 1997. Determination of carbon and nitrogen in samples of various soils by the dry combustion. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 28 (17-18): 1499-1511.

15. McCleod, S. 1973. Studies on wet oxidation procedures for the determination of organic carbon in soil. In ‘Notes on soil techniques’. pp. 73-79. (CSIRO Division of Soils: Melbourne).

16. Mehra, O. P., and M. L. Jackson. 1960. Iron oxide removal from soils and clays by a dithionite-citrate system buffered with sodium bicarbonate. Clay. Clay. Miner 7: 317-327.

17. Mohan, L. A., C. Karunakaran, D. S. Jayas, and N. D. G. White. 2005. Classification of bulk cereals using visible and NIR reflectance characteristics. Biosystems Engineering 7 (7): 7-14.

18. Moros, J., M. J. Martinez-Sanchez, C. Perez-Sirvent, S. Garrigues, and M. de la Guardia. 2009. Testing of the Region of Murcia soils by near infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and chemometrics. Talanta 78: 388-398.

19. Reeves, J. B., and D. B. Smith. 2009. The potential of mid- and near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for determining major- and trace-element concentrations in soils from a geochemical survey of North America. Applied Geochemistry 24 (8): 1472-1481.

20. Sharif nasab, H., N. Abasi. 2015. Assessment the impact of nano-clay particles on some physical and mechanical properties of soil. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 6 (1): 250-258. (In Farsi).

21. Shepherd, K. D., and M. G. Walsh. 2002. Development of reflectance spectral libraries for characterization of soil properties. Soil Science Society of America 66 (3): 988-998.

22. Soltanpour, P. N., G. W. Johnson, S. M. Workman, and J. B. Jones. 1996. Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometry and Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3 Chemical Methods. Soil Science Society of America Inc. pp. 91-139.

23. Stenberg, B. 2010. Effects of soil sample pretreatments and standardized rewetting as interacted with sand classes on Vis–NIR predictions of clay and soil organic carbon. Geoderma 158 (1-2): 15-22.

24. Stenberg, B., R. A. Viscarra Rossel, A. M. Mouazen, and J. Wetterlind. 2010. Visible and Near Infrared Spectroscopy in Soil Science. Advances in Agronomy 107: 163-215.

25. Vasques, G. M., S. Grunwald, and J. O. Sickman. 2008. Comparison of multivariate methods for inferential modeling of soil carbon using visible/near infrared spectra. Geoderma 146 (1-2): 14-25.

26. Viscarra Rossel, R. A., D. J. J. Walvoort, A. B. McBratney, L. J. Janik, and J. O. Skjemstad. 2006. Visible, near-infrared, mid-infrared or combined diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for simultaneous assessment of various soil properties. Geoderma 131 (1-2): 59-75.

27. Viscarra Rossel, R. A., and A. B. McBratney. 2008. Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy as a tool for digital soil mapping. PP 165-172 in: Hartemink, A.E., A.B. McBratney, and L. Mendonça-Santos, (Eds.), Digital Soil Mapping with Limited Data. Developments in Soil Science series. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.

28. Wetterlind, J., and B. Stenberg. 2010. Near-infrared spectroscopy for within-field soil characterization: small local calibrations compared with national libraries spiked with local samples. European Journal of Soil Science 61 (6): 823-843.

29. Wetterlind, J., B. Stenberg, and M. Söderström. 2010. Increased sample point density in farm soil mapping by local calibration of visible and near infrared prediction models. Geoderma 156 (3-4): 152-160.

30. Wold, S., H. Antti, F. Lindgren, and J. Ohman. 1998. Orthogonal signal correction of near-infrared spectra. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 44: 175-185.