Which and how many soil sensors are ideal to predict key soil properties: A case study with seven sensors

• Fusing soil sensors improved the prediction accuracy and robustness. • Improvements from sensor fusion were subject to diminishing returns. • Data from gamma-ray- and near-infrared spectroscopy had the highest predictive power. • Incorporating remote sensing showed potential with some proximal soil sensors. Soil sensing enables rapid and cost-effective soil analysis. However, a single sensor often does not generate enough information to reliably predict a wide range of soil properties. Within a case-study, our objective was to identify how many and which combinations of soil sensors prove to be suitable for high-resolution soil mapping. On a subplot of an agricultural field showing a high spatial soil variability, six in-situ proximal soil sensors (PSSs) next to remote sensing (RS) data from Sentinel-2 were evaluated based on their capabilities to predict a set of soil properties including: soil organic carbon, pH, moisture as well as plant-available phosphorus, magnesium and potassium. The set of PSSs consisted of ion-selective pH electrodes, a capacitive soil moisture sensor, an apparent soil electrical conductivity measuring system as well as passive gamma-ray-, X-ray fluorescence- and near-infrared spectroscopy. All possible combinations of sensors were exhaustively evaluated and ranked based on their prediction performances using model stacking. Over all soil properties, data fusion demonstrated a considerable increase in prediction accuracy. Five out of six soil properties were predicted with an R 2 ≥ 0.80 with the best sensor fusion model. Nonetheless, the improvement derived from fusing an increasing number of PSSs was subject to diminishing returns. Sometimes adding more PSSs even decreased prediction performances. Gamma-ray spectroscopy and near-infrared spectroscopy demonstrated to be most effective, both as single sensors or in combination with other sensors. As a single sensor, RS outperformed three out of six PSSs. RS showed especially potential for fusion with single PSSs but was of limited benefit when multiple PSSs were fused. Model stacking proved to be more robust than using single base-models because sensor performances were less model-dependent.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Geoderma
Published
2024-09-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2024.117017
Citations
12
Primary Topic
Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.47

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Which and how many soil sensors are ideal to predict key soil properties: A case study with seven sensors

Robin Gebbers, Martin Atzmueller, Hamed Tavakoli, Jonas Schmidinger et al.
12 citations
Geoderma
Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
2.47
article

Which and how many soil sensors are ideal to predict key soil properties: A case study with seven sensors

Robin Gebbers, Martin Atzmueller, Hamed Tavakoli, Jonas Schmidinger, José Miguel Correa Gorospe, Sebastian Vogel, Viacheslav Barkov, Markus Ostermann
article en
12 citations

Abstract

• Fusing soil sensors improved the prediction accuracy and robustness. • Improvements from sensor fusion were subject to diminishing returns. • Data from gamma-ray- and near-infrared spectroscopy had the highest predictive power. • Incorporating remote sensing showed potential with some proximal soil sensors. Soil sensing enables rapid and cost-effective soil analysis. However, a single sensor often does not generate enough information to reliably predict a wide range of soil properties. Within a case-study, our objective was to identify how many and which combinations of soil sensors prove to be suitable for high-resolution soil mapping. On a subplot of an agricultural field showing a high spatial soil variability, six in-situ proximal soil sensors (PSSs) next to remote sensing (RS) data from Sentinel-2 were evaluated based on their capabilities to predict a set of soil properties including: soil organic carbon, pH, moisture as well as plant-available phosphorus, magnesium and potassium. The set of PSSs consisted of ion-selective pH electrodes, a capacitive soil moisture sensor, an apparent soil electrical conductivity measuring system as well as passive gamma-ray-, X-ray fluorescence- and near-infrared spectroscopy. All possible combinations of sensors were exhaustively evaluated and ranked based on their prediction performances using model stacking. Over all soil properties, data fusion demonstrated a considerable increase in prediction accuracy. Five out of six soil properties were predicted with an R 2 ≥ 0.80 with the best sensor fusion model. Nonetheless, the improvement derived from fusing an increasing number of PSSs was subject to diminishing returns. Sometimes adding more PSSs even decreased prediction performances. Gamma-ray spectroscopy and near-infrared spectroscopy demonstrated to be most effective, both as single sensors or in combination with other sensors. As a single sensor, RS outperformed three out of six PSSs. RS showed especially potential for fusion with single PSSs but was of limited benefit when multiple PSSs were fused. Model stacking proved to be more robust than using single base-models because sensor performances were less model-dependent.

GeodermaVol. 450
Federal Institute For Materials Research and Testing (DE), Osnabrück University (DE), German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DE), Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (DE), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (DE)
Niedersächsische Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur, Volkswagen Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
2.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.