-
Something wrong with this record ?
Comparison of Cubist models for soil organic carbon prediction via portable XRF measured data
K. John, NM. Kebonye, PC. Agyeman, SK. Ahado
Language English Country Netherlands
Document type Journal Article
Grant support
SV20-5-21130
Fakultu Agrobiologie, Potravinových a Prírodních Zdrojů, Česká Zemědělská Univerzita v Praze
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2000-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
from 1997-02-01 to 1 year ago
- MeSH
- Algorithms MeSH
- Soil Pollutants * analysis MeSH
- Environmental Monitoring MeSH
- Soil * MeSH
- Carbon analysis MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
Soil organic carbon (SOC) tends to form complexes with most metallic ions within the soil system. Relatively few studies compare SOC predictions via portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) measured data coupled with the Cubist algorithm. The current study applied three different Cubist models to estimate SOC while using several pXRF measured data. Soil samples (n = 158) were collected from the Litavka floodplain area during two separate sampling campaigns in 2018. Thirteen pXRF data or predictors (K, Ca, Rb, Mn, Fe, As, Ba, Th, Pb, Sr, Ti, Zr, and Zn) were selected to develop the proposed models. Validation and comparison of the models applied the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The results revealed that Cubist 1, utilizing all the predictors yielded the best model outcome (MAE = 0.51%, RMSE = 0.68%, R2 = 0.78) followed by Cubist 2, using predictors with relatively high importance (VarImp. predictors) (MAE = 0.64%, RMSE = 0.82%, R2 = 0.68), and lastly Cubist 3 with predictors showing a significantly positive correlation (MAE = 0.69%, RMSE = 0.90%, R2 = 0.62). The Cubist 1 model was considered more promising for explaining the complex relationships between SOC and the pXRF data used. Moreover, for the estimation of SOC in temperate floodplain soils all the Cubist models gave an acceptable model. However, future research should focus on using other auxiliary data [e.g., soil properties, data from other sensors (e.g., FieldSpec)] as well as extend the study area to cover more soil types hence improve model robustness as well as parsimoniousness.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21011425
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210507102050.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2021 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s10661-021-08946-x $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33728486
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a John, Kingsley $u Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague - Suchdol, Czech Republic. johnk@af.czu.cz
- 245 10
- $a Comparison of Cubist models for soil organic carbon prediction via portable XRF measured data / $c K. John, NM. Kebonye, PC. Agyeman, SK. Ahado
- 520 9_
- $a Soil organic carbon (SOC) tends to form complexes with most metallic ions within the soil system. Relatively few studies compare SOC predictions via portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) measured data coupled with the Cubist algorithm. The current study applied three different Cubist models to estimate SOC while using several pXRF measured data. Soil samples (n = 158) were collected from the Litavka floodplain area during two separate sampling campaigns in 2018. Thirteen pXRF data or predictors (K, Ca, Rb, Mn, Fe, As, Ba, Th, Pb, Sr, Ti, Zr, and Zn) were selected to develop the proposed models. Validation and comparison of the models applied the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The results revealed that Cubist 1, utilizing all the predictors yielded the best model outcome (MAE = 0.51%, RMSE = 0.68%, R2 = 0.78) followed by Cubist 2, using predictors with relatively high importance (VarImp. predictors) (MAE = 0.64%, RMSE = 0.82%, R2 = 0.68), and lastly Cubist 3 with predictors showing a significantly positive correlation (MAE = 0.69%, RMSE = 0.90%, R2 = 0.62). The Cubist 1 model was considered more promising for explaining the complex relationships between SOC and the pXRF data used. Moreover, for the estimation of SOC in temperate floodplain soils all the Cubist models gave an acceptable model. However, future research should focus on using other auxiliary data [e.g., soil properties, data from other sensors (e.g., FieldSpec)] as well as extend the study area to cover more soil types hence improve model robustness as well as parsimoniousness.
- 650 _2
- $a algoritmy $7 D000465
- 650 _2
- $a uhlík $x analýza $7 D002244
- 650 _2
- $a monitorování životního prostředí $7 D004784
- 650 12
- $a půda $7 D012987
- 650 12
- $a látky znečišťující půdu $x analýza $7 D012989
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Kebonye, Ndiye M $u Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague - Suchdol, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Agyeman, Prince C $u Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague - Suchdol, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Ahado, Samuel K $u Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00, Prague - Suchdol, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00007602 $t Environmental monitoring and assessment $x 1573-2959 $g Roč. 193, č. 4 (2021), s. 197
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33728486 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210507102050 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1649958 $s 1131804
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2021 $b 193 $c 4 $d 197 $e 20210317 $i 1573-2959 $m Environmental monitoring and assessment $n Environ Monit Assess $x MED00007602
- GRA __
- $a SV20-5-21130 $p Fakultu Agrobiologie, Potravinových a Prírodních Zdrojů, Česká Zemědělská Univerzita v Praze
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420