Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Convolutional neural network for simultaneous prediction of several soil properties using visible/near-infrared, mid-infrared, and their combined spectra

Open access
Ng, Wartini, Minasny, Budiman, Montazerolghaem, Maryam, Padarian, Jose, Ferguson, Richard, Bailey, Scarlett, McBratney, Alex B.·2019·Geoderma
DOI 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract No single instrument can characterize all soil properties because soil is a complex material. With the advancement of technology, laboratories have become equipped with various spectrometers. By fusing output from different spectrometers, better prediction outcomes are expected than using any single spectrometer alone. In this study, model performance from a single spectrometer (visible-near-infrared spectroscopy, vis-NIR or mid-infrared spectroscopy, MIR) was compared to the combined spectrometers (vis-NIR and MIR). We selected a total of 14,594 samples from the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory (KSSL) database that had both vis-NIR and MIR spectra along with measurements of sand, clay, total C (TC) content, organic C (OC) content, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and pH. The dataset was randomly split into 75% training (n = 10,946) and the remaining (n = 3,648) as a test set. Prediction models were constructed with partial least squares regression (PLSR) and Cubist tree model. Additionally, we explored the use of a deep learning model, the convolutional neural network (CNN). We investigated various ways to feed spectral data to the CNN, either as one-dimensional (1D) data (as a spectrum) or as two-dimensional (2D) data (as a spectrogram). Compared to the PLSR model, we found that the CNN model provides an average improvement prediction of 33–42% using vis-NIR and 30–43% using MIR spectral data input. The relative accuracy improvement of CNN, when compared to the Cubist regression tree model, ranged between 22 and 36% with vis-NIR and 16–27% with MIR spectral data input. Various methods to fuse the vis-NIR and MIR spectral data were explored. We compared the performance of spectral concatenation (for PLSR and Cubist model), two-channel input method, and outer product analysis (OPA) method (for CNN model). We found that the performance of two-channel 1D CNN model was the best (R2 = 0.95–0.98) followed closely by the OPA with CNN (R2 = 0.93–0.98), Cubist model with spectral concatenation (R2= 0.91–0.97), two-channel 2D CNN model (R2 = 0.90–0.95) and PLSR with spectral concatenation (R2 = 0.87–0.95). Chemometric analysis of spectroscopy data relied on spectral pre-processing methods: such as spectral trimming, baseline correction, smoothing, and normalization before being fed into the model. CNN achieved higher performance than the PLSR and Cubist model without utilizing the pre-processed spectral data. We also found that the predictions using the CNN model retained similar correlations to the actual values in comparison to other models. By doing sensitivity analysis, we identified the important spectral wavelengths variables used by the CNN model to predict various soil properties. CNN is an effective model for modelling soil properties from a large spectral library.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.016

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Ng, W., Minasny, B., Montazerolghaem, M., Padarian, J., Ferguson, R., Bailey, S., & McBratney, A. B.
Venue
Geoderma
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
352
Pages
251-267
ISSN
0016-7061 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.06.016
OpenAlex
W2951230751
Cited by
466
References
46
FWCI
20.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.