Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting soil properties from the Australian soil visible–near infrared spectroscopic database

Rossel, R. A. Viscarra, Webster, R.·2012·European Journal of Soil Science

Abstract

There are reflectance spectra in the visible and near infrared wavelengths from some 20 000 archived samples of soil in Australia. Their particular forms depend on absorbances at specific wavelengths characteristic of components in the soil such as water, iron oxides, clay minerals and carbon compounds, and so one might expect to be able to predict soil properties from the spectra. We tested a tree‐based technique for the prediction of 24 soil properties. A tree is first constructed by the definition of rules that separate the data into fairly homogeneous groups for any given property on both the absorptions at specified wavelengths and other, categoric, variables. Then within each group the property is predicted from the absorptions at those wavelengths by ordinary least‐squares regression. The spectroscopic predictions of the soil properties were compared with actual values in a subset of sample data separated from the whole data for validation. The criteria of success that we used were the root mean squared error (RMSE) to measure the inaccuracy of our predictions, the mean error (ME) to measure their bias and the standard deviation of the error (SDE) to measure their imprecision. We also used the ratio of performance to deviation (RPD), which is the ratio of the standard deviation of the observed values to the RMSE of the predictions; the larger it is the better does the technique perform. We found good predictions (RPD>2) for clay and total sand content, for total organic carbon and total nitrogen, pH, cation exchange capacity, and exchangeable calcium, magnesium and sodium. Several other properties were moderately well predicted (1.5 ≤ RPD < 2); they included air‐dry water content, volumetric water content at field capacity and wilting point, bulk density, the contents of silt, fine sand and coarse sand, total and exchangeable potassium, total phosphorus and extractable iron. Properties that were poorly predicted (RPD < 1.5) include the carbon‐to‐nitrogen ratio, available phosphorus and exchangeable acidity. We conclude that even though the predictions are less accurate than direct measurements, the spectra are cheap yet valuable sources of information for predicting values of individual soil properties when large numbers of analyses are needed, for example, for soil mapping.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2012.01495.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Rossel, R. A. V., & Webster, R.
Venue
European Journal of Soil Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-11-05
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
848-860
ISSN
  • 1351-0754 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2389
OpenAlex
W2146738048
Cited by
336
References
1
FWCI
9.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting soil properties from the Australian soil visible–near infrared spectroscopic database. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2012.01495.x
The paper
Rossel, R. A. V., & Webster, R. (2012). Predicting soil properties from the Australian soil visible–near infrared spectroscopic database. European Journal of Soil Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2012.01495.x

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.