2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.10.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons of spatial and non-spatial models for predicting soil carbon content based on visible and near-infrared spectral technology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In electromagnetic theory, SOM is represented as an organic compound containing functional groups with relatively discrete absorption characteristics in the Vis-NIR range [51]. In the visible region (400-760 nm), the transition of the outer electrons from the ground states to high energy states is the primary process of soil energy absorption [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In electromagnetic theory, SOM is represented as an organic compound containing functional groups with relatively discrete absorption characteristics in the Vis-NIR range [51]. In the visible region (400-760 nm), the transition of the outer electrons from the ground states to high energy states is the primary process of soil energy absorption [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation (SD) of all soil properties in the calibration set were similar to the corresponding values in the validation set, suggesting that it was reasonable to divide the LIBS spectra dataset into calibration and validation sets. The coefficient of variation (CV) is a normalized dispersion measure of a probability or frequency distribution and is defined as the ratio of the SD to the mean [59]. A high CV value indicates large variability in the data set.…”
Section: Calibration and Validationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…GWR, as a local spatial regression model, considers the spatial autocorrelation of explanatory variables (spectra or environmental factors) and explained variables (soil properties). This method reflects the variation of the spatial weights of PCs to the SOCD in different geographical locations [22]. The predictive ability of GWR outperforms that of traditional regression models because these models contain no spatial information on the input variables.…”
Section: Advantages Of Gwrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meanwhile, the ordinary kriging was used by Ge et al [16,21] to weaken the influence of the spatial autocorrelation of spectral reflectance on the prediction accuracy of soil spectral models. Guo et al [22] also showed that GWR can consider the spatial autocorrelation of soil properties and spectral reflectance to improve its prediction accuracy over that of PLSR. These investigations offered important theoretical basis to explore the application of spatial autocorrelation in predicting one complicated composition (SOCD).…”
Section: Advantages Of Gwrmentioning
confidence: 99%