Statistical modelling of measurement error in wet chemistry soil data

Abstract

There is a growing demand for high‐quality soil data. However, soil measurements are subject to many error sources. We aimed to quantify uncertainties in synthetic and real‐world wet chemistry soil data through a linear mixed‐effects model, including batch and laboratory effects. The use of synthetic data allowed us to investigate how accurately the model parameters were estimated for various experimental measurement designs, whereas the real‐world case served to explore if estimates of the random effect variances were still accurate for unbalanced datasets with few replicates. The variance estimates for synthetic pHH2normalO data were unbiased, but limited laboratory information led to imprecise estimates. The same was observed for unbalanced synthetic datasets, where 20, 50 and 80% of the data were removed randomly. Removal led to a sharp increase of the interquartile range (IQR) of the variance estimates for batch effect and the residual. The model was also fitted to real‐world pHH2normalO and total organic carbon (TOC) data, provided by the Wageningen Evaluating Programmes for Analytical Laboratories (WEPAL). For pHH2normalO, the model yielded unbiased estimates with relatively small IQRs. However, the limited number of batches with replicate measurements (5.8%) caused the batch effect to be larger than expected. A strong negative correlation between batch effect and residual variance suggested that the model could not distinguish well between these two random effects. For TOC, batch effect was removed from the model as no replicates were available within batches. Again, unbiased model estimates were obtained. However, the IQRs were relatively large, which could be attributed to the smaller dataset with only a single replicate measurement. Our findings demonstrated the importance of experimental measurement design and replicate measurements in the quantification of uncertainties in wet chemistry soil data. Highlights Accurate uncertainty quantification depends on the experimental measurement design. Linear mixed‐effects models can be used as a tool to quantify uncertainty in wet chemistry soil data. Lack of replicate measurements leads to poor estimates of error variance components. Measurement error in wet chemistry soil data should not be ignored.

The cost‐effectiveness of reflectance spectroscopy for estimating soil organic carbon

“…But what do we mean by accuracy, or, more importantly in the current context, inaccuracy? van Leeuwen et al (2021) address the question in some detail in this journal, and they illustrate their answer with a statistical analysis of some data on organic C in soil. They, and we, treat 'inaccuracy' in general as the departure of an estimate or measurement from a true value.…”

“…We take the dry combustion method as a standard. We have assumed that the errors in the measurements by dry combustion provided by the accredited laboratories (NATA and ASPAC, listed below), were small enough to be negligible, though recognising that such errors can be substantial (van Leeuwen et al, 2021). Inaccuracies arise almost entirely from variation among replicate samples from the field or analyses on replicate sub-samples in the laboratory or both.…”

The Brazilian soils from a spectral library perspective: from fundamental to applications

“…Nevertheless, the Pearson's correlation values near to zero for some laboratories (Figures 3-5) can be caused by complex relationships-not always considered linear-between spectral data and soil attributes (Santana et al, 2018) or measurement error in wet chemistry soil data (Leeuwen et al, 2021).…”

“…Traditional analytical methods, which provide valuable soil data over time, are costly, timeconsuming, and not environmentally friendly . The quality of results from traditional laboratories is susceptible to systematic and random errors that frequently depend on themselves and/or the analytical techniques used, leading to outliers (Leeuwen et al, 2021). These errors were observed in a soil test conducted with 100 laboratories around the world using standard procedures (Hartmann and Suvannang, 2019), which showed a disturbing variation in the quality and consistency of measurement of soil attributes.…”

“…Outliers of soil attributes may most often be due to measurement errors from classical analytical methods -where the extensive sequence of steps may introduce errors from different sources like subsampling, reagents, rounding off readings, instrumental, among others (Mountier et al, 1966). Therefore, repeated measurements on soil samples are required to quantify the error of the laboratory, as part of costly laboratory proficiency testing programs (Leeuwen et al, 2021). Now, we need innovative approaches to help laboratories to rapidly characterize the soil conditions and adopt internal quality controls with lower costs and ecosystem impacts.…”