Comparative study of interpolation methods for low-density sampling

IF 5.4 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
F. H. S. Karp, V. Adamchuk, P. Dutilleul, A. Melnitchouck
{"title":"Comparative study of interpolation methods for low-density sampling","authors":"F. H. S. Karp, V. Adamchuk, P. Dutilleul, A. Melnitchouck","doi":"10.1007/s11119-024-10141-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given the high costs of soil sampling, low and extra-low sampling densities are still being used. Low-density soil sampling usually does not allow the computation of experimental variograms reliable enough to fit models and perform interpolation. In the absence of geostatistical tools, deterministic methods such as inverse distance weighting (IDW) are recommended but they are susceptible to the “bull’s eye” effect, which creates non-smooth surfaces. This study aims to develop and assess interpolation methods or approaches to produce soil test maps that are robust and maximize the information value contained in sparse soil sampling data. Eleven interpolation procedures, including traditional methods, a newly proposed methodology, and a kriging-based approach, were evaluated using grid soil samples from four fields located in Central Alberta, Canada. In addition to the original 0.4 ha⋅sample<sup>−1</sup> sampling scheme, two sampling design densities of 0.8 and 3.5 ha⋅sample<sup>−1</sup> were considered. Among the many outcomes of this study, it was found that the field average never emerged as the basis for the best approach. Also, none of the evaluated interpolation procedures appeared to be the best across all fields, soil properties, and sampling densities. In terms of robustness, the proposed kriging-based approach, in which the nugget effect estimate is set to the value of the semi-variance at the smallest sampling distance, and the sill estimate to the sample variance, and the IDW with the power parameter value of 1.0 provided the best approaches as they rarely yielded errors worse than those obtained with the field average.</p>","PeriodicalId":20423,"journal":{"name":"Precision Agriculture","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Precision Agriculture","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-024-10141-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the high costs of soil sampling, low and extra-low sampling densities are still being used. Low-density soil sampling usually does not allow the computation of experimental variograms reliable enough to fit models and perform interpolation. In the absence of geostatistical tools, deterministic methods such as inverse distance weighting (IDW) are recommended but they are susceptible to the “bull’s eye” effect, which creates non-smooth surfaces. This study aims to develop and assess interpolation methods or approaches to produce soil test maps that are robust and maximize the information value contained in sparse soil sampling data. Eleven interpolation procedures, including traditional methods, a newly proposed methodology, and a kriging-based approach, were evaluated using grid soil samples from four fields located in Central Alberta, Canada. In addition to the original 0.4 ha⋅sample−1 sampling scheme, two sampling design densities of 0.8 and 3.5 ha⋅sample−1 were considered. Among the many outcomes of this study, it was found that the field average never emerged as the basis for the best approach. Also, none of the evaluated interpolation procedures appeared to be the best across all fields, soil properties, and sampling densities. In terms of robustness, the proposed kriging-based approach, in which the nugget effect estimate is set to the value of the semi-variance at the smallest sampling distance, and the sill estimate to the sample variance, and the IDW with the power parameter value of 1.0 provided the best approaches as they rarely yielded errors worse than those obtained with the field average.

Abstract Image

低密度采样插值法比较研究
由于土壤取样成本高昂,目前仍在使用低密度和超低密度取样。低密度土壤取样通常无法计算出足够可靠的实验变异图,从而无法拟合模型和进行插值。在缺乏地质统计工具的情况下,建议使用反距离加权法(IDW)等确定性方法,但这些方法容易受到 "靶心 "效应的影响,从而产生不平滑的表面。本研究旨在开发和评估内插法或方法,以生成稳健的土壤测试图,最大限度地发挥稀疏土壤采样数据所包含的信息价值。使用来自加拿大艾伯塔省中部四块田地的网格土壤样本,对 11 种插值程序进行了评估,包括传统方法、新提出的方法和基于克里金法的方法。除了最初的 0.4 公顷-样本-1 采样方案外,还考虑了 0.8 和 3.5 公顷-样本-1 两种采样设计密度。在这项研究的众多成果中,发现田间平均值从未成为最佳方法的基础。此外,在所有田块、土壤特性和取样密度中,没有一种评估过的内插法似乎是最好的。就稳健性而言,所提出的基于克里金法的方法(其中金块效应估计值设置为最小采样距离的半方差值,山丘估计值设置为样本方差)和幂参数值为 1.0 的内插法提供了最佳方法,因为它们产生的误差很少比用田间平均值得到的误差更差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Precision Agriculture
Precision Agriculture 农林科学-农业综合
CiteScore
12.30
自引率
8.10%
发文量
103
审稿时长
>24 weeks
期刊介绍: Precision Agriculture promotes the most innovative results coming from the research in the field of precision agriculture. It provides an effective forum for disseminating original and fundamental research and experience in the rapidly advancing area of precision farming. There are many topics in the field of precision agriculture; therefore, the topics that are addressed include, but are not limited to: Natural Resources Variability: Soil and landscape variability, digital elevation models, soil mapping, geostatistics, geographic information systems, microclimate, weather forecasting, remote sensing, management units, scale, etc. Managing Variability: Sampling techniques, site-specific nutrient and crop protection chemical recommendation, crop quality, tillage, seed density, seed variety, yield mapping, remote sensing, record keeping systems, data interpretation and use, crops (corn, wheat, sugar beets, potatoes, peanut, cotton, vegetables, etc.), management scale, etc. Engineering Technology: Computers, positioning systems, DGPS, machinery, tillage, planting, nutrient and crop protection implements, manure, irrigation, fertigation, yield monitor and mapping, soil physical and chemical characteristic sensors, weed/pest mapping, etc. Profitability: MEY, net returns, BMPs, optimum recommendations, crop quality, technology cost, sustainability, social impacts, marketing, cooperatives, farm scale, crop type, etc. Environment: Nutrient, crop protection chemicals, sediments, leaching, runoff, practices, field, watershed, on/off farm, artificial drainage, ground water, surface water, etc. Technology Transfer: Skill needs, education, training, outreach, methods, surveys, agri-business, producers, distance education, Internet, simulations models, decision support systems, expert systems, on-farm experimentation, partnerships, quality of rural life, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信