Models and sufficiency interpretation for estimating critical soil test values for the Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool

N. A. Slaton, A. Pearce, L. Gatiboni, D. Osmond, C. Bolster, F. Miquez, J. Clark, J. Dhillon, B. Farmaha, D. Kaiser, S. Lyons, A. Margenot, A. Moore, D. Ruiz Diaz, D. Sotomayor, J. Spackman, J. Spargo, M. Yost
{"title":"Models and sufficiency interpretation for estimating critical soil test values for the Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool","authors":"N. A. Slaton,&nbsp;A. Pearce,&nbsp;L. Gatiboni,&nbsp;D. Osmond,&nbsp;C. Bolster,&nbsp;F. Miquez,&nbsp;J. Clark,&nbsp;J. Dhillon,&nbsp;B. Farmaha,&nbsp;D. Kaiser,&nbsp;S. Lyons,&nbsp;A. Margenot,&nbsp;A. Moore,&nbsp;D. Ruiz Diaz,&nbsp;D. Sotomayor,&nbsp;J. Spackman,&nbsp;J. Spargo,&nbsp;M. Yost","doi":"10.1002/saj2.20704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Soil test correlation determines whether a soil test can be used to predict the need for fertilization based on the critical soil test value (CSTV). Our objectives were to compare the CSTV estimated from five combinations of correlation models and yield sufficiency interpretations and to select one method for soil test correlation performed with the Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool (FRST). Four models were fit to three datasets with strong (Mehlich-1 K), moderate (Mehlich-3 K), or weak (Olsen P) correlations between soil test P or K and crop relative yield. We tested the arcsine-log calibration curve (ALCC), exponential (EXP), linear plateau (LP), and quadratic plateau (QP) models. The CSTV was defined as 95% of the maximum predicted yield for the ALCC and EXP methods, the join point for LP, and both the join point and 95% of the maximum for the QP providing five CSTV predictions. The five CSTVs ranged from 46 to 66 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> for the Mehlich-1 K dataset, 115 to 165 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> for the Mehlich-3 K dataset, and 7 to 16 mg kg<sup>−1</sup> for the Olsen P dataset. Ten pairwise comparisons showed the estimated CSTV was numerically and sometimes statistically influenced by the model and sufficiency level interpretation. Despite differences among CSTVs, the frequency of significant yield responses above and below the predicted CSTV was generally comparable among the methods, with false-negative errors occurring at 0%–18% of sites for a given dataset. The QP model with a CSTV at 95% of the predicted maximum was selected as the modeling approach for FRST.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"88 4","pages":"1419-1437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/saj2.20704","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.20704","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Soil test correlation determines whether a soil test can be used to predict the need for fertilization based on the critical soil test value (CSTV). Our objectives were to compare the CSTV estimated from five combinations of correlation models and yield sufficiency interpretations and to select one method for soil test correlation performed with the Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool (FRST). Four models were fit to three datasets with strong (Mehlich-1 K), moderate (Mehlich-3 K), or weak (Olsen P) correlations between soil test P or K and crop relative yield. We tested the arcsine-log calibration curve (ALCC), exponential (EXP), linear plateau (LP), and quadratic plateau (QP) models. The CSTV was defined as 95% of the maximum predicted yield for the ALCC and EXP methods, the join point for LP, and both the join point and 95% of the maximum for the QP providing five CSTV predictions. The five CSTVs ranged from 46 to 66 mg kg−1 for the Mehlich-1 K dataset, 115 to 165 mg kg−1 for the Mehlich-3 K dataset, and 7 to 16 mg kg−1 for the Olsen P dataset. Ten pairwise comparisons showed the estimated CSTV was numerically and sometimes statistically influenced by the model and sufficiency level interpretation. Despite differences among CSTVs, the frequency of significant yield responses above and below the predicted CSTV was generally comparable among the methods, with false-negative errors occurring at 0%–18% of sites for a given dataset. The QP model with a CSTV at 95% of the predicted maximum was selected as the modeling approach for FRST.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于估算肥料推荐支持工具关键土壤测试值的模型和充分性解释
土壤测试相关性决定了土壤测试是否可用于根据临界土壤测试值 (CSTV) 预测施肥需求。我们的目标是比较相关模型和产量充分性解释的五种组合估算出的临界土壤测试值,并选择一种使用肥料推荐支持工具(FRST)进行土壤测试相关性分析的方法。对土壤测试 P 或 K 与作物相对产量之间存在强(Mehlich-1 K)、中(Mehlich-3 K)或弱(Olsen P)相关性的三个数据集拟合了四个模型。我们测试了弧线-对数校准曲线 (ALCC)、指数 (EXP)、线性高原 (LP) 和二次高原 (QP) 模型。对于 ALCC 和 EXP 方法,CSTV 被定义为最大预测产量的 95%;对于 LP,CSTV 被定义为连接点;对于 QP,CSTV 被定义为连接点和最大预测产量的 95%。Mehlich-1 K 数据集的五个 CSTV 为 46 至 66 毫克/千克,Mehlich-3 K 数据集为 115 至 165 毫克/千克,Olsen P 数据集为 7 至 16 毫克/千克。十次成对比较显示,估计的 CSTV 在数值上,有时在统计上受到模型和充足水平解释的影响。尽管 CSTV 之间存在差异,但各种方法之间出现高于或低于预测 CSTV 的显著产量反应的频率基本相当,在给定数据集中,0%-18% 的地点出现假阴性误差。在 FRST 的建模方法中,选择了 CSTV 为预测最大值 95% 的 QP 模型。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A portable low-cost incubation chamber for real-time characterization of soil respiration Novel slow-release fertilizer promotes nitrogen circularity while increasing soil organic carbon Erratum to: Effects of maize residue and biochar applications on soil δ13C and organic carbon sources in a subtropical paddy rice ecosystem Microbial inocula enhance effects of biochar amendments on crop productivity, soil health, and microbial communities: A meta-analysis Comparison of laser diffractometry and pipetting methods for particle size determination: A pilot study on the implications of result discrepancies on soil classification
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1