F. H. S. Karp, V. Adamchuk, P. Dutilleul, A. Melnitchouck
{"title":"低密度采样插值法比较研究","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparative study of interpolation methods for low-density sampling
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.
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.