An assessment of model averaging to improve predictive power of portable vis-NIR and XRF for the determination of agronomic soil properties

Abstract Many soil science laboratories are now equipped with technology platforms in portable visible near infrared (vis-NIR) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometers. These technologies have complementary capabilities, where XRF is known to accurately measure the soil's inorganic element concentration, and vis-NIR has the ability to estimate the soil's organic component and mineralogy suites. In this study data mining was used to estimate soil properties from the vis-NIR spectra, and in a novel way from the XRF spectral data. The prediction outcomes were combined into a single prediction outcome, using formal methods called model averaging procedures. Combining model outcomes derived from spectra using model averaging techniques improves or maintains the prediction status (as ratio of performance to inter-quartile distance) of vis-NIR and XRF models for a wide range of soil properties of agronomic importance. Overall, the relative improvement in %RMSE ranged from 4 to 44%. Weight preference in model averaging was related to the inference of soil chemical and physical properties from vis-NIR and XRF spectra. For example, the weights preference the vis-NIR predictions for soil pH, soil carbon (C), clay, and XRF predictions for most of the elemental soil properties. Based on both the relative improvement in RMSE and RPIQ status, model averaging was found to be suitable for soil pH, soil C (soil organic C (SOC) and total C (TC)), soil texture (sand and clay), CEC and total elements K, Mg, Co, Cr and Mn. Optimum prediction performance for total elements Cu and Zn is achieved by XRF alone. The unreliable RPIQ status for total elements P, S, Mo, Se and exchangeable Ca, Mg, K, and Na derived from vis-NIR and XRF predictions in this study did not improve with model averaging. Overall, Granger-Ramanathan averaging produced similar or better outcomes compared to variance weighted averaging. This model averaging approach is more simple to compute requiring only to fit a simple multiple linear regression model, unlike the VWA approach in which the weighting is estimated for each soil property, and thus in the interests of parsimony is recommended as the model averaging technique to be adopted as protocol. More conventional use of portable XRF in soil analysis is to employ the elemental concentrations measured by the XRF device to predict other soil properties, generally applying multiple linear regression models. When XRF is used in a conventional way to determine elemental concentrations it was demonstrated to be highly reliable for elemental concentrations present in high concentrations, but predictions of elemental content derived from XRF spectra was more effective for elements present in low concentrations. This in turn reduces the capacity of XRF elemental concentrations to be used in the prediction of other soil properties by inference.

[1]  J. M. Bates,et al.  The Combination of Forecasts , 1969 .

[2]  T. Næs,et al.  The Effect of Multiplicative Scatter Correction (MSC) and Linearity Improvement in NIR Spectroscopy , 1988 .

[3]  R. Barnes,et al.  Standard Normal Variate Transformation and De-Trending of Near-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Spectra , 1989 .

[4]  B. Minasny,et al.  Regression rules as a tool for predicting soil properties from infrared reflectance spectroscopy , 2008 .

[5]  D. Weindorf,et al.  Rapid Analysis of Elemental Concentrations in Compost Via Portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry , 2012 .

[6]  J. M. Soriano-Disla,et al.  The Performance of Visible, Near-, and Mid-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy for Prediction of Soil Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties , 2014 .

[7]  Dandan Wang,et al.  Characterizing soils via portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer: 4. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) , 2015 .

[8]  L. Lin,et al.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. , 1989, Biometrics.

[9]  A. Savitzky,et al.  Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures. , 1964 .

[10]  S. Chakraborty,et al.  Development of a hybrid proximal sensing method for rapid identification of petroleum contaminated soils. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[11]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Bagging Predictors , 1996, Machine Learning.

[12]  B. Minasny,et al.  Regional transferability of mid-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopic prediction for soil chemical properties , 2009 .

[13]  Budiman Minasny,et al.  Potential of integrated field spectroscopy and spatial analysis for enhanced assessment of soil contamination: A prospective review , 2015 .

[14]  Somsubhra Chakraborty,et al.  Use of portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry for environmental quality assessment of peri-urban agriculture , 2011, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[15]  Dandan Wang,et al.  Synthesized use of VisNIR DRS and PXRF for soil characterization: Total carbon and total nitrogen☆ , 2015 .

[16]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[17]  Alex B. McBratney,et al.  Laboratory evaluation of a proximal sensing technique for simultaneous measurement of soil clay and water content , 1998 .

[18]  Juan Herrero,et al.  Direct Soil Gypsum Quantification via Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry , 2013 .

[19]  Tanja Radu,et al.  Comparison of soil pollution concentrations determined using AAS and portable XRF techniques. , 2009, Journal of hazardous materials.

[20]  Surrogate Correlations and Near-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Sensing of Trace Metal Content in Soils , 2010 .

[21]  Georg Cadisch,et al.  Quantification of total element concentrations in soils using total X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (TXRF). , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[22]  A. McBratney,et al.  Critical review of chemometric indicators commonly used for assessing the quality of the prediction of soil attributes by NIR spectroscopy , 2010 .

[23]  Somsubhra Chakraborty,et al.  Characterizing soils via portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer: 3. Soil reaction (pH) , 2014 .

[24]  R. V. Rossel,et al.  Spectral soil analysis and inference systems : A powerful combination for solving the soil data crisis , 2006 .

[25]  Budiman Minasny,et al.  Using model averaging to combine soil property rasters from legacy soil maps and from point data , 2014 .

[26]  R. V. Rossel,et al.  Visible, near infrared, mid infrared or combined diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for simultaneous assessment of various soil properties , 2006 .

[27]  R. V. Rossel,et al.  Visible and near infrared spectroscopy in soil science , 2010 .

[28]  C. Granger,et al.  Improved methods of combining forecasts , 1984 .

[29]  David C. Weindorf,et al.  Correlation of X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry And Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy for Elemental Determination In Composted Products , 2008 .

[30]  David C. Weindorf,et al.  Characterizing soils using a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer: 1. Soil texture , 2011 .

[31]  T. Jarmer,et al.  Quantitative analysis of soil chemical properties with diffuse reflectance spectrometry and partial least-square regression: A feasibility study , 2003, Plant and Soil.

[32]  Shanqin Wang,et al.  Prediction of Soil Texture Using FT-NIR Spectroscopy and PXRF Spectrometry With Data Fusion , 2013 .

[33]  J. M. Bremner,et al.  FORMS OF SULFUR, AND CARBON, NITROGEN AND SULFUR RELATIONSHIPS, IN IOWA SOILS , 1972 .