Prediction of Organic Matter Content in Sandy Fluvo-Aquic Soil by
Visible-Near Infrared Spectroscopy
ZHONG Xiang-jun1,2, YANG Li1,2*, ZHANG Dong-xing1,2, CUI Tao1,2, HE Xian-tao1,2, DU Zhao-hui1,2
1. College of Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
2. Key Laboratory of Soil-Machine-Plant System Technology of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100083, China
Abstract：Soil Organic Matter (SOM) is a crucial soil parameter that affects the sowing rate. Real-time control of the sowing rate based on SOM information is the cutting-edge research area of planting technology, which can make full use of land resources to tap the yield potential, accurately and adequately adjust the number of seeds to maximize the return. This article focuses on the North China Plain, one of the main corn-producing areas, as the study area, and the sandy loam soil in this area has been collected by visible-near infrared (300~2 500 nm) spectra. Monte Carlo cross-validation is used to eliminate abnormal samples, and the Savitzky-Golay convolution smoothing method is used to smooth and denoise the spectral data. Respectively through Competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS), Successive projections algorithm (SPA), Competitive adaptive reweighted sampling-Successive projections algorithm (CARS-SPA), Uninformative variables elimination (UVE) and Variable Combination population Analysis (VCPA), and other wavelength screening methods to extract effective variables. Combined with Partial least squares regression (PLSR), the SOM content prediction models of full wavelength and characteristic wavelength were established respectively. The results showed significant differences in the number of wavelengths and wavelength positions screened by different methods. The spectral features selected by the CARS and SPA algorithms are distributed in the spectral range, while the bands selected by UVE and VCPA were concentrated. Moreover, the characteristic variables could be further optimized based on the CARS-SPA method, and the characteristic wavelength was only 15% of the total wavelength. By comparing the modeling and prediction effects of different models, except for the UVE and VCPA algorithms, the models constructed by the other algorithms can all effectively predict the SOM content, and their RPD values were all greater than 2.0. The PLSR model based on CARS-SPA has the best performance. Its R2P and RPD were 0.901 and 3.188 respectively, higher than other methods. It reduces the interference of invalid information on the prediction effect, but the computational efficiency of the model is significantly improved, which can realize the reliable prediction of SOM content in this area. This research can provide method references for rapid prediction of SOM content and instrument design.
钟翔君，杨 丽，张东兴，崔 涛，和贤桃，杜兆辉. 砂壤潮土有机质含量可见-近红外光谱预测[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2022, 42(09): 2924-2930.
ZHONG Xiang-jun, YANG Li, ZHANG Dong-xing, CUI Tao, HE Xian-tao, DU Zhao-hui. Prediction of Organic Matter Content in Sandy Fluvo-Aquic Soil by
Visible-Near Infrared Spectroscopy. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2022, 42(09): 2924-2930.
[1] Kgel-Knabner I, Amelung W. Geoderma, 2021, 384(82): 114785.
[2] Kane D A, Bradford M A, Fuller E, et al. Environmental Research Letters, 2021, 16(4): 044018.
[3] YANG Li, YAN Bing-xin, ZHANG Dong-xing, et al（杨 丽, 颜丙新, 张东兴, 等）. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery（农业机械学报）, 2016，47(11): 38.
[4] He X T, Ding Y Q, Zhang D X, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2019, 162(7): 318.
[5] He X T, Ding Y Q, Zhang D X, et al. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2019, 162(7): 309.
[6] Ding Y, Yang L, Zhang D, et al. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 2021, 14(2): 151.
[7] Bakr N, El-Ashry S M. Communications in Soil Science & Plant Analysis, 2018，49(20): 2587.
[8] Morellos A, Pantazi X E, Moshou D, et al. Biosystems Engineering, 2016, 152: 104.
[9] Said N, Mouazen A M. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2018, 151: 469.
[10] Hong Y, Liu Y, Chen Y, et al. Geoderma，2019, 337: 758.
[11] Michael S, Christopher H, Bernard L, et al. Geoderma. 2019, 354: 113856.
[12] Roemer C, Rodionov A, Behmann J, et al. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science，2014, 177(6): 845.
[13] Laamrani A, Berg A, Voroney P, et al. Remote Sensing, 2019, 11(11): 1298.
[14] Vohland M, Ludwig M, Thiele-Bruhn S, et al. Geoderma, 2014, (223-225): 88.
[15] Viscarra Rossel R A, Hicks W S. European Journal of Soil Science，2015, 66(3): 438.
[16] Shi Z, Ji W, Rossel R A Viscarra, et al. European Journal of Soil Science，2015, 66(4): 679.
[17] ZHANG Zhi-tao, LAO Cong-cong, WANG Hai-feng, et al（张智韬, 劳聪聪, 王海峰, 等）. Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery（农业机械学报）, 2020, 51(1): 156.
[18] ZHANG Juan-juan, XI Lei, YANG Xiang-yang, et al（张娟娟, 席 磊, 杨向阳, 等）. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering（农业工程学报）, 2020, 36(17): 135.
[19] YU Lei, HONG Yong-sheng, ZHOU Yong, et al（于 雷, 洪永胜, 周 勇, 等）. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering（农业工程学报）, 2016, 32(13): 95.
[20] Hong Y S, Chen Y Y, Yu L, et al. Remote Sensing，2018, 10(3): 479.
[21] Liu Y, Jiang Q, Fei T, et al. Remote Sensing, 2014, 6(5): 4305.
