Comparison of Calibration Approaches in Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Proximal Soil Sensing in Precision Agriculture

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage5244eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue23eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleSensorseng
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume19eng
dc.contributor.authorRiebe, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorErler, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorBrinkmann, Pia
dc.contributor.authorBeitz, Toralf
dc.contributor.authorLöhmannsröben, Hans-Gerd
dc.contributor.authorGebbers, Robin
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-29T04:40:16Z
dc.date.available2021-07-29T04:40:16Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractThe lack of soil data, which are relevant, reliable, affordable, immediately available, and sufficiently detailed, is still a significant challenge in precision agriculture. A promising technology for the spatial assessment of the distribution of chemical elements within fields, without sample preparation is laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). Its advantages are contrasted by a strong matrix dependence of the LIBS signal which necessitates careful data evaluation. In this work, different calibration approaches for soil LIBS data are presented. The data were obtained from 139 soil samples collected on two neighboring agricultural fields in a quaternary landscape of northeast Germany with very variable soils. Reference analysis was carried out by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy after wet digestion. The major nutrients Ca and Mg and the minor nutrient Fe were investigated. Three calibration strategies were compared. The first method was based on univariate calibration by standard addition using just one soil sample and applying the derived calibration model to the LIBS data of both fields. The second univariate model derived the calibration from the reference analytics of all samples from one field. The prediction is validated by LIBS data of the second field. The third method is a multivariate calibration approach based on partial least squares regression (PLSR). The LIBS spectra of the first field are used for training. Validation was carried out by 20-fold cross-validation using the LIBS data of the first field and independently on the second field data. The second univariate method yielded better calibration and prediction results compared to the first method, since matrix effects were better accounted for. PLSR did not strongly improve the prediction in comparison to the second univariate method.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/6380
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.34657/5427
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherBasel : MDPIeng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.3390/s19235244
dc.relation.essn1424-8220
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 4.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/eng
dc.subject.ddc620eng
dc.subject.otherElemental compositioneng
dc.subject.otherLaser-induced breakdown spectroscopyeng
dc.subject.otherLIBSeng
dc.subject.otherProximal soil sensingeng
dc.subject.otherSoil nutrientseng
dc.titleComparison of Calibration Approaches in Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Proximal Soil Sensing in Precision Agricultureeng
dc.typeArticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorATBeng
wgl.subjectIngenieurwissenschafteneng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Comparison of Calibration Approaches in Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy....pdf
Size:
4.02 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: