ArticleScientific reports2026
Enhancing digital mapping of soil organic carbon through spatial modeling and validation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soil organic carbon (SOC) is a key indicator of soil health, stability, and security, and a major component of global carbon sequestration. Accurate SOC modeling is vital for environmental management and climate change mitigation. Despite machine learning advances, spatial autocorrelation remains a challenge in SOC prediction. This study assesses its impact by comparing four Random Forest (RF) models at 0–30 cm soil depth: (1) classic RF with non-spatial variables and random cross-validation, (2) classic RF with spatial and non-spatial variables and random cross-validation, (3) classic RF with non-spatial variables and spatial cross-validation, and (4) spatial RF with non-spatial variables and random cross-validation. Using 281 soil samples collected over six years in Abyek, Iran, the study integrates spatial and non-spatial predictors, including topographic, climatic, and vegetation indices. Scenario 4 yields the highest predictive accuracy (R2 = 0.86, RMSE = 0.11) and eliminates spatial autocorrelation in residuals (Moran’s I = -0.01, p = 0.82). In contrast, models lacking spatial components (e.g., Scenario 1) show residual clustering and biased predictions (Moran’s I > 0.15, p < 0.001). These results highlight the importance of incorporating spatial dependencies and proper validation to enhance SOC prediction. The study informs digital soil mapping, carbon stock assessment, and land management for sustainable agriculture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.