Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42113860›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

A novel methodological framework for predicting and mapping agriculture-related soil attributes using Euclidean distance, regular grids, and machine learning algorithms.

Gustavo Vieira Veloso, Danilo César de Mello, Elpídio Inácio Fernandes-Filho, Cristiano Marcelo Pereira de Souza, Lucas Augusto Pereira da Silva, Mario Marcos Espirito Santo, Gustavo Mattos Vasques, Maurício Rizzato Coelho, José A M Demattê

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Gustavo Vieira VelosoDepartment of Soil Science, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9451-2714
Danilo César de MelloDepartment of Soil Science, "Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-9313
Elpídio Inácio Fernandes-FilhoDepartment of Soil Science, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.
Cristiano Marcelo Pereira de SouzaGeology Board, Federal University of the São Francisco Valley - Senhor do Bonfim Campus R. Tomás Guimarães, Sr. do Bonfim, BA, Brazil.
Lucas Augusto Pereira da SilvaGeography Department, Campus III - Guarabira, State University of Paraíba (UEPB), Guarabira, PB, Brazil.
Mario Marcos Espirito SantoDepartment of General Biology, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros, MG, Brazil.
Gustavo Mattos VasquesEmbrapa Soils, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Maurício Rizzato CoelhoEmbrapa Soils, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
José A M DemattêDepartment of Soil Science, "Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in statistical and machine learning (ML) methods have improved the prediction of soil attributes at fine spatial scales, yet the comparative performance and reliability of these techniques remain unclear. This study compared Ordinary Kriging (OK), Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW), and ML algorithms in predicting and spatializing soil attributes, while also evaluating prediction uncertainty and computational processing time. Conducted in Minas Gerais State (Brazil), the analysis used Euclidean distance based predictors derived from X-Y coordinates and regular grids with 5, 7, and 10 divisions. Soil attribute maps (CEC, phosphorus, sand, and clay) were generated using OK, IDW, Random Forest (RF), Cubist, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Earth. Model performance was assessed using R2, RMSE, MAE, and the coefficient of variation. IDW and OK showed the lowest predictive accuracy (R2 = 0.52-0.58), whereas ML methods, especially RF and SVM achieved superior performance (R2 = 0.62-0.70). Among ML algorithms, Earth performed worst, while RF produced the highest accuracy for all attributes except sand, for which SVM performed best. Processing time was shortest for IDW, followed by OK; among ML models, Earth was fastest, followed by RF, SVM, and Cubist. Larger regular grids improved ML prediction and spatialization but increased computational cost. ML methods thus outperform traditional geostatistical interpolators, benefiting from the use of numerous covariates and flexible algorithmic structures, although requiring greater computational time. These findings demonstrate the robustness and practical potential of ML approaches for soil attribute mapping.

Indexed as

AgricultureMachine LearningSoilAlgorithmsBrazilPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsRandom ForestSupport Vector MachineSoil

Identifiers

PMID42113860
PMCPMC13160448

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.