ArticlePloS one2026
A novel methodological framework for predicting and mapping agriculture-related soil attributes using Euclidean distance, regular grids, and machine learning algorithms.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.