HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mueller, T. G. Articles by Barnhisel, R. I. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mueller, T. G. Articles by Barnhisel, R. I. Agricola Articles by Mueller, T. G. Articles by Barnhisel, R. I. Related Collections Geostatistics Spatial Variability Site-Specific Analysis Soil Fertility and Productivity Spatial Distribution

Site-Specific Soil Fertility Management

A Model for Map Quality

Dep. of Agronomy, N-122 Agronomy Science North, Univ. of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40502

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Sampling design. The 30.5-m grids are indicated with crosses and the validation points are indicated with circles.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Plots of predicted vs. measured for pH, P, and K for the four 61.0-m grids (i.e., G61a, G61b, G61c, G61d) at the Hopkins County location.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Plots of predicted vs. measured for pH, P, and K for the four 61.0-m grids (i.e., G61a, G61b, G61c, G61d) at the Shelby County location. PE = prediction efficiency.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Model semivariance minus measured semivariance of individual semivariograms of individual pairs for (a) pH in Hardin County, (b) P in Hardin County, and (c) pH in Shelby County. PE = prediction efficiency.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. A visual representation of the contributions of the factors in the regression model (Table 4) to the final estimates. The partial contributions to the predictions (i.e., regression coefficient x repressor variable value) were plotted against the untransformed values of the regressor variables.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Regression model (Table 4) evaluation. Modeled vs. measured prediction efficiency for (a) the data that was used to generate the model, (b) the original data with the exception of pH and buffer pH values from the Calloway, Hopkins, Hardin, Nelson, and Michigan locations, the original data from the pH and buffer pH values from the Calloway, Hopkins, Hardin, Nelson, and Michigan locations, and (d) reported results from Kravchenko (2003). RMSEs and errors of accuracy (ACC) and precision (PREC) listed. Accuracy and precision have been defined Eq. [2] and [3], respectively.