<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJSS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Soil Science</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-5360</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojss.2016.63006</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJSS-65245</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Using Visible-Near Infrared Spectroscopy to Predict Soil Properties of Mugan Plain, Azerbaijan
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>ikrat</surname><given-names>Feyziyev</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Maharram</surname><given-names>Babayev</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Simone</surname><given-names>Priori</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Giovanni</surname><given-names>L’Abate</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>CREA-Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Florence, Italy</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry of National Academy of Science of Azerbaijan, Baku, Azerbaijan</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>fikrat.fm@gmail.com(IF)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>25</day><month>03</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>06</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>52</fpage><lpage>58</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>16</day>	<month>February</month>	<year>2016</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>28</month>	<year>March</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>31</day>	<month>March</month>	<year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The potential ability of the Vis-NIR (350 - 2500 nm) laboratory spectroscopy for prediction of soil properties has been demonstrated in the literature. The aim of this work was to predict different soil properties of soils collected in Mugan plain (Azerbaijan) using PLSR models and cross-validation. Carbonatation and salinisation are the main pedogenetic processes in Muganplain, therefore there is a need to monitor total carbonates and soil electrical conductivity (EC). The result of work was positive and both total carbonates and EC showed the best result (SE = 2.90, R
  <sup>2</sup>-0.90 and SE-0.09, R
  <sup>2</sup>-0.82, respectively). This parameter using PLSR, SOM (SE-0.54, R
  <sup>2</sup>-0.83), CEC (SE-0.43, R
  <sup>2</sup>-0.62), and Total P (SE-0.50, R
  <sup>2</sup>-0.73) is predicted and result is over optimist. Total N (SE-0.04, R
  <sup>2</sup>-0.44), and pH (SE-0.02, R
  <sup>2-</sup>0.51) demonstrated low prediction quality.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>PLSR</kwd><kwd> Prediction</kwd><kwd> VIS-NIR</kwd><kwd> Soil Reflectance</kwd><kwd> Soil Properties</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>There is widespread interest for using Vis-NIR spectroscopy to predict soil properties due to cost-effective, rapid and minimal soil preparation process and no hazardous to environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref1">1</xref>] . The demographic increasing of world population requires that soil resources should be carefully used. It is important that, soil resources should be investigated using modern technology. Conventional soil analysis is not efficiently because they are very slow and expensive [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref2">2</xref>] with their ecological hazard. Visible (Vis, 400 - 700 nm) and Near-Infrared (NIR, 700 - 2500 nm) diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) has shown to be an efficient tool for the rapid and cheap prediction of soil properties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref3">3</xref>] . The prediction of soil properties requires the creation of a spectral library relating spectra with reference data [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref4">4</xref>] . Such a library should be designed to represent the variation in soil properties of the soil types of interest. Multivariate regressions are then used to infer properties [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>The most important thing to enhance the accuracy of Vis-NIR measurement of soil properties is the optimal selection of calibration model. Five multivariate techniques, namely, stepwise multiple linear regression, PCR, PLSR, regression tree and committee trees were compared by Vasques et al. 2008 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref6">6</xref>] with the aim of identifying the best combination of multivariate statistics and spectra pre-processing to predict soil carbon. They concluded that PLSR performed the best compared to other techniques tested. Moreover, linear PCR and PLSR analyses are the most common techniques for spectral modelling [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>There are several works predicted soil properties using Vis-NIR spectroscopy by PLSR model. Soil organic carbon and soil organic matter prediction is highly variable in Vis-NIR region but often reported that OM signals are weak [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref2">2</xref>] . Different authors explain it with relating soil spatial variability and soil condition and according to Ben-Dor and Banin [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref8">8</xref>] suggested that the organic matter itself changes due to decomposition. There is support that soil spatial variation would affect to Vis-NIR prediction but in small range so field or farm-scale calibration is better than regional or coarse [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref9">9</xref>] . As an alternative Vis-NIR widely used and there are a lot of powerful results. NIR reflectance spectroscopy is sensitive to organic carbon and mineral soil composition which it possible to predict of various soil properties form single scan [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref15">15</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area</title><p>Soil samples were collected on the Mugan plain of Azerbaijan. The study are has a arid climate with a mean annual precipitation, evaporation, temperature of 30 mm , 1000 mm , 17˚C, respectively. Study area (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>) is mainly located under sea level and the dominant soilsare Calcisols, Solonchaks and Calcaric Fluvisols. Salinization, gleyfication and carbonatation processes are very appreciable and plays significant role in these soils genesis and morphology [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref10">10</xref>] .</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> The false colour composite of the study area</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1660340x6.png"/></fig></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Soil Samples and Laboratory Analysis</title><p>For representative result of soil properties have been selected 46 sites and 194 samples were collected over genetic horizon of soil sites. Soil samples were air dried and 2 mm sieved. Particle size distribution were determined by Pipette method, Organic matter content (OM) and N contents were determined using Walkey-Black and Kjeldahl methods, respectively; CaCO<sub>3</sub> content was determined with the gas-volumetric method; CEC was determined through the extraction in ammonium acetate. Soil pH and electric conductivity (EC) were determined using a 1:5 soil-water suspension</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Soil Vis-NIR Spectral Measurement and Pre-Processing</title><p>Air died and 2 mm sieved soil samples were put in a glass Petri dish for spectral scanning. The samples were scanned using ASD FielSpec 3 radiometer (Analytical Spectral Devices, Boulder , Colo. ) at the range of 350 - 2500 nm wavelength, using a contact probe with artificial light. Each soil spectrum was obtained as the mean of 10 scans. Spectralon&#174; white reflectance standard was scanned after every 10 soils samples for white reference.</p><p>Pre-processing is important for remove undesirable affects from spectral data. A spectral pre-treatment was performed to reduce the influence of particle size and optical path length variation in the reflectance spectra [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref11">11</xref>] . The head and the tail (350 - 400 nm and 2450 - 2500 nm) of the spectra showed very high noise and were removed manually from data matrix. The remaining spectra were subjected to Multiplicative Scatter Correction (MSC) for removing scatter effect and first derivative with Savinski Golay algorithms to highlight the peaks of the spectra [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref12">12</xref>] . All pre-processing data were carried out using Unscrambler 9.7 (CAMO) (See <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Spectral Modeling, Calibration and Cross-Validation</title><p>The spectral modeling process was carried out by Partial Least Squareregression (PLSR), which is one of the most common methodin Vis-NIR chemometrics analysis. PLSR is a method for relating to data matrix X and Y through a linear multivariate model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref13">13</xref>] . PLSR is closely related to Principal component regression (PCR), but PLSR algorithm integrates the compression and regression steps and it selects successive orthogonal factors that maximize the covariance between predictor and response variables [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref14">14</xref>] . Since the number of soil samples set was not high, but very representative of the soil typologies in Mugan plains, we decided to use a leave-one-out cross validation. Then, PLSR model was calculated on all the 194 samples, whereas the validation of the model was carried out on “total set-1 sample”, iteratively.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Result and Discussion</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Soil Properties</title><p>Summary statistic of measured laboratory data is provided in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The range of measured data have a variable respectively CaCO<sub>3</sub> (215 - 3.60 g/kg), P (49 - 1 mg/kg), SOM (67.10 - 3.80 g/kg) and for the variable pH (9.50 - 8), K (0.11 - 4.40), have narrow range in the data set opposite to other properties. Standard deviation (SD) for total N, CaCO<sub>3</sub>, P, pH and SOM is respectively 0.59, 39.4, 0.97, 7.85, 0.25, 9.37.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Prediction of Soil Properties</title><p>The cross validation approach was used with PLSR model to calibrate soil variables based on entire soil data set. Method was estimated using cross validation R<sup>2</sup> and RMSE for the soil properties. The result of PLSR model applied to soil properties statistics are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref> for variable soil measured and validated properties. PLSR applied to total N, CaCO<sub>3</sub>, total P, CEC, EC, SOM and pH. The results showed that there was strong correlation between Vis-NIR spectra and most of the measured soil properties. Only pH showed low correlation with soil spectra. The best calibration models were obtained for EC (R<sup>2</sup>-0.96), CaCO<sub>3</sub> (R<sup>2</sup>-0.94), Total N (R<sup>2</sup>-0.86), Total P (R<sup>2</sup>-0.86), CEC (R<sup>2</sup>-0.83), SOM (R<sup>2</sup>-0.78). The poor calibration result for pH (R<sup>2</sup>-0.65) but these properties inherently poorly related with Vis-NIR spectroscopy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref1">1</xref>] .</p><p>The statistics of cross-validation and result of PLSR models for CaCO<sub>3</sub>, CEC, SOM, Total N, Total P, and pH in soils of Mugan plain are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. Standard error for measured vs predicted CaCO<sub>3</sub> (4.22 - 4.11), CEC (0.88 - 0.79), SOM (0.99 - 0.70), Total N (0.06 - 0.05), Total P (0.83 - 0.66) and pH (0.03 - 0.02) respectively.</p><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> The spectral data plots of soil samples: the raw data (top) and first derivative with Savinski Golay smoothing algorithms (bottom)</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1660340x7.png"/></fig><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> The correlation between measured soil properties and VNIR calibrated soil variables</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1660340x8.png"/></fig><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> The statistic of reference data</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total N, g/kg</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total CaCO<sub>3</sub>, g/kg</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CEC meq/100g</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EC (dS∙m<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Fosfor mg/kg P</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pH</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SOM, g/kg</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Max</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >212.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.30</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >115.40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sd.error</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Skew</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−0.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.32</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>A correlation between soil spectra and carbonates were investigated by using calibration set and measured soil properties data and there is in 3 region (1800, 2350 and 2360 nm) of spectral wavelength to predict soil carbonates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref8">8</xref>] . Prediction result demonstrated that in our prediction set is reliable. The predicted soil samples count are 194 and RMSE = 2.89. The best result for quantifying soil carbonate ranged between 10% - 60% and the</p><p>average value is 10.8 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) in our samples.</p><p>Soil organic matter is major constitutes for soil properties and wide spectral range for assess SOM over spectral region. There is strong correlation between soil color and SOM. For this reason there is suggested to use both vis and NIR to get best prediction result [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref1">1</xref>] . R-square is 0.83 in our sample set and RMSE is 0.54. Bands around 1400, 1890 and 2200 nm are very sensitive in spectra. Therefore, in study area soils have low content of SOM (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>.) for this reason Vis regions have high reflectance because of light color. Cation exchange capacity (CEC) prediction result is poor than calibration set. R-square is 0.62 but in calibration set R-square was 0.83 and RMSE = 0.43 prediction quality decreased when using more samples in validation set than calibration set [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref13">13</xref>] . Generally CEC capacity and SOM demonstrate same spectral similarity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.65245-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> contains statistic result of predicted properties of soil vis-nir spectroscopy measurement. The low result recorded for Total N, pH and CEC (R<sup>2</sup> 0.44, 0.51 and 0.62). Several scientific works demonstrates that pH hasn’t direct spectral responses. The pH regulated several properties of soil. One of them is CEC, SOM and clay content. Generally study area soils undergo calcification and salinization process. The positive result is CaCO<sub>3</sub> and EC have a good relation with spectral reflection. As a prediction result, R-square of EC is 0.82 and RMSE 0.09.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Conclusions</title><p>This paper aimed to predict CaCO<sub>3</sub>, CEC, SOM, EC, pH, Total N and Total P content in the arid zone of Azerbaijan using Vis-NIR reflectance Spectroscopy based on PLSR<sub>CV</sub> models.</p><p>Considering of carbonate, CEC, SOM, EC, pH, Total N and Total P importance in soil also the cost of laboratory measurement of them Vis-NIR is a reliable alternative. It is possible to reduce laboratory costs using nis-NIR spectroscopy. The soil of the study area undergoes different ecological problems such as organic matter losses, salinisation and carbonatation. To study them and to prevent these negative processes the area soils</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Statistics of measured and predicted soil data using PLSR calibration model</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >CaCO<sub>3</sub> (g/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >CEC meq/100</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >SOM (g/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total N g/kg()</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >P (mg/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >pH</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Measured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Predicted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Measured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Predicted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Measured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Predicted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Measured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Predicted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Measured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Predicted</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Measured</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Predicted</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.116</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.98</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Max</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >219.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.74</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >114.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >114.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.53</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sd. error</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Descriptive statistics of predicted soil properties</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" ></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CaCO<sub>3</sub> (g/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >CEC (meq/100)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >SOM (g/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Total N (mg/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P (mg/kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pH</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >EC ds∙m<sup>−1</sup></th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Min</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Max</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >168.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.95</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Range</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.53</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.88</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Median</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >112.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup>*</sup>SE</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ><sup>#</sup>SD</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.82</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>SE<sup>*</sup>: Standart error, SD<sup>#</sup>: Standart deviation.</p><p>should be analyzed with powerful and reliable methods. PLSR based prediction model with cross validation algorithms were achieved positive result. The result of this study shows that it is possible to predict soil properties with reasonable accuracy using PLSR methods.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Fikrat Feyziyev,Maharram Babayev,Simone Priori,Giovanni L’Abate, (2016) Using Visible-Near Infrared Spectroscopy to Predict Soil Properties of Mugan Plain, Azerbaijan. Open Journal of Soil Science,06,52-58. doi: 10.4236/ojss.2016.63006</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.65245-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Viscarra, R.A., Cattle, S.R., Ortega, A. and Fouad, Y. (2009) In Situ Measurements of Soil Colour, Mineral Composition and Clay Content by Vis-NIR Spectroscopy. Geoderma, 150, 253-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.01.025</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Viscarra, R.A. and McBratney, A.B. (1998) Laboratory Evaluation of a Proximal Sensing Technique for Simultaneous Measurement of Clay and Water Content. Geoderma, 85, 19-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00023-8</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Islam, K., Singh, B. and McBratney, A. (2003) Simultaneous Estimation of Several Soil Properties by Ultra-Violet, Visible, and Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. Soil Research, 41, 1101-1114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/sr02137</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nocita, M., Stevens, A., Toth, G., Panagos, P., Wesemael, B. and Montanarella, L. (2014) Prediction of Soil Organic Carbon Content by Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy Using a Local Partial Least Square Regression Approach. Soil Biology &amp; Biochemistry, 68, 337-347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Shepherd, K.D. and Walsh, M.G. (2002) Development of Reflectance Spectral Libraries for Characterization of Soil Properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66, 988-998. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.9880</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vasques, G.M., Grunwald, S. and Sickman, J.O. (2008) Comparison of Multivariate Methods for Inferential Modeling of Soil Carbon Using Visible/Near-Infrared Spectra. Geoderma, 146, 14-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.04.007</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Leone, A.P., Raphael, A., Rossel, V., Amenta, P. and Buondonno, A. (2012) Prediction of Soil Properties with PLSR and Vis-NIR Spectroscopy: Application to Mediterranean Soils from Southern Italy. Current Analytical Chemistry, 8, 283-299.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ben-Dor, B.A. (1990) Near Infrared Reflectance Analysis of Carbonate Concentration in Soils. Applied Spectroscopy, 44, 1064-1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1366/0003702904086821</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Stenberg, B., Rossel, R.A.V., Mouazen, A.M. and Wetterlind, J. (2010) Visible and Near Infrared Spectroscopy in Soil Science. In: Sparks, D. L., Ed., Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 107, Academic Press, Burlington, 163-215.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Babayev, M., Hasanov, V., Cafarova, Ch. and Huseynov, S. (2011) The Classification, Nomenculature and Morphogenetic Diognostics of Azerbaijan Soils. Elm, Baku, 448.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Williams, P. and Norris, K., Eds. (1987) Near-Infrared Technology in the Agricultural and Food Industries. American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, 330 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Savitzky, A. and Golay, M. (1964) Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures. Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627-1639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac60214a047</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bilgili, V., van Es, H., Akbash, F., Durak, A. and Hively, W. (2010) Visible-Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy for Assessment of Soil Properties in a Semi-Arid Area of Turkey. Journal of Arid Environments, 74, 229-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.011</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Viscarra, R.A. and Behrens, T. (2010) Using Data Mining to Model and Interpret Soil Diffuse Reflectance Spectra. Geoderma, 158, 46-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.12.025</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Minasny, B., McBratney, A.B., et al. (2011) Removing the Effect of Soil Moisture from NIR Diffuse Reflectance Spectra for the Prediction of Soil Organic Carbon. Geoderma, 167-168, 118-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.09.008</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.65245-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wei, C.L., Zhao, Y.G., Li, D.C., Zhang, G.L., Wu, D.W. and Chen, J.K. (2014) Prediction of Soil Organic Matter and Cation Exchange Capacity Based on Spectral Similarity Measuring. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 30, 81-88.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>