@article{ErlerRiebeBeitzetal.2020,
  author    = {Erler, Alexander and Riebe, Daniel and Beitz, Toralf and L{\"o}hmannsr{\"o}ben, Hans-Gerd and Gebbers, Robin},
  title     = {Soil Nutrient Detection for Precision Agriculture Using Handheld Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS) and Multivariate Regression Methods (PLSR, Lasso and GPR)},
  series = {Sensors},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {Sensors},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {1424-8220},
  doi       = {10.3390/s20020418},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Precision agriculture (PA) strongly relies on spatially differentiated sensor information. Handheld instruments based on laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) are a promising sensor technique for the in-field determination of various soil parameters. In this work, the potential of handheld LIBS for the determination of the total mass fractions of the major nutrients Ca, K, Mg, N, P and the trace nutrients Mn, Fe was evaluated. Additionally, other soil parameters, such as humus content, soil pH value and plant available P content, were determined. Since the quantification of nutrients by LIBS depends strongly on the soil matrix, various multivariate regression methods were used for calibration and prediction. These include partial least squares regression (PLSR), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression (Lasso), and Gaussian process regression (GPR). The best prediction results were obtained for Ca, K, Mg and Fe. The coefficients of determination obtained for other nutrients were smaller. This is due to much lower concentrations in the case of Mn, while the low number of lines and very weak intensities are the reason for the deviation of N and P. Soil parameters that are not directly related to one element, such as pH, could also be predicted. Lasso and GPR yielded slightly better results than PLSR. Additionally, several methods of data pretreatment were investigated.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ErlerRiebeBeitzetal.2023,
  author    = {Erler, Alexander and Riebe, Daniel and Beitz, Toralf and L{\"o}hmannsr{\"o}ben, Hans-Gerd and Leenen, Mathias and P{\"a}tzold, Stefan and Ostermann, Markus and W{\´o}jcik, Michał},
  title     = {Mobile laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for future application in precision agriculture},
  series = {Sensors},
  volume    = {23},
  journal   = {Sensors},
  number    = {16},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {1424-8220},
  doi       = {10.3390/s23167178},
  pages     = {17},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {In precision agriculture, the estimation of soil parameters via sensors and the creation of nutrient maps are a prerequisite for farmers to take targeted measures such as spatially resolved fertilization. In this work, 68 soil samples uniformly distributed over a field near Bonn are investigated using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). These investigations include the determination of the total contents of macro- and micronutrients as well as further soil parameters such as soil pH, soil organic matter (SOM) content, and soil texture. The applied LIBS instruments are a handheld and a platform spectrometer, which potentially allows for the single-point measurement and scanning of whole fields, respectively. Their results are compared with a high-resolution lab spectrometer. The prediction of soil parameters was based on multivariate methods. Different feature selection methods and regression methods like PLS, PCR, SVM, Lasso, and Gaussian processes were tested and compared. While good predictions were obtained for Ca, Mg, P, Mn, Cu, and silt content, excellent predictions were obtained for K, Fe, and clay content. The comparison of the three different spectrometers showed that although the lab spectrometer gives the best results, measurements with both field spectrometers also yield good results. This allows for a method transfer to the in-field measurements.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RiebeErlerBrinkmannetal.2019,
  author    = {Riebe, Daniel and Erler, Alexander and Brinkmann, Pia and Beitz, Toralf and L{\"o}hmannsr{\"o}ben, Hans-Gerd and Gebbers, Robin},
  title     = {Comparison of Calibration Approaches in Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Proximal Soil Sensing in Precision Agriculture},
  series = {Sensors},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Sensors},
  number    = {23},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {1424-8220},
  doi       = {10.3390/s19235244},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The lack of soil data, which are relevant, reliable, affordable, immediately available, and sufficiently detailed, is still a significant challenge in precision agriculture. A promising technology for the spatial assessment of the distribution of chemical elements within fields, without sample preparation is laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). Its advantages are contrasted by a strong matrix dependence of the LIBS signal which necessitates careful data evaluation. In this work, different calibration approaches for soil LIBS data are presented. The data were obtained from 139 soil samples collected on two neighboring agricultural fields in a quaternary landscape of northeast Germany with very variable soils. Reference analysis was carried out by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy after wet digestion. The major nutrients Ca and Mg and the minor nutrient Fe were investigated. Three calibration strategies were compared. The first method was based on univariate calibration by standard addition using just one soil sample and applying the derived calibration model to the LIBS data of both fields. The second univariate model derived the calibration from the reference analytics of all samples from one field. The prediction is validated by LIBS data of the second field. The third method is a multivariate calibration approach based on partial least squares regression (PLSR). The LIBS spectra of the first field are used for training. Validation was carried out by 20-fold cross-validation using the LIBS data of the first field and independently on the second field data. The second univariate method yielded better calibration and prediction results compared to the first method, since matrix effects were better accounted for. PLSR did not strongly improve the prediction in comparison to the second univariate method.},
  language  = {en}
}