In‐field soil spectroscopy represents a promising opportunity for fast soil analysis, allowing the prediction of several soil properties from one spectral reading representing one soil sample. This facilitates data acquisition from large amounts of samples through its rapidity and the absence of required chemical processing. This is of particular interest in agriculture, where the chance to retrieve information from soils directly in the field is very appealing. This review is focused on in‐field visible to near infrared (Vis–NIR) spectroscopy (350–2500 nm), aimed at analysing soils directly in the field through proximal sensing. The main scope was to explore the available knowledge to identify existing gaps limiting the reliability and robustness of in‐field measurement, to foster future research and help transition towards the practical application of this technology. For this purpose, a literature review was performed, and surveyed information encompassed sensor range, carrier platforms in use, sensor type, distance to the soil sample, measurement methodology, measured soil properties and soil management, among many others. From this, we derived a list of tools in use with their spectral measurement properties, including the potential cross‐calibration with soil spectral libraries from laboratory spectroscopy of soil samples and potential measured target soil properties. Different instruments and sensors used to measure at varying wavelength ranges and with different spectral qualities are available for a large range of prices. The most frequently analysed soil properties included soil carbon contents (soil organic carbon, soil organic matter, total carbon), texture (clay, silt, sand), total nitrogen, pH and cation exchange capacity. Future perspectives comprise the implementation of larger databases, including different instruments and cropping systems as well as methodologies combining existing knowledge regarding laboratory spectroscopy with in‐field methods. The authors highlight the need for a broadly accepted measurement protocol for in‐field soil spectroscopy, fostering harmonization and standardization and consequently a more robust application in practice.

Energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (EDXRF) is a rapid and inexpensive method for soil analysis; however, analytical results are influenced by particle size effects and spectral interferences. The objective of this study was to optimise sample preparation and calibrations to improve the accuracy of EDXRF for soil tests. Methods of sample preparation were compared by calculating the recoveries of 13 elements in four International Soil-Analytical Exchange (ISE) standards prepared as loose powder (LP), pressed pellet (PP), and pressed pellet with wax binder (PPB). A matching library (ML) was created and evaluated against the fundamental parameters (FP) calibration using 20 ISE standards. Additionally, EDXRF results of 41 tillage soils were compared with Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) results. The PPB had most recoveries within the acceptable range of 80–120%; conversely, PP yielded the poorest element recoveries. For the calibration, the ML provided better recoveries of Ni, Pb, Cu, Mg, S, P, and Cr; however, for Zn, and Mn, it had the opposite effect. Furthermore, EDXRF results compared with ICP-OES separated by soil texture class for Al, K, Mn, and Fe. In conclusion, the EDXRF is suitable for quantifying both trace elements and macronutrients in contaminated soils and has the potential to provide screening or prediction of soil texture in agriculture.

The application of visible and near‐infrared (vis–NIR) spectroscopy to characterize soil samples has gained growing interest as a fast and cost‐effective methodology for soil fertility assessment. In order to profit from the full potential of vis–NIR spectroscopy, the acquisition of soil spectra directly in‐situ would increase the possibility to obtain data rapidly and at a high spatial and temporal resolution. In the present study, we test and propose the best practice to characterize a set of fertility‐related parameters (i.e. texture, organic carbon, pH, cation exchange capacity and major nutrients) of agricultural soils by measuring vis–NIR spectra in the field. To reach this goal, we compare the spectra obtained from different scanning positions with two portable spectrometers, that is, a micro‐electro‐mechanical systems (MEMS)‐based spectrometer and a research‐grade vis–NIR spectrometer. On the basis of 134 soil sampling points, vis–NIR spectra were recorded from: (1) the cutaway side of a soil sample collected with an Edelman auger to a depth of 20 cm, (2) the raw soil surface, as well as (3) the cleaned and smoothed soil surface. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) calibration models were built for the selected soil parameters, scanning positions and different spectral pretreatments for both spectrometers. The model performance was evaluated based on the ratio of performance to interquartile range (RPIQ), the R ² , the root mean squared error (RMSE) and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Overall, the following soil parameters were successfully predicted: clay, sand, pH, organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, total nitrogen and exchangeable magnesium. In contrast, total and exchangeable Ca, K and P, as well as total Mg could not be predicted at a satisfactory level for both the spectrometers. The best scanning position for the successfully calibrated models was along the cutaway sides of the Edelman auger. Although the research‐grade spectrometer gave better performance indicators for most of the parameters, the calibrations with the MEMS‐based spectrometer still resulted in satisfactory predictions. Based on these findings, the proposed best practice for obtaining in‐situ soil vis–NIR scans is to scan along the cutaway sides of a soil core using at least five replicate scans.