Cargando…

Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data

This study was conducted to examine the capability of topographic features and remote sensing data in combination with other auxiliary environmental variables (geology and geomorphology) to predict CEC by using different machine learning models ((random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors (kNNs), Cubis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saidi, Sanaz, Ayoubi, Shamsollah, Shirvani, Mehran, Azizi, Kamran, Zeraatpisheh, Mojtaba
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9506071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36146239
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22186890
_version_ 1784796631313416192
author Saidi, Sanaz
Ayoubi, Shamsollah
Shirvani, Mehran
Azizi, Kamran
Zeraatpisheh, Mojtaba
author_facet Saidi, Sanaz
Ayoubi, Shamsollah
Shirvani, Mehran
Azizi, Kamran
Zeraatpisheh, Mojtaba
author_sort Saidi, Sanaz
collection PubMed
description This study was conducted to examine the capability of topographic features and remote sensing data in combination with other auxiliary environmental variables (geology and geomorphology) to predict CEC by using different machine learning models ((random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors (kNNs), Cubist model (Cu), and support vector machines (SVMs)) in the west of Iran. Accordingly, the collection of ninety-seven soil samples was performed from the surface layer (0–20 cm), and a number of soil properties and X-ray analyses, as well as CEC, were determined in the laboratory. The X-ray analysis showed that the clay types as the main dominant factor on CEC varied from illite to smectite. The results of modeling also displayed that in the training dataset based on 10-fold cross-validation, RF was identified as the best model for predicting CEC (R(2) = 0.86; root mean square error: RMSE = 2.76; ratio of performance to deviation: RPD = 2.67), whereas the Cu model outperformed in the validation dataset (R(2) = 0.49; RMSE = 4.51; RPD = 1.43)). RF, the best and most accurate model, was thus used to prepare the CEC map. The results confirm higher CEC in the early Quaternary deposits along with higher soil development and enrichment with smectite and vermiculite. On the other hand, lower CEC was observed in mountainous and coarse-textured soils (silt loam and sandy loam). The important variable analysis also showed that some topographic attributes (valley depth, elevation, slope, terrain ruggedness index—TRI) and remotely sensed data (ferric oxides, normalized difference moisture index—NDMI, and salinity index) could be considered as the most imperative variables explaining the variability of CEC by the best model in the study area.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9506071
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95060712022-09-24 Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data Saidi, Sanaz Ayoubi, Shamsollah Shirvani, Mehran Azizi, Kamran Zeraatpisheh, Mojtaba Sensors (Basel) Article This study was conducted to examine the capability of topographic features and remote sensing data in combination with other auxiliary environmental variables (geology and geomorphology) to predict CEC by using different machine learning models ((random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbors (kNNs), Cubist model (Cu), and support vector machines (SVMs)) in the west of Iran. Accordingly, the collection of ninety-seven soil samples was performed from the surface layer (0–20 cm), and a number of soil properties and X-ray analyses, as well as CEC, were determined in the laboratory. The X-ray analysis showed that the clay types as the main dominant factor on CEC varied from illite to smectite. The results of modeling also displayed that in the training dataset based on 10-fold cross-validation, RF was identified as the best model for predicting CEC (R(2) = 0.86; root mean square error: RMSE = 2.76; ratio of performance to deviation: RPD = 2.67), whereas the Cu model outperformed in the validation dataset (R(2) = 0.49; RMSE = 4.51; RPD = 1.43)). RF, the best and most accurate model, was thus used to prepare the CEC map. The results confirm higher CEC in the early Quaternary deposits along with higher soil development and enrichment with smectite and vermiculite. On the other hand, lower CEC was observed in mountainous and coarse-textured soils (silt loam and sandy loam). The important variable analysis also showed that some topographic attributes (valley depth, elevation, slope, terrain ruggedness index—TRI) and remotely sensed data (ferric oxides, normalized difference moisture index—NDMI, and salinity index) could be considered as the most imperative variables explaining the variability of CEC by the best model in the study area. MDPI 2022-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9506071/ /pubmed/36146239 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22186890 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Saidi, Sanaz
Ayoubi, Shamsollah
Shirvani, Mehran
Azizi, Kamran
Zeraatpisheh, Mojtaba
Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data
title Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data
title_full Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data
title_short Comparison of Different Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Cation Exchange Capacity Using Environmental and Remote Sensing Data
title_sort comparison of different machine learning methods for predicting cation exchange capacity using environmental and remote sensing data
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9506071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36146239
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s22186890
work_keys_str_mv AT saidisanaz comparisonofdifferentmachinelearningmethodsforpredictingcationexchangecapacityusingenvironmentalandremotesensingdata
AT ayoubishamsollah comparisonofdifferentmachinelearningmethodsforpredictingcationexchangecapacityusingenvironmentalandremotesensingdata
AT shirvanimehran comparisonofdifferentmachinelearningmethodsforpredictingcationexchangecapacityusingenvironmentalandremotesensingdata
AT azizikamran comparisonofdifferentmachinelearningmethodsforpredictingcationexchangecapacityusingenvironmentalandremotesensingdata
AT zeraatpishehmojtaba comparisonofdifferentmachinelearningmethodsforpredictingcationexchangecapacityusingenvironmentalandremotesensingdata