Environmental Earth Sciences

, 75:299 | Cite as

Support vector machines and generalized linear models for quantifying soil dehydrogenase activity in agro-forestry system of mid altitude central Himalaya

  • Prashant K. SrivastavaEmail author
  • Aradhana Yaduvanshi
  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
  • Tanvir Islam
  • Manika Gupta
Original Article


In natural ecosystems, the linkages between inputs of carbon from plants, soil moisture (SM) and microbial activity are central to our understanding of nutrient cycling. Predictions of microbial activities in soil are important as they indicate the potential of the soil to support biochemical processes that are essential for the maintenance of soil fertility as well as productivity. The dehydrogenase activity (DHA) in soil provides information on microbial activities of the soil. However, estimation of DHA activity over complex terrain such as soils of the central Himalaya is not always possible due to very harsh environment and climatic conditions. In this study, the attempts were made to estimate the DHA in the soil of mid altitude central Himalaya using computational intelligence techniques. The linear and non-linear correlation results indicate that the fluctuations in SM and organic carbon (OC) in the root zone affect DHA and can be used as predictors for DHA. Therefore, the performances of support vector machines (SVMs) and generalized linear models (GLMs) were attempted for the prediction of DHA over mid altitude central Himalaya using information of SM and OC. The results showed that the SVM was giving a much better performance than GLM using SM and OC and could be promising and cost effective approach for soil DHA prediction over complex ecosystem. Our results are also of considerable scientific and practical value to the wider scientific community, given the number of practical applications and research studies in which SM and OC datasets are used.


Dehydrogenase activity Agro-forestry system Support vector machines Generalized linear models Central Himalaya 



Authors would like to thanks the Department of forestry, Guptkashi, Uttarakhand, India for providing necessary ancillary data of the area and their support during the samplings. We would like to thanks also the School of Environmental Sciences, JNU, New Delhi, India for providing the necessary resources and facilities for all the chemical and enzymatic analysis. The views expressed here are those of the authors solely and do not constitute a statement of policy, decision, or position on behalf of NOAA/NASA or the authors’ affiliated institutions.


  1. Anderson J, Ingram J (1993) Colorimetric determination of ammonium. In: Tropical soil biology and fertility, a handbook of methods, 2nd ed. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 73–74Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M, Kjøller A, Struwe S (2004) Microbial enzyme activities in leaf litter, humus and mineral soil layers of European forests. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1527–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold S, Fernandez I, Rustad L, Zibilske L (1999) Microbial response of an acid forest soil to experimental soil warming. Biol Fertil Soils 30:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behzad M, Asghari K, Coppola EA Jr (2009) Comparative study of SVMs and ANNs in aquifer water level prediction. J Comput Civil Eng 24:408–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowles TM, Acosta-Martínez V, Calderón F, Jackson LE (2014) Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscape. Soil Biol Biochem 68:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caputo B, Sim K, Furesjo F, Smola A (2002) Appearance-based object recognition using SVMs: which kernel should I use?Google Scholar
  7. Casida LE Jr, Klein D, Santoro T (1964) Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci 98:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chandra U (1978) Seismicity, earthquake mechanisms and tectonics along the Himalayan mountain range and vicinity. Phys Earth Planet Inter 16:109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleveland WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74:829–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cleveland WS (1981) LOWESS: a program for smoothing scatterplots by robust locally weighted regression. Am Stat 54Google Scholar
  11. Conn C, Dighton J (2000) Litter quality influences on decomposition, ectomycorrhizal community structure and mycorrhizal root surface acid phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 32:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dick R, Pankhurst C, Doube B, Gupta V (1997) Soil enzyme activities as integrative indicators of soil health. Biol Indicat Soil Health, 121–156Google Scholar
  13. Drucker H, Burges CJ, Kaufman L, Smola A, Vapnik V (1997) Support vector regression machines. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 9:155–161Google Scholar
  14. Genewein T, Braun DA (2014) Occam’s Razor in sensorimotor learning. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 281:20132952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grondona SI, Gonzalez M, Martínez DE, Massone HE, Miglioranza KS (2014) Endosulfan leaching from Typic Argiudolls in soybean tillage areas and groundwater pollution implications. Sci Total Environ 484:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagavane SR, Chaudhari R, Zanje H (2014) Influence of soil moisture regimes and sources of organic manures on dehydrogenase activities in inceptisols. World J Agric Sci 10:81–84Google Scholar
  17. Han D, Kwong T, Li S (2007) Uncertainties in real-time flood forecasting with neural networks. Hydrol Process 21:223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harlim J, Mahdi A, Majda AJ (2014) An ensemble Kalman filter for statistical estimation of physics constrained nonlinear regression models. J Comput Phys 257:782–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodges K, Bowring S, Davidek K, Hawkins D, Krol M (1998) Evidence for rapid displacement on Himalayan normal faults and the importance of tectonic denudation in the evolution of mountain ranges. Geology 26:483–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofmann K, Reitschuler C, Illmer P (2013) Aerobic and anaerobic microbial activities in the foreland of a receding glacier. Soil Biol Biochem 57:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang C-F (2012) A hybrid stock selection model using genetic algorithms and support vector regression. Appl Soft Comput 12:807–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ishak AM, Remesan R, Srivastava PK, Islam T, Han D (2013) Error correction modelling of wind speed through hydro-meteorological parameters and mesoscale model: a hybrid approach. Water Resour Manag 27:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Islam T, Rico-Ramirez MA, Han D, Srivastava PK (2012) Artificial intelligence techniques for clutter identification with polarimetric radar signatures. Atmos Res 109:95–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Islam T, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Zhu X, Mukherjee S (2014) Computational intelligence techniques in earth and environmental sciences. Springer, Netherlands. ISBN 978-94-017-8642-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang X, Lu W-X, Zhao H-Q, Yang Q-C, Chen M (2015) Quantitative evaluation of mining geo-environmental quality in Northeast China: comprehensive index method and support vector machine models. Environ Earth Sci 73:7945–7955Google Scholar
  26. Johnson RA, Wichern DW (2002) Applied multivariate statistical analysis, vol 4. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  27. Kussainova M, Durmuşa M, Erkoçak A, Kızılkaya R (2013) Soil dehydrogenase activity of natural macro aggregates in a toposequence of forest soil. Eur J Soil Sci 2:69–75Google Scholar
  28. Li L, Wu K, Zhou D-W (2014) Extraction algorithm of mining subsidence information on water area based on support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 72:3991–4000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindsey JK (1997) Applying generalized linear models. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Mijangos I, Epelde L, Blanco F, Garbisu C (2012) Evaluating the restoration of degraded agricultural soils under organic fertilization. In: Soil enzymology in the recycling of organic wastes and environmental restoration. Springer, Berlin, pp 211–218Google Scholar
  32. Müller M (2012) Generalized linear models. In: Handbook of computational statistics. Springer, Berlin, pp 681–709Google Scholar
  33. Nannipieri P, Grego S, Ceccanti B, Bollag J, Stotzky G (1990) Ecological significance of the biological activity in soil. Soil Biochem 6:293–355Google Scholar
  34. Nelder JA, Baker R (1972) Generalized linear models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Okkan U, Serbes ZA (2012) Rainfall—runoff modeling using least squares support vector machines. Environmetrics 23:549–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Quilchano C, Marañón T (2002) Dehydrogenase activity in Mediterranean forest soils. Biol Fertil Soils 35:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rao D, Ghai S (1985) Urease and dehydrogenase activity of alkali and reclaimed soils. Soil Res 23:661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rasmussen CE, Ghahramani Z (2001) Occam’s razor. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 294–300Google Scholar
  39. R Development C (2010) TEAM. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
  40. Regmi AD, Yoshida K, Dhital MR, Devkota K (2013) Effect of rock weathering, clay mineralogy, and geological structures in the formation of large landslide, a case study from Dumre Besei landslide. Lesser Himalaya Nepal Landslides 10:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ren F, Wu X, Zhang K, Niu R (2015) Application of wavelet analysis and a particle swarm-optimized support vector machine to predict the displacement of the Shuping landslide in the Three Gorges. China Environ Earth Sci 73:4791–4804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Gupta M, Thakur JK, Mukherjee S (2014) Appraisal of land use/land cover of mangrove forest ecosystem using support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 71:2245–2255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sinsabaugh RL, Manzoni S, Moorhead DL, Richter A (2013) Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. Ecol Lett 16:930–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sivapragasam C, Muttil N (2005) Discharge rating curve extension—A new approach. Water Resour Manage 19:505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smola AJ, Schölkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression Statistics and computing 14:199–222Google Scholar
  46. Sparling GP (1992) Ratio of microbial biomass carbon to soil organic carbon as a sensitive indicator of changes in soil organic matter. Soil Res 30:195–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, Bray M, Islam T (2012) Selection of classification techniques for land use/land cover change investigation. Adv Space Res 50:1250–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, Islam T (2013a) Machine learning techniques for downscaling SMOS satellite soil moisture using MODIS land surface temperature for hydrological application. Water Resour Manage 27:3127–3144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, Al-Shrafany D, Islam T (2013b) Data fusion techniques for improving soil moisture deficit using SMOS satellite and WRF-NOAH land surface model. Water Resour Manage 27:5069–5087Google Scholar
  50. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, Islam T (2013c) Appraisal of SMOS soil moisture at a catchment scale in a temperate maritime climate. J Hydrol 498:292–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Srivastava PK, Mukherjee S, Gupta M, Islam T (2014a) Remote sensing applications in environmental research. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-319-05905-1Google Scholar
  52. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, O'Neill P, Islam T, Gupta M (2014b) Assessment of SMOS soil moisture retrieval parameters using tau–omega algorithms for soil moisture deficit estimation. J Hydrol 519:574–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Srivastava PK, Islam T, Gupta M, Petropoulos G, Dai Q (2015a) WRF dynamical downscaling and bias correction schemes for NCEP estimated hydro-meteorological variables water resources management 29:2267–2284Google Scholar
  54. Srivastava PK, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA, O’Neill P, Islam T, Gupta M, Dai Q (2015b) Performance evaluation of WRF-Noah Land surface model estimated soil moisture for hydrological application: Synergistic evaluation using SMOS retrieved soil moisture. J Hydrol 529(Part 1):200–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tate III RL (1995) Soil microbiology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram. J Geophys Res 106:7183–7192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tipping ME (2001) Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. J Mach Learn Res 1:211–244Google Scholar
  58. Vapnik V, Golowich SE, Smola A (1997) Support vector method for function approximation, regression estimation, and signal processing. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 281–287Google Scholar
  59. Velmourougane K et al (2013) Soil dehydrogenase activity in agro-ecological sub regions of black soil regions in India. Geoderma 197:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu X, Ren F, Niu R (2014) Landslide susceptibility assessment using object mapping units, decision tree, and support vector machine models in the Three Gorges of China. Environ Earth Sci 71:4725–4738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xu Y, Cheng C, Zhang Y, Zhang D (2014) Identification of algal blooms based on support vector machine classification in Haizhou Bay. East China Sea Environ Earth Sci 71:475–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prashant K. Srivastava
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Aradhana Yaduvanshi
    • 4
  • Sudhir Kumar Singh
    • 5
  • Tanvir Islam
    • 6
    • 7
  • Manika Gupta
    • 1
    • 8
  1. 1.Hydrological SciencesNASA Goddard Space Flight CenterGreenbeltUSA
  2. 2.Earth System Science Interdisciplinary CenterUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia
  4. 4.Center of Excellence in ClimatologyBirla Institue of TechnologyMesraIndia
  5. 5.K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies, IIDS, Nehru Science CentreUniversity of AllahabadAllahabadIndia
  6. 6.NOAA/NESDIS Center for Satellite Applications and ResearchCollege ParkUSA
  7. 7.Cooperative Institute for Research in the AtmosphereColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  8. 8.Universities Space Research AssociationColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations