Advertisement

Chinese Geographical Science

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 747–759 | Cite as

Comparison of artificial neural networks, geographically weighted regression and Cokriging methods for predicting the spatial distribution of soil macronutrients (N, P, and K)

  • Samad EmamgholizadehEmail author
  • Shahin Shahsavani
  • Mohamad Amin Eslami
Article

Abstract

Soil macronutrients (i.e. nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K)) are important soils components and knowing the spatial distribution of these parameters are necessary at precision agriculture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of different methods such as artificial neural networks (ANN) and two geostatistical methods (geographically weighted regression (GWR) and cokriging (CK)) to estimate N, P and K contents. For this purpose, soil samples were taken from topsoil (0–30 cm) at 106 points and analyzed for their chemical and physical parameters. These data were divided into calibration (n = 84) and validation (n = 22). Chemical and physical variables including clay, pH and organic carbon (OC) were used as auxiliary soil variables to estimate the N, P and K contents. Results showed that the ANN model (with coefficient of determination R 2 = 0.922 and root mean square error RMSE = 0.0079%) was more accurate compared to the CK model (with R 2 = 0.612 and RMSE = 0.0094%), and the GWR model (with R 2 = 0.872 and RMSE = 0.0089%) to estimate the N variable. The ANN model estimated the P with the RMSE of 3.630 ppm, which was respectively 28.93% and 20.00% less than the RMSE of 4.680 ppm and 4.357 ppm from the CK and GWR models. The estimated K by CK, GWR and ANN models have the RMSE of 76.794 ppm, 75.790 ppm and 52.484 ppm. Results indicated that the performance of the CK model for estimation of macro nutrients (N, P and K) was slightly lower than the GWR model. Also, the accuracy of the ANN model was higher than CK and GWR models, which proved to be more effective and reliable methods for estimating macro nutrients.

Keywords

precision agriculture soil characteristics interpolation artificial neural networks geographically weighted regression Cokriging 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aggelopoulou K, Gemtos T, 2011. Delineation of management zones in an apple orchard: correlations between yield and soil properties. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Informationand Communication Technologiesfor Sustainable Agri-production and Environment. Skiathos: HAICTA, 443–450Google Scholar
  2. Azmathullah H M, Deo M, Deolalikar P B, 2005. Neural networks for estimation of scour downstream of a ski-jump bucket. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 131(10): 898–908. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2005)131:10(898)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateni S M, Borghei S M, Jeng D S, 2007. Neural network and neuro-fuzzy assessments for scour depth around bridge piers. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 20(3): 401–414. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2006.06.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Box G E P, Cox D R, 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 26(2): 211–252Google Scholar
  5. Cambardella C A, Moorman T B, Parkin T B et al., 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central iowa soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58(5): 1501–1511. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800050033xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cressie N, 1993. Statistics for Spatial Data. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 15: 105–209Google Scholar
  7. Das D K, Bandyopadhyay S, Chakraborty D et al., 2009. Application of modern techniques in characterization and management of soil and water resources. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 57(4): 445.Google Scholar
  8. Eldeiry A A, Garcia L A, 2010. Comparison of ordinary kriging, regression kriging, and cokriging techniques to estimate soil salinity using landsat images. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 136(6): 355–364. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE) IR.1943-4774.0000208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emamgholizadeh S, Bahman K, Bateni S M et al., 2016. Estimation of soil dispersivity using soft computing approaches. Neural Computing and Applications, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s 00521-016-2320-xGoogle Scholar
  10. Emamgholizadeh S, Bateni S M, Jeng D-S, 2013. Artificial intelligence-based estimation of flushing half-cone geometry. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(10): 2551–2558. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2013.05.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emamgholizadeh S, Parsaeian M, Baradaran M, 2015. Seed yield prediction of sesame using artificial neural network. European Journal of Agronomy, 68: 89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015. 04.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eslami M A, Shahsavani S, Roshani G A et al., 2016. Mapping soil fertility of the peyvand cooperative lands by arcgis. In: Water and Soil. Shahrood University of Technology, 120.Google Scholar
  13. Fotheringham A S, Brunsdon C, Charlton M, 2003. Geographically Weighted Regression: The Analysis of Spatially Varying Relationships. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. George D, 2011. Spss for windows step by step: a simple study guide and reference, 17.0 update, 10/e. Pearson Education India.Google Scholar
  15. Ghorbani H, Kashi H, Hafezi Moghadas N et al., 2015. Estimation of soil cation exchange capacity using multiple regression, artificial neural networks, and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system models in golestan province, iran. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 46(6): 763–780. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1006367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goovaerts P, 1998. Ordinary cokriging revisited. Mathematical Geology, 30(1): 21–42. doi: 10.1023/A:1021757104135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ivajnšič D, Kaligarič M, Žiberna I, 2014. Geographically weighted regression of the urban heat island of a small city. Applied Geography, 53: 341–353. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014. 07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kashi H, Emamgholizadeh S, Ghorbani H, 2014. Estimation of soil infiltration and cation exchange capacity based on multiple regression, ANN (RBF, MLP), and ANFIS models. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 45(9): 1195–1213. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2013.874029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klute A, Dirksen C, 1986. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods. In: Klute A. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1—Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, 687–734Google Scholar
  20. Kumar S, Lal R, Liu D S, 2012. A geographically weighted regression kriging approach for mapping soil organic carbon stock. Geoderma, 189–190: 627–634. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma. 2012.05.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li Y, Li C K, Tao J-J et al., 2011. Study on spatial distribution of soil heavy metals in huizhou city based on BP-ANN modeling and GIS. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 10: 1953–1960. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu F, Zhang G L, Sun Y J et al., 2013. Mapping the three- dimensional distribution of soil organic matter across a subtropical hilly landscape. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 77(4): 1241–1253. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2012.0317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malinova T, Guo Z X, 2004. Artificial neural network modelling of hydrogen storage properties of Mg-based alloys. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 365(1–2): 219–227. doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2003.09.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Malvi U R, 2011. Interaction of micronutrients with major nutrients with special reference to potassium. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 24(1): 106–109Google Scholar
  25. McCulloch W S, Pitts W, 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5(4): 115–133. doi: 10.1007/BF02478259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKenzie N J, Ryan P J, 1999. Spatial prediction of soil properties using environmental correlation. Geoderma, 89(1–2): 67–94. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00137-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishra U, Lal R, Liu D S et al., 2010. Predicting the spatial variation of the soil organic carbon pool at a regional scale. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 74(3): 906–914. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2009.0158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murayama Y, 2012. Progress in Geospatial Analysis. Japan: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nath T N, 2014. Status of macronutrients (N, P and K) in some selected tea growing soils of sivasagar district of Assam, India. International Research Journal of Chemistry, 7.Google Scholar
  30. Odeh I O A, McBratney A B, Chittleborough D J, 1995. Further results on prediction of soil properties from terrain attributes: Heterotopic cokriging and regression-kriging. Geoderma, 67(3–4): 215–226. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(95)00007-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olsen S R, 1954. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate. Washington: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  32. Reeves D W, 1997. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil and Tillage Research, 43(1–2): 131–167. doi: 10.1016/S0167-1987(97)00038-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rincón-Ruiz A, Pascual U, Flantua S, 2013. Examining spatially varying relationships between coca crops and associated factors in colombia, using geographically weight regression. Applied Geography, 37: 23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robinson T P, Metternicht G, 2006. Testing the performance of spatial interpolation techniques for mapping soil properties. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 50(2): 97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2005.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saikh H, Varadachari C, Ghosh K, 1998. Changes in carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus levels due to deforestation and cultivation: A case study in simlipal national park, india. Plant and Soil, 198(2): 137–145. doi: 10.1023/A:1004391615003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh K P, Basant A, Malik A et al., 2009. Artificial neural network modeling of the river water quality—a case study. Ecological Modelling, 220(6): 888–895. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel. 2009.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Snyder P J, Redmond M P, 1995. Understanding neural networks. Computer explorations. Volumes 1 and 2. M. Caudill and C. Butler. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. Brain and Cognition, 27(1): 128–133. doi: 10.1006/brcg.1995.1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pang S, Li T X, Wang Y D et al., 2009. Spatial interpolation and sample size optimization for soil copper (Cu) investigation in cropland soil at county scale using cokriging. Agricultural Sciences in China, 8(11): 1369–1377. doi: 10.1016/S1671-2927(08)60349-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sun W, Minasny B, McBratney A, 2012. Analysis and prediction of soil properties using local regression-kriging. Geoderma, 171–172: 16–23. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wackernagel H, 2003. Multivariate Geostatistics: an Introduction with Applications. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walkley A, Black I A, 1934. An examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37(1): 29–38. doi: 10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang K, Zhang C R, Li W D, 2013. Predictive mapping of soil total nitrogen at a regional scale: a comparison between geographically weighted regression and cokriging. Applied Geography, 42: 73–85. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Western A W, Zhou S-L, Grayson R B et al., 2004. Spatial correlation of soil moisture in small catchments and its relationship to dominant spatial hydrological processes. Journal of Hydrology, 286(1–4): 113–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09. 014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang C S, Tang Y, Xu X L et al., 2011. Towards spatial geochemical modelling: use of geographically weighted regression for mapping soil organic carbon contents in ireland. Applied Geochemistry, 26(7): 1239–1248. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.04.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Northeast Institute of Geography and Agricultural Ecology, CAS and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samad Emamgholizadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shahin Shahsavani
    • 1
  • Mohamad Amin Eslami
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Water and Soil EngineeringShahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran

Personalised recommendations