Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estimation of important points on soil water retention curve (SWRC): comparison experimental-physical models and data mining technique

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Arabian Journal of Geosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the performance of modern data mining (DM) techniques such as random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN) for estimating the two key points of the soil moisture curve including field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP). Furthermore, their performance was compared to traditional methods proposed by Saxton and Rawls (2006) and Tyler and Wheatcraft (1990). To this end, 1960 soil samples were collected from various locations throughout Iran. The results showed that the Tyler and Wheatcraft (1990) model provided more accurate estimates of soil moisture at low suction (FC), whereas the RF method was more efficient at high suction (PWP). Root-mean-square error (RMSE), normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE), mean bias error (MBE), and Willmot’s index of agreement (d) were estimated at 3.32, 0.13, − 0.59, and 0.96, respectively, for estimating FC (w w−1%). In addition, the RMSE, NRMSE, MBE, and d values for estimating PWP (w w−1%) were 2.46, 0.18, − 0.24, and 0.9, respectively. The MBE value in this study was negative, indicating that there was no overestimation problem. The results demonstrated that the RF method was more efficient than other methods for large datasets. In general, the DM technique was more accurate and efficient than other models, and it can be confidently used in high suction conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

References

  • Acutis M, Donatelli M (2003) SOILPAR 2.00: software to estimate soil hydrological parameters and functions. Eur J Agron 18:373–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adab H, Morbidelli R, Saltalippi C, Moradian M, Ghalhari GAF (2020) Machine learning to estimate surface soil moisture from remote sensing data. Water 12:3223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Jabery K, Obafemi-Ajayi T, Olbricht G, Wunsch D (2019) Computational learning approaches to data analytics in biomedical applications. Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Araya SN, Ghezzehei TA (2019) Using machine learning for prediction of saturated hydraulic conductivity and its sensitivity to soil structural perturbations. Water Resour Res 55:5715–5737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arya LM, Paris JF (1981) A physicoempirical model to predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:1023–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arya LM, Leij FJ, van Genuchten MT, Shouse PJ (1999) Scaling parameter to predict the soil water characteristic from particle-size distribution data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:510–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Attanasi ED, Freeman PA, Coburn TC (2020) Well predictive performance of play-wide and Subarea Random Forest models for Bakken productivity. J Petrol Sci Eng 191:107150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayat H, Neyshaburi MR, Mohammadi K, Nariman-Zadeh N, Irannejad M, Gregory AS (2013) Combination of artificial neural networks and fractal theory to predict soil water retention curve. Comput Electron Agric 92:92–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayat H, Sedaghat A, Sinegani AAS, Gregory AS (2015) Investigating the relationship between unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curve and confined compression curve. J Hydrol 522:353–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayat H, Ebrahimzadeh G, Mohanty BP (2021) Investigating the capability of estimating soil thermal conductivity using topographical attributes for the Southern Great Plains, USA. Soil Tillage Res 206:104811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belgiu M, Drăguţ L (2016) Random forest in remote sensing: a review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 114:24–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake GR, Hartge K (1986) Bulk density. Methods of soil analysis: part 1. Phys Mineral Methods 5:363–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Botula YD, Nemes A, Mafuka P, Van Ranst E, Cornelis WM (2013) Prediction of water retention of soils from the humid tropics by the nonparametric k-nearest neighbor approach. Vadose zone journal, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2012.0123

  • Bouma J (1989) Using soil survey data for quantitative land evaluation. In Advances in soil science (pp. 177-213). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3532-3_4

  • Breiman L (2001) Random Forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellini M, Iovino M (2019) Pedotransfer functions for estimating soil water retention curve of Sicilian soils. Arch Agron Soil Sci 65:1401–1416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cemek B, Meral R, Apan M, Merdun H (2004) Pedotransfer functions for the estimation of the field capacity and permanent wilting point. Pak J Biol Sci 7:535–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty D, Mazumdar S, Garg R, Banerjee S, Santra P, Singh R, Tomar R (2011) Pedotransfer functions for predicting points on the moisture retention curve of Indian soils. Indian J Agric Sci 81:1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherkassky V, Ma Y (2004) Practical selection of SVM parameters and noise estimation for SVM regression. Neural Netw 17:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Emilio A, Aiello R, Consoli S, Vanella D, Iovino M (2018) Artificial neural networks for predicting the water retention curve of Sicilian agricultural soils. Water 10:1431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dexter A (2004) Soil physical quality: Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120:201–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dharumarajan S, Hegde R, Singh S (2017) Spatial prediction of major soil properties using Random Forest techniques—a case study in semi-arid tropics of South India. Geoderma Reg 10:154–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobarco MR, Cousin I, Le Bas C, Martin MP (2019) Pedotransfer functions for predicting available water capacity in French soils, their applicability domain and associated uncertainty. Geoderma 336:81–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner WH (1986) Water content. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods 5:493–544.

  • Gee GW, Or D (2002) 2.4 Particle-size analysis. Methods Soil Anal Part 4:255–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghanbarian-Alavijeh B, Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi R, Huang G (2012) Estimating mass fractal dimension of soil using artificial neural networks for improved prediction of water retention curve. Soil Sci 177:471–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorbani MA, Shamshirband S, Haghi DZ, Azani A, Bonakdari H, Ebtehaj I (2017) Application of firefly algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction of field capacity and permanent wilting point. Soil Tillage Res 172:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopinathan K (1988) A general formula for computing the coefficients of the correlation connecting global solar radiation to sunshine duration. Sol Energy 41:499–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunarathna M, Sakai K, Nakandakari T, Momii K, Kumari M, Amarasekara M (2019) Pedotransfer functions to estimate hydraulic properties of tropical Sri Lankan soils. Soil Tillage Res 190:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi F, Gorji M, Shorafa M (2010) A study of the effects of land use changes on soil physical properties and organic matter. Land Degrad Dev 21:496–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen VE, Israelsen OW, Stringham GE (1980) Irrigation principles and practices. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hocking RR (2013) Methods and applications of linear models: Regression And The Analysis Of Variance. John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/enus/Methods+and+Applications+of+Linear+Models%3A+Regression+and+the+Analysisof+Variance%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9781118329504

  • Houborg R, McCabe MF (2018) A hybrid training approach for leaf area index estimation via Cubist and random forests machine-learning. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 135:173–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang G, Zhang R (2005) Evaluation of soil water retention curve with the pore–solid fractal model. Geoderma 127:52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang SI, Powers SE (2003) Using particle-size distribution models to estimate soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1103–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM C (2016) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/how-cite-ibm-spss-statistics-or-earlier-versions-spss

  • Jamieson P, Porter J, Wilson D (1991) A test of the computer simulation model ARCWHEAT1 on wheat crops grown in New Zealand. Field Crop Res 27:337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jana RB, Mohanty BP, Springer EP (2007) Multiscale pedotransfer functions for soil water retention. Vadose Zone J 6:868–878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keskin H, Grunwald S, Harris W (2019) Digital mapping of soil carbon fractions with machine learning. Geoderma 339:40–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khlosi M, Alhamdoosh M, Douaik A, Gabriels D, Cornelis W (2016) Enhanced pedotransfer functions with support vector machines to predict water retention of calcareous soil. Eur J Soil Sci 67:276–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamorski K, Pachepsky Y, Sławiński C, Walczak R (2008) Using support vector machines to develop pedotransfer functions for water retention of soils in Poland. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72(5). https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0280N

  • Lamorski K, Sławiński C, Moreno F, Barna G, Skierucha W, Arrue JL (2014) Modelling soil water retention using support vector machines with genetic algorithm optimisation. The Scientific World Journal 2014(1):740521. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/740521

  • Legates DR, McCabe GJ (2013) A refined index of model performance: a rejoinder. Int J Climatol 33:1053–1056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li S, Xie Y, Xin Y, Liu G, Wang W, Gao X, Zhai J, Li J (2020) Validation and modification of the Van Genuchten model for eroded black soil in northeastern China. Water 12:2678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang Y, Zhao P (2019) A machine learning analysis based on big data for eagle ford shale formation. Presented at the SPE SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 2019. Paper Number: SPE-196158-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/196158-MS

  • Ließ M, Glaser B, Huwe B (2012) Uncertainty in the spatial prediction of soil texture: comparison of regression tree and Random Forest models. Geoderma 170:70–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Qian J, Yue H (2020) Combined Sentinel-1A with Sentinel-2A to estimate soil moisture in farmland. IEEE J Sel Topics Appl Earth Observations Remote Sens 14:1292–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge N, Mitsch J, Bollard N, Ellis K, Miguel-Pacheco GG, Dottorini T, Kaler J (2018) Feature selection and comparison of machine learning algorithms in classification of grazing and rumination behaviour in sheep. Sensors 18:3532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquaridt DW (1970) Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics 12:591–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell AE, Warner TA, Fang F (2018) Implementation of machine-learning classification in remote sensing: An applied review. Int J Remote Sens 39:2784–2817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen PM, Haghverdi A, De Pue J, Botula Y-D, Le KV, Waegeman W, Cornelis WM (2017) Comparison of statistical regression and data-mining techniques in estimating soil water retention of tropical delta soils. Biosys Eng 153:12–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes MR, Karlen DL, Moorman TB (2020) Tillage intensity effects on soil structure indicators—A US meta-analysis. Sustainability 12:2071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostovari Y, Asgari K, Cornelis W (2015) Performance evaluation of pedotransfer functions to predict field capacity and permanent wilting point using UNSODA and HYPRES datasets. Arid Land Res Manag 29:383–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachepsky YA, Timlin D, Varallyay G (1996) Artificial neural networks to estimate soil water retention from easily measurable data. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:727–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachepsky YA, Rawls W, Lin H (2006) Hydropedology and pedotransfer functions. Geoderma 131:308–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang WK, Leung PK, Huang WK, Liu W (2005) On interval estimation of the coefficient of variation for the three-parameter Weibull, lognormal and gamma distribution: a simulation-based approach. Eur J Oper Res 1642:367–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil N, Pal D, Mandal C, Mandal D (2012) Soil water retention characteristics of vertisols and pedotransfer functions based on nearest neighbor and neural networks approaches to estimate AWC. J Irrig Drain Eng 138:177–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiao J, Zhu Y, Jia X, Huang L, Ma S (2019) Pedotransfer functions for estimating the field capacity and permanent wilting point in the critical zone of the Loess Plateau, China. J Soils Sediments 19:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu Y, Zhu Z, Chai L, Liu S, Montzka C, Liu J, Yang X, Lu Z, Jin R, Li X (2019) Rebuilding a microwave soil moisture product using random Forest adopting AMSR-E/AMSR2 brightness temperature and SMAP over the Qinghai-Tibet plateau. China Remote Sens 11:683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rastgou M, Bayat H, Mansoorizadeh M, Gregory AS (2020) Estimating the soil water retention curve: comparison of multiple nonlinear regression approach and random forest data mining technique. Comput Electron Agric 174:105502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu R, Irmak S (2020) Performance assessment of Hybrid-Maize model for rainfed, limited and full irrigation conditions. Agric Water Manag 242:106402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton KE, Rawls WJ (2006) Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1569–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedaghat A, Bayat H, Sinegani AS (2016) Estimation of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity by artificial neural networks ensemble in smectitic soils. Eurasian Soil Sci 49:347–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedaghat A, Shahrestani MS, Noroozi AA, Nosratabad AF, Bayat H (2022) Developing pedotransfer functions using Sentinel-2 satellite spectral indices and Machine learning for estimating the surface soil moisture. J Hydrol, 127423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127423

  • Seo S (2006) A review and comparison of methods for detecting outliers in univariate data sets. University of Pittsburgh. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7948/

  • Sepaskhah AR, Tafteh A (2013) Pedotransfer function for estimation of soil-specific surface area using soil fractal dimension of improved particle-size distribution. Arch Agron Soil Sci 59:93–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiri J, Keshavarzi A, Kisi O, Karimi S (2017) Using soil easily measured parameters for estimating soil water capacity: soft computing approaches. Comput Electron Agric 141:327–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sillers WS, Fredlund DG, Zakerzadeh N, (2001) Mathematical attributes of some soil—water characteristic curve models, Unsaturated soil concepts and their application in geotechnical practice. Springer, 243–283.

  • Singh A, Haghverdi A, Öztürk HS, Durner W (2020) Developing Pseudo Continuous Pedotransfer Functions for International Soils Measured with the Evaporation Method and the HYPROP System: I. Soil Water Retent Curve Water 12:3425

    Google Scholar 

  • Souza ED, Fernandes EI, Schaefer CEGR, Batjes NH, Santos GRD, Pontes LM (2016) Pedotransfer functions to estimate bulk density from soil properties and environmental covariates: Rio Doce basin. Sci Agric 73:525–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strobel J, Hawkins C (2009) An exploration of design phenomena in second life, E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 3702–3709.

  • Szabó B, Szatmári G, Takács K, Laborczi A, Makó A, Rajkai K, Pásztor L (2019) Mapping soil hydraulic properties using random-forest-based pedotransfer functions and geostatistics. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23:2615–2635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasella J, Pachepsky Y, Crestana S, Rawls W (2003) Comparison of two techniques to develop pedotransfer functions for water retention. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1085–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tóth B, Makó A, Guadagnini A, Tóth G (2012) Water retention of salt-affected soils: quantitative estimation using soil survey information. Arid Land Res Manag 26:103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tóth B, Makó A, Gergely T (2014) Role of soil properties in water retention characteristics of main Hungarian soil types. J Cent Eur Agric.

  • Touil S, Degre A, Chabaca MN (2016) Sensitivity analysis of point and parametric pedotransfer functions for estimating water retention of soils in Algeria. Soil 2:647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuller M, Or D (2003) Hydraulic functions for swelling soils: pore scale considerations. J Hydrol 272:50–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler SW, Wheatcraft SW (1990) Fractal processes in soil water retention. Water Resour Res 26:1047–1054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berg M, Klamt E, Van Reeuwijk L, Sombroek W (1997) Pedotransfer functions for the estimation of moisture retention characteristics of Ferralsols and related soils. Geoderma 78:161–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott CJ (1982) Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull Am Meteor Soc 63:1309–1313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willmott CJ, Robeson SM, Matsuura K (2012) A refined index of model performance. Int J Climatol 32:2088–2094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaç SS, Şeker C, Negiş H (2020) Evaluation of machine learning methods to predict soil moisture constants with different combinations of soil input data for calcareous soils in a semi arid area. Agric Water Manag 234:106121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yapnik V (2000) T he nature of statistical learning theory. N ew York.

  • Zhao C, Ma S, Jia X, Nasir M, Zhang C (2016) Using pedotransfer functions to estimate soil hydraulic conductivity in the Loess Plateau of China. CATENA 143:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziadat FM (2005) Analyzing digital terrain attributes to predict soil attributes for a relatively large area. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1590–1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Irrigation and Soil Physics, Soil and Water Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

    Arash Tafteh, Naser Davatgar & Azadeh Sedaghat

Authors
  1. Arash Tafteh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naser Davatgar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Azadeh Sedaghat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arash Tafteh.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

In accordance with the copyright transfer or open access rules.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tafteh, A., Davatgar, N. & Sedaghat, A. Estimation of important points on soil water retention curve (SWRC): comparison experimental-physical models and data mining technique. Arab J Geosci 15, 968 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10232-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10232-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation