Spatial Simulation of Agricultural Practices using a Robust Extension of Randomized Classification Tree Algorithms
In this paper, extensions of the classification tree algorithm and analysis for spatial data are proposed. These extensions focus on: (1) a robust manner to prune a classification tree to smooth sampling (e.g., spatial sampling effects), (2) an assessment of tree spatial prediction performances with respect to its ability to satisfactorily represent the actual spatial distribution of the variable of interest, and (3) a unified framework to aid in the interpretation of the classification tree results due to variable correlations. These methodological developments are studied on an agricultural practices classification problem at an agricultural plot scale, specifically, the weed control practices on vine plots over a 75 km2 catchment in the South of France. The results show that, with these methodological developments, we obtain an explicit view of the uncertainty associated with the classification process through the simulation of the spatial distribution of agricultural practices. Such an approach may further facilitate the assessment of model sensitivities to categorical variable map uncertainties when using these maps as input data in environmental impact assessment modelling.
KeywordsCART uncertainties stochastic spatial simulation robustness predictors correlation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aaron, B., Kromrey, J. D., & Ferron, J. M. (1998). Equating r-based and d-based effect-size indices: Problems with a commonly recommended formula. Annual meeting of the Florida Educational Research Association, Orlando, FL., ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433353.Google Scholar
- Bel L., Laurent J.M. , Bar-Hen A., Allard D. and Cheddadi R. (2005). A spatial extension of CART: application to classification of ecological data, Geostatistics for environmental applications, Springer: Heidelberg, 99-109.Google Scholar
- Bonfils P. (1993). Carte pédologique de France au 1/100°000 ; feuille de Lodève, SESCPF INRA.Google Scholar
- Breiman L., Friedman J. H., Olshen R. A. and Stone C. J. (1984). Classification and Regression Tree. London, Chapman and Hall, 358 p.Google Scholar
- Breiman L. (1996a). Bagging predictors. Machine learning 26(2): 123-140.Google Scholar
- Breiman L. (1996b). Random forest. Machine learning 45: 5-32.Google Scholar
- Fearer, T.M., Prisley, S.P., Stauffer; D.F., and Keyser P.D (2007). A method for integrating the Breeding Bird Survey and Forest Inventory and analysis databases to evaluate forest bird–habitat relationships at multiple spatial scales. Forest Ecology and Management, 243(1), 128-143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gini C. (1912). Variabilità e mutabilità. Memorie di metodologica statistica. Vol. 1, E. Pizetti and T. Salvemini. Rome, Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi, pp 211-382Google Scholar
- Lennartz B., Louchard X., Voltz M. and Andrieux P. (1997). Diuron and simazine losses to runoff water in mediterranean vineyards. Journal of Environmental Quality 26(6): 1493-1502.Google Scholar
- Mahalanobis P. C. (1936). On the generalised distance in statistics. Proceedings of the National Institute of Science of India 12: 49-55.Google Scholar
- Ripley B. (2007). Pattern recognition and neural Networks. Cambrige, Cambridge University Press, 415 p.Google Scholar
- Tittonell, P., Shepherd, K.D. , Vanlauwe, B. and Giller, K.E. (2008) Unravelling the effects of soil and crop management on maize productivity in smallholder agricultural systems of western Kenya—An application of classification and regression tree analysis, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123(1-3), 137-150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar