半干旱气候条件下土壤水分常数机器学习算法的模型集成技术

IF 1.6 4区 农林科学 Q2 AGRONOMY
Pelin Alaboz
{"title":"半干旱气候条件下土壤水分常数机器学习算法的模型集成技术","authors":"Pelin Alaboz","doi":"10.1002/ird.3037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years, the use of prediction models based on intelligent algorithms has become widespread in soil science. However, each algorithm has advantages and disadvantages, and variable results can occur on different datasets. The evaluation of ensemble techniques for solving these problems is the current approach. Water problems will arise due to global warming, and soil water will become more important. This study aims to evaluate the predictive accuracy of different machine learning algorithms (support vector machine regression (SVR), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), and multivariate linear regression (MLR)) and ensemble techniques (equal weight [EQ], Bates–Granger-BG), Granger–Ramanathan (GR), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC)) on the field capacity (FC), wilting point (WP) and available water content (AWC) of soils. As a result, higher prediction accuracy was obtained with the RF algorithm than with the value machine learning algorithm in the estimation of moisture constants. The coefficients of determination (R<sup>2</sup>) obtained for the prediction of FC, WP, and AWC via the RF algorithms were 0.624, 0.759 and 0.641, respectively. MLR had the highest error rate. Among the ensemble techniques, GR was the most successful. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) values obtained from the estimation of FC, WP, and AWC with the GR model were 0.801, 0.894, and 0.801, respectively. The root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) values obtained in the estimation of the available water content with the MLR algorithm were 1.905 and 1.435, respectively, whereas these values were 1.173 and 0.767, respectively, when the GR model was used. As a result of the present study, better predictive results were obtained with ensemble techniques instead of evaluating the algorithms individually.</p>","PeriodicalId":14848,"journal":{"name":"Irrigation and Drainage","volume":"74 2","pages":"529-540"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ird.3037","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Model ensemble techniques of machine learning algorithms for soil moisture constants in the semi-arid climate conditions\",\"authors\":\"Pelin Alaboz\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ird.3037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent years, the use of prediction models based on intelligent algorithms has become widespread in soil science. However, each algorithm has advantages and disadvantages, and variable results can occur on different datasets. The evaluation of ensemble techniques for solving these problems is the current approach. Water problems will arise due to global warming, and soil water will become more important. This study aims to evaluate the predictive accuracy of different machine learning algorithms (support vector machine regression (SVR), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), and multivariate linear regression (MLR)) and ensemble techniques (equal weight [EQ], Bates–Granger-BG), Granger–Ramanathan (GR), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC)) on the field capacity (FC), wilting point (WP) and available water content (AWC) of soils. As a result, higher prediction accuracy was obtained with the RF algorithm than with the value machine learning algorithm in the estimation of moisture constants. The coefficients of determination (R<sup>2</sup>) obtained for the prediction of FC, WP, and AWC via the RF algorithms were 0.624, 0.759 and 0.641, respectively. MLR had the highest error rate. Among the ensemble techniques, GR was the most successful. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) values obtained from the estimation of FC, WP, and AWC with the GR model were 0.801, 0.894, and 0.801, respectively. The root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) values obtained in the estimation of the available water content with the MLR algorithm were 1.905 and 1.435, respectively, whereas these values were 1.173 and 0.767, respectively, when the GR model was used. As a result of the present study, better predictive results were obtained with ensemble techniques instead of evaluating the algorithms individually.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Irrigation and Drainage\",\"volume\":\"74 2\",\"pages\":\"529-540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ird.3037\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Irrigation and Drainage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.3037\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irrigation and Drainage","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.3037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,基于智能算法的预测模型在土壤科学中得到了广泛的应用。然而,每种算法都有其优点和缺点,并且不同的数据集上可能出现不同的结果。目前的方法是评估解决这些问题的集成技术。由于全球变暖,水问题将会出现,土壤水将变得更加重要。本研究旨在评估不同机器学习算法(支持向量机回归(SVR)、随机森林(RF)、人工神经网络(ANN)和多元线性回归(MLR))和集成技术(等权[EQ]、Bates-Granger-BG)、Granger-Ramanathan (GR)、Akaike信息准则(AIC)和贝叶斯信息准则(BIC))对土壤田间容量(FC)、萎蔫点(WP)和有效含水量(AWC)的预测精度。结果表明,在水分常数估计中,射频算法的预测精度高于数值机器学习算法。RF算法预测FC、WP和AWC的决定系数(R2)分别为0.624、0.759和0.641。MLR的错误率最高。在集合技术中,GR是最成功的。GR模型估计FC、WP和AWC得到的Lin’s一致性相关系数(LCCC)值分别为0.801、0.894和0.801。MLR算法估计有效含水量的均方根误差(RMSE)和平均绝对误差(MAE)分别为1.905和1.435,而GR模型估计有效含水量的均方根误差和平均绝对误差(MAE)分别为1.173和0.767。作为本研究的结果,使用集成技术而不是单独评估算法获得了更好的预测结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Model ensemble techniques of machine learning algorithms for soil moisture constants in the semi-arid climate conditions

Model ensemble techniques of machine learning algorithms for soil moisture constants in the semi-arid climate conditions

In recent years, the use of prediction models based on intelligent algorithms has become widespread in soil science. However, each algorithm has advantages and disadvantages, and variable results can occur on different datasets. The evaluation of ensemble techniques for solving these problems is the current approach. Water problems will arise due to global warming, and soil water will become more important. This study aims to evaluate the predictive accuracy of different machine learning algorithms (support vector machine regression (SVR), random forest (RF), artificial neural network (ANN), and multivariate linear regression (MLR)) and ensemble techniques (equal weight [EQ], Bates–Granger-BG), Granger–Ramanathan (GR), Akaike information criterion (AIC), and Bayesian information criterion (BIC)) on the field capacity (FC), wilting point (WP) and available water content (AWC) of soils. As a result, higher prediction accuracy was obtained with the RF algorithm than with the value machine learning algorithm in the estimation of moisture constants. The coefficients of determination (R2) obtained for the prediction of FC, WP, and AWC via the RF algorithms were 0.624, 0.759 and 0.641, respectively. MLR had the highest error rate. Among the ensemble techniques, GR was the most successful. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) values obtained from the estimation of FC, WP, and AWC with the GR model were 0.801, 0.894, and 0.801, respectively. The root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) values obtained in the estimation of the available water content with the MLR algorithm were 1.905 and 1.435, respectively, whereas these values were 1.173 and 0.767, respectively, when the GR model was used. As a result of the present study, better predictive results were obtained with ensemble techniques instead of evaluating the algorithms individually.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Irrigation and Drainage
Irrigation and Drainage 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
107
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Human intervention in the control of water for sustainable agricultural development involves the application of technology and management approaches to: (i) provide the appropriate quantities of water when it is needed by the crops, (ii) prevent salinisation and water-logging of the root zone, (iii) protect land from flooding, and (iv) maximise the beneficial use of water by appropriate allocation, conservation and reuse. All this has to be achieved within a framework of economic, social and environmental constraints. The Journal, therefore, covers a wide range of subjects, advancement in which, through high quality papers in the Journal, will make a significant contribution to the enormous task of satisfying the needs of the world’s ever-increasing population. The Journal also publishes book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信