4.7 Article

Estimation of soil organic matter content by modeling with artificial neural networks

期刊

GEODERMA
卷 350, 期 -, 页码 46-51

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.04.044

关键词

Electronics in agriculture; Soil fertility; Accuracy; Chemical attributes

资金

  1. Conselho National de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologic (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacdo de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil organic matter has direct relationship with soil fertility and quality. However, its estimation in laboratory generates chemical residues which can contaminate the environment, and more ecological methods to determine the soil organic matter present high costs to the laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of artificial neural networks (ANNs) in estimating soil organic matter content from soil chemical attributes and to indicate whether network complexity affects estimation accuracy. A database was created containing 8556 samples, and 75% of the data were used for calibration and 25% for validation of the models. The variables used were: pH, potassium, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and potential acidity. However, potassium and phosphorus were removed from the input variables. The ANNs were from the Multilayer Perceptron class, with two hidden layers, each of which had number of neurons ranging from 4 to 20. The 15 ANNs with lowest root mean square error (RMSE) were randomly presented by the program Statistica7 (R), and 6 of them were chosen for accuracy assessment. The fits were tested by analysis of variance (F test) and accuracy was assessed based on the coefficient of determination (R-2), RMSE, mean error (ME), index of agreement (d) and confidence coefficient (c). The ANNs showed high accuracy to estimate soil organic matter in the phases of both calibration (R-2 = 0.92; RMSE = 1.82 g kg(-1)) and validation (R-2 = 0.76; RMSE = 1.98 g kg(-1)). Less complex networks can be trained and show the same accuracy as more complex networks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据