4.6 Article

Hyperspectral Modeling of Soil Organic Matter Based on Characteristic Wavelength in East China

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14148455

关键词

competitive adaptive reweighted sampling algorithm (CARS); uninformative variables elimination (UVE); soil hyperspectral data; soil organic matter; support vector regression

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41501226, 31700369]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of the Higher Education Institutions of Anhui Province [KJ2015A034]
  3. Research Fund for Doctoral Program of Anhui University of Science and Technology [ZY020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil organic matter (SOM) is an important indicator of soil fertility, and the visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy is an effective method for modeling SOM content. This study aimed to find the optimal combination of characteristic wavelength selection and spectral transformation for hyperspectral modeling of SOM. The results showed that the CARS algorithm combined with CR and FDR can significantly improve the modeling accuracy of SOM content.
Soil organic matter (SOM) is a key index of soil fertility. Visible and near-infrared (VNIR, 350-2500 nm) reflectance spectroscopy is an effective method for modeling SOM content. Characteristic wavelength screening and spectral transformation may improve the performance of SOM prediction. This study aimed to explore the optimal combination of characteristic wavelength selection and spectral transformation for hyperspectral modeling of SOM. A total of 219 topsoil (0-20 cm) samples were collected from two soil types in the East China. VNIR reflectance spectra were measured in the laboratory. Firstly, after spectral transformation (inverse-log reflectance (LR), continuum removal (CR) and first-order derivative reflectance (FDR)) of VNIR spectra, characteristic wavelengths were selected by competitive adaptive reweighted sampling (CARS) and uninformative variables elimination (UVE) algorithms. Secondly, the SOM prediction models were constructed based on the partial least squares regression (PLSR), random forest (RF) and support vector regression (SVR) methods using the full spectra and selected wavelengths, respectively. Finally, optimal SOM prediction models were selected for two soil types. The results were as follows: (1) The CARS algorithm screened 40-125 characteristic wavelengths from the full spectra. The UVE algorithm screened 105-884 characteristic wavelengths. (2) For two soil types and full spectra, CARS and UVE improved the SOM modeling precision based on the PLSR and SVR methods. The coefficient of determination (R-2) value in the validation of the CARS-PLSR (PLSR model combined with CARS) and CARS-SVR (SVR model combined CARS) models ranged from 0.69 to 0.95, and the relative percent deviation (RPD) value ranged from 1.74 to 4.31. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) values ranged from 0.83 to 0.97. The UVE-PLSR and UVE-SVR models showed moderate precision. (3) The PLSR and SVR modeling accuracies of Paddy soil were better than those for Shajiang black soil. RF models performed worse for both soil types, with the R-2 values of validation ranging from 0.22 to 0.68 and RPD values ranging from 1.01 to 1.60. (4) For Paddy soil, the optimal SOM prediction models (highest R-2 and RPD, lowest root mean square error (RMSE)) were CR-CARS-PLSR (R-2 and RMSE: 0.97 and 1.21 g/kg in calibration sets, 0.95 and 1.72 g/kg in validation sets, RPD: 4.31) and CR-CARS-SVR (R-2 and RMSE: 0.98 and 1.04 g/kg in calibration sets, 0.91 and 2.24 g/kg in validation sets, RPD: 3.37). For Shajiang black soil, the optimal SOM prediction models were LR-CARS-PLSR (R-2 and RMSE: 0.95 and 0.93 g/kg in calibration sets, 0.86 and 1.44 g/kg in validation sets, RPD: 2.62) and FDR-CARS-SVR (R-2 and RMSE: 0.99 and 0.45 g/kg in calibration sets, 0.83 and 1.58 g/kg in validation sets, RPD: 2.38). The results suggested that the CARS algorithm combined CR and FDR can significantly improve the modeling accuracy of SOM content.

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

4.6
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