ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Spatial modelling of soil salinity: deep or shallow learning models?
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of urban air quality from Twitter communication using self-attention network and a multilayer classification model.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2023Article
- Monitoring soil salinization and its spatiotemporal variation at different depths across the Yellow River Delta based on remote sensing data with multi-parameter optimization.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the spatial distribution of soil salinity is required to conserve land against degradation and desertification. Against this background, this study is the first attempt to predict soil salinity in the Jaghin basin, in southern Iran, by applying and comparing the performance of four deep learning (DL) models (deep convolutional neural networks-DCNNs, dense connected deep neural networks-DenseDNNs, recurrent neural networks-long short-term memory-RNN-LSTM and recurrent neural networks-gated recurrent unit-RNN-GRU) and six shallow machine learning (ML) models (bagged classification and regression tree-BCART, cforest, cubist, quantile regression with LASSO penalty-QR-LASSO, ridge regression-RR and support vectore machine-SVM). To do this, 49 environmental landsat8-derived variables including digital elevation model (DEM)-extracted covariates, soil-salinity indices, and other variables (e.g., soil order, lithology, land use) were mapped spatially. For assessing the relationships between soil salinity (EC) and factors controlling EC, we collected 319 surficial (0-5 cm depth) soil samples for measuring soil salinity on the basis of electrical conductivity (EC). We then selected the most important features (covariates) controlling soil salinity by applying a MARS model. The performance of the DL and shallow ML models for generating soil salinity spatial maps (SSSMs) was assessed using a Taylor diagram and the Nash Sutcliff coefficient (NSE). Among all 10 predictive models, DL models with NSE ≥ 0.9 (DCNNs was the most accurate model with NSE = 0.96) were selected as the four best models, and performed better than the six shallow ML models with NSE ≤ 0.83 (QR-LASSO was the weakest predictive model with NSE = 0.50). Based on DCNNs-, the values of the EC ranged between 0.67 and 14.73 dS/m, whereas for QR-LASSO the corresponding EC values were 0.37 to 19.6 dS/m. Overall, DL models performed better than shallow ML models for production of the SSSMs and therefore we recommend applying DL models for prediction purposes in environmental sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33759096What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.