ArticleScientific reports2026
Development of soil surface wetness models using machine learning techniques in the selected sites in Punjab, North-Western India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of soil surface wetness (SSW) is vital for effective land management and resource optimization, particularly in sensitive ecosystems like the Western Himalayas. The main objective of the present study is to improve the accuracy of SSW prediction using hybrid and bagging models in the selected sites in Punjab, north-western India. The study utilizes ten machine-learning models comprising five base learners-random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM), logistic model tree (LMT), and classification and regression tree (CART) and their corresponding AdaBoost-based hybrid variants: AdaBoost-RF, AdaBoost-XGBoost, AdaBoost-LightGBM, AdaBoost-LMT, and AdaBoost-CART. The SSW data set was collected from NASA POWER platform and Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) derived data which covers the period from 1986 to 2021. For model development, we applied a monthly data-lagging technique to generate different model scenarios. For feature selection, we applied greedy stepwise and best-first algorithms to identify the most effective predictors and improve model efficiency. Evaluations of the models were based on a variety of statistical indices. The results show that the RF model achieved the highest correlation coefficients (CC) across the study areas, ranging from 0.64 to 0.76 in Moga, 0.61 to 0.82 (XGBoost) in Hoshiarpur, and 0.41 to 0.64 (LMT) in Firozpur during the testing period. Accordingly, the hybrid AdaBoost-LightGBM model was the best, with CC values of 0.61-0.76, 0.63-0.82, and 0.49-0.60 for Moga, Hoshiarpur, and Firozpur, respectively. Overall model performance was limited to moderate and varied across locations and scenarios; although AdaBoost-LMT showed the best relative performance, the results primarily support its use for reproducing temporal variability in GEOS-derived SSW rather than precise wetness estimation. The findings contribute to improving SSW estimation and support data-driven decision-making for sustainable land and water management in the selected sites in Punjab, north-western India.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.