Gully erosion susceptibility prediction in Mollisols using machine learning models | Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

References

↵
1. Amiri, M.,
2. H.R. Pourghasemi,
3. G.A. Ghanbarian, and
4. S.F. Afzali
. 2019. Assessment of the importance of gully erosion effective factors using Boruta algorithm and its spatial modeling and mapping using three machine learning algorithms. Geoderma 340:55-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.12.042.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Angermueller, C.,
2. T. Pärnamaa,
3. L. Parts, and
4. O. Stegle
. 2016. Deep learning for computational biology. Molecular Systems Biology 12(7):878. https://doi.org/10.15252/msb:20156651.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵
1. Arabameri, A.,
2. B. Pradhan,
3. K. Rezaei,
4. M. Yamani,
5. H.R. Pourghasemi, and
6. L. Lombardo
. 2018. Spatial modelling of gully erosion using evidential belief function, logistic regression and new ensemble EBF-LRalgorithm. Land Degradation & Development 29:4035-4049. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3151.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Avand, M.,
2. S. Janizadeh,
3. S.A. Naghibi,
4. H.R. Pourghasemi,
5. S. Khosrobeigi Bozchaloei, and
6. T. Blaschke
. 2019. A comparative assessment of random forest and k-nearest neighbor classifiers for gully erosion susceptibility mapping. Water 11:2076. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11102076.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Breiman, L.
2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45(l):5-32.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Bunker, R.P., and
2. F. Thabtah
. 2019. A machine learning framework for sport result prediction. Applied Computing Informatics 15:27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2017.09.005.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Buston, P.M., and
2. J. Elith
. 2011. Determinants of reproductive success in dominant pairs of clownfish: A boosted regression tree analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 80:528-538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01803.x.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
↵
1. Chai, T., and
2. R.R. Draxler
. 2014. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscience Model Development (GMD) 7(3):1247-1250. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Chen, W.,
2. X. Lei,
3. R. Chakrabortty,
4. S.C. Pal,
5. M. Sahana, and
6. S. Janizadeh
. 2021. Evaluation of different boosting ensemble machine learning models and novel deep learning and boosting framework for head-cut gully erosion susceptibility. Journal of Environmental Management 284:112015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112015.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Cherif, I.L., and
2. A. Kortebi
. 2019. On Using eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) Machine Learning Algorithm for Home Network Traffic Classification. 2019 Wireless Days (WD), Manchester, UK, 2019, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/WD.2019.8734193.
↵
1. Chlingaryan, A.,
2. S. Sukkarieh, and
3. B. Whelan
. 2018. Machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: A review. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture 151:61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.05.012.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Chung, C.-J.F., and
2. A.G. Fabbri
. 2003. Validation of spatial prediction models for landslide hazard mapping. Natural Hazards 30(3):451-472. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000007172.62651.2b.
OpenUrl CrossRef GeoRef Web of Science
↵
1. Cui, J.,
2. Y. Li,
3. S. Wang,
4. Y. Chi,
5. H. Hwang, and
6. P. Wang
. 2018. Directional preparation of anticoagulant-active sulfated polysaccharides from Enteromorpha prolifera using artificial neural networks. Scientific Reports 8(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21556-x.
OpenUrl CrossRef
↵
1. De Oliveira, M.F.,
2. A.F. dos Santos,
3. E.H. Kazama,
4. G. de Souza Rolim, and
5. R.P. da Silva
. 2021. Determination of application volume for coffee plantations using artificial neural networks and remote sensing. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 184:106096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106096.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Friedman, J.H., and
2. J.J. Meulman
. 2003. Multiple additive regression trees with application in epidemiology. Statistics in Medicine 22(9):1365-1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1501.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science
↵
1. Gao, X.,
2. Y. Xie,
3. G. Liu,
4. B. Liu, and
5. X. Duan
. 2015. Effects of soil erosion on soybean yield as estimated by simulating gradually eroded soil profiles. Soil & Tillage Research 145:126-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.09.004.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Garosi, Y.,
2. M. Sheklabadi,
3. C. Conoscenti,
4. H.R. Pourghasemi, and
5. K. Van Oost
. 2019. Assessing the performance of GIS-based machine learning models with different accuracy measures for determining susceptibility to gully erosion. Science of the Total Environment 664:1117-1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.093.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Garosi, Y.,
2. M. Sheklabadi,
3. H.R. Pourghasemi,
4. A.A. Besalatpour,
5. C. Conoscenti, and
6. K. VanOost
. 2018. Comparison of differences in resolution and sources of controlling factors for gully erosion susceptibility mapping. Geoderma 330:65-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.05.027.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gayen, A.,
2. H.R. Pourghasemi,
3. S. Saha,
4. S. Keesstra, and
5. S. Bai
. 2019. Gully erosion susceptibility assessment and management of hazard-prone areas in India using different machine learning algorithms. Science of the Total Environment 668:124-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.436.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Gutiérrez, Á.G.,
2. S. Schnabel, and
3. J.F.L. Contador
. 2009. Using and comparing two nonparametric methods (CART and MARS) to model the potential distribution of gullies. Ecological Modelling 220:3630-3637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.06.020.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Harel, O.
2009. The estimation of R² and adjusted R² in incomplete data sets using multiple imputation. Journal of Applied Statistics 36(10):1109-1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760802553000.
OpenUrl CrossRef
↵
1. Huang, J.C.,
2. Y.C. Tsai,
3. P.Y. Wu,
4. Y.H. Lien,
5. C.Y. Chien,
6. C.F. Kuo,
7. J.F. Hung,
8. S.C. Chen, and
9. C.H. Kuo
. 2020. Predictive modeling of blood pressure during hemodialysis: A comparison of linear model, random forest, support vector regression, XGBoost, LASSO regression and ensemble method. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 195:105536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2020.105536.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Joachims, T.
1997. A probabilistic analysis of the Rocchio algorithm with TFIDF for text categorization. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 143-151. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
↵
1. Karatzoglou, A.,
2. D. Meyer, and
3. K. Hornik
. 2006. Support vector machines in R. Journal of Statistical Software 15:1-28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v015.i09.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Kubat, M.
2017. An Introduction to Machine Learning. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63913-0.
↵
1. Liu, P.,
2. B. Fu,
3. S.X. Yang,
4. L. Deng,
5. X. Zhong, and
6. H. Zheng
. 2021. Optimizing survival analysis of XGBoost for ties to predict disease progression of breast cancer. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 68(1):148-60. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2020.2993278.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Ministry of Water Resources (Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Engineering)
. 2010. Soil Erosion Prevention and Ecological Security in China: The Black Soil Region in Northeast China, 254-269. Beijing: Science Press.
↵
1. Mittendorf, M.,
2. U.D. Nielsen, and
3. H.B. Bingham
. 2022. Data-driven prediction of added-wave resistance on ships in oblique waves—A comparison between tree-based ensemble methods and artificial neural networks. Applied Ocean Research 118:102964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2021.102964.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Mokarram, M., and
2. A.R. Zarei
. 2021. Determining prone areas to gully erosion and the impact of land use change on it by using multiple-criteria decision-making algorithm in arid and semi-arid regions. Geoderma 403:115379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115379.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Moore, I.D.,
2. R.B. Grayson, and
3. A.R. Ladson
. 1991. Digital terrain modeling: A review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological Processes 5:3-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360050103.
OpenUrl CrossRef GeoRef Web of Science
↵
1. Nearing, M.A.,
2. Y. Xie,
3. B. Liu, and
4. Y. Ye
. 2017. Natural and anthropogenic rates of soil erosion. International Soil and Water Conservation Research 5:77-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.04.001.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Nhu, V.-H.,
2. S. Janizadeh,
3. M. Avand,
4. W. Chen,
5. M. Farzin,
6. E. Omidvar,
7. A. Shirzadi,
8. H. Shahabi,
9. J.J. Clague,
10. A. Jaafari,
11. F. Mansoorypoor,
12. B.T. Pham,
13. B.B. Ahmad, and
14. S. Lee
. 2020. GIS-based gully erosion susceptibility mapping: A comparison of computational ensemble data mining models. Applied Science 10:2039. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10062039.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Niu, L.,
2. Y. Guo,
3. Y. Li,
4. C. Wang,
5. Q. Hu,
6. L. Fan,
7. L. Wang, and
8. N. Yang
. 2021. Degradation of river ecological quality in Tibet Plateau with overgrazing: A quantitative assessment using biotic integrity index improved by random forest. Ecological Indicators 120:106948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106948.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Oludolapo, O.A.,
2. A.A. Jimoh, and
3. P.A. Kholopane
. 2012. Comparing performance of MLPNN and RBFNN neural network models for predicting South Africa’s energy consumption. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa 23:40-46. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3051/2012/V23I3A3171.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Paul, G.C.,
2. S. Saha, and
3. T.K. Hembram
. 2019. Application of the GIS-based probabilistic models for mapping the flood susceptibility in Bansloi sub-basin of Ganga-Bhagirathi River and their comparison. Remote Sensing in Earth System Science 2(2-3):120-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41976-019-00018-6.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Poesen, J.
2018. Soil erosion in the anthropocene: Research needs. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 43:64-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4250.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Pourghasemi, H.R., and
2. M. Rossi
. 2017a. Landslide susceptibility modeling in a landslide prone area in Mazandarn Province, north of Iran: A comparison between GLM, GAM, MARS, and M-AHP methods. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 130(1-2):609-633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1919-2.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Pourghasemi, H.R.,
2. N. Sadhasivam,
3. N. Kariminejad, and
4. A.L. Collins
. 2020. Gully erosion spatial modeling: Role of machine learning algorithms in selection of the best controlling factors and modeling process. Geoscience Frontiers 11:2207-2219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.005.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Pourghasemi, H.R.,
2. S. Yousefi,
3. A. Kornejady, and
4. A. Cerd
. 2017b. Performance assessment of individual and ensemble data-mining techniques for gully erosion modeling. Science of the Total Environment 609:764-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.198.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Rahmati, O.,
2. A. Haghizadeh,
3. H.R. Pourghasemi, and
4. F. Noormohamadi
. 2016. Gully erosion susceptibility mapping: The role of GIS-based bivariate statistical models and their comparison. Natural Hazards 82:1231-1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2239-7.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Rouhani, H.,
2. A. Fathabadi, and
3. J. Baartman
. 2021. A wrapper feature selection approach for efficient modelling of gully erosion susceptibility mapping. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 45(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133320979897.
↵
1. J.K. Rout,
2. M. Rout, and
3. H. Das
1. Roy, P.,
2. R. Chakrabortty,
3. I. Chowdhuri,
4. S. Malik,
5. B. Das, and
6. S.C. Pal
. 2020. Development of different machine learning ensemble classifier for gully erosion susceptibility in Gandheswari watershed of West Bengal, India. In Machine Learning for Intelligent Decision Science, Algorithms for Intelligent Systems, ed. J.K. Rout, M. Rout, and H. Das, 1-26. Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3689-2_1.
↵
1. Saha, S.
2017. Groundwater potential mapping using analytical hierarchical process: A study on Md. Bazar Block of Birbhum District, West Bengal. Spatial Information Research 25(4):615-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-017-0127-1.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Soleimanpour, S.M.,
2. H.R. Pourghasemi, and
3. M. Zare
. 2021. A comparative assessment of gully erosion spatial predictive modeling using statistical and machine learning models. Catena 207:105679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105679.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Stojić, A.,
2. N. Stanić,
3. G. Vuković,
4. S. Stanišić,
5. M. Perišić,
6. A. Šoštarić, and
7. L. Lazić
. 2019. Explainable extreme gradient boosting tree-based prediction of toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene wet deposition. Science of the Total Environment 653:140-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.368.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Sun, N.,
2. W. Zhu, and
3. Q. Cheng
. 2018. GF-1 and Landsat observed a 40-year wetland spatiotemporal variation and its coupled environmental factors in Yangtze River estuary. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 207:30-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.03.022.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Tang, H.,
2. X. Meng,
3. X. Su,
4. T. Ma,
5. H. Liu,
6. Y. Bao,
7. M. Zhang,
8. X. Zhang, and
9. H. Huo
. 2021. Hyperspectral prediction on soil organic matter of different types using CARS algorithm. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (CSAE) 37(2):105-113 (in Chinese with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2021.2.013.
OpenUrl
1. Tang, L., and
2. S. Na
. 2021. Comparison of machine learning methods for ground settlement prediction with different tunneling datasets. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 13:1274-1289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.08.006.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Teimouri, M., and
2. A. Kornejady
. 2019. The dilemma of determining the superiority of data mining models: Optimal sampling balance and end users’ perspectives matter. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 79():1707-1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-019-01687-9.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Tien Bui, D.,
2. B. Pradhan,
3. H. Nampak,
4. Q.T. Bui,
5. Q.A. Tran, and
6. Q.P. Nguyen
. 2016. Hybrid artificial intelligence approach based on neural fuzzy inference model and metaheuristic optimization for flood susceptibility modeling in a high-frequency tropical cyclone area using GIS. Journal of Hydrology 540:317-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.06.027.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Vapnik, V.
1995. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
↵
1. Wen, Y.,
2. T. Kasielke,
3. H. Li,
4. H. Zepp, and
5. B. Zhang
. 2021. A case study on history and rates of gully erosion in northeast China. Land degradation and Development 32:4254-4266. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4031.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Yang, T.,
2. A.A. Asanjan,
3. M. Faridzad,
4. N. Hayatbini,
5. X. Gao, and
6. S. Sorooshian
. 2017. An enhanced artificial neural network with a shuffled complex evolutionary global optimization with principal component analysis. Information Sciences 418-419:302-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.003.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Yang, A.,
2. C. Wang,
3. G. Pang,
4. Y. Long,
5. L. Wang,
6. R.M. Cruse, and
7. Q. Yang
. 2021. Gully erosion susceptibility mapping in highly complex terrain using machine learning models. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10:680. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10100680.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Zabihi, M.,
2. F. Mirchooli,
3. A. Motevalli,
4. A.K. Darvishan,
5. H.R. Pourghasemi,
6. M.A. Zakeri, and
7. F. Sadighi
. 2018. Spatial modelling of gully erosion in Mazandaran Province, northern Iran. Catena 161:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.10.010.
OpenUrl
↵
1. H.R. Pourghasemi and
2. M. Rossi
1. Zabihi, M.,
2. H.R. Pourghasemi,
3. A. Motevalli, and
4. M.A. Zakeri
. 2019. Gully erosion modeling using GIS-based data mining techniques in northern Iran: A comparison between boosted regression tree and multivariate adaptive regression spline. In Natural Hazards GIS-Based Spatial Modeling Using Data Mining Techniques, ed. H.R. Pourghasemi and M. Rossi, 1-26. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73383-8_1.
↵
1. Zhang, K.L., and
2. H.Y. Liu
. 2018. Research progresses and prospects on freeze-thaw erosion in the black soil region of northeast China. Science of Soil and Water Conservation 16(1):17-24. https://doi.org/10.13254/j.jare.2017.0328.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Zhang, Y.,
2. B. Sui,
3. H. Shen, and
4. L. Ouyang
. 2019. Mapping stocks of soil total nitrogen using remote sensing data: A comparison of random forest models with different predictors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 160:23-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.03.015.
OpenUrl
1. Zhang, H.,
2. P. Wu,
3. A. Yin,
4. X. Yang,
5. M. Zhang, and
6. C. Gao
. 2017. Prediction of soil organic carbon in an intensively managed reclamation zone of eastern China: A comparison of multiple linear regressions and the random forest model. Science of the Total Environment 592:704-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.146.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Zhang, Y.,
2. C. Xia,
3. X. Zhang,
4. X. Cheng,
5. G. Feng,
6. Y. Wang, and
7. Q. Gao
. 2021. Estimating the maize biomass by crop height and narrowband vegetation indices derived from UAV-based hyperspectral images. Ecological Indicators 129:107985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107985.
OpenUrl
↵
1. Zhao, J.,
2. M. Vanmaercke,
3. L. Chen, and
4. G. Govers
. 2016. Vegetation cover and topography rather than human disturbance control gully density and sediment production on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Geomorphology 274:92-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.09.022.
OpenUrl

In this issue

Print

Request Permissions

Related Articles

Cited By...

No citing articles found.

Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Show more Research Section

Similar Articles

Keywords