Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping

Thumbnail Image
Date
2019-12-20
Authors
Khaledian, Yones
Miller, Bradley
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Person
Miller, Bradley
Associate Professor
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Agronomy

The Department of Agronomy seeks to teach the study of the farm-field, its crops, and its science and management. It originally consisted of three sub-departments to do this: Soils, Farm-Crops, and Agricultural Engineering (which became its own department in 1907). Today, the department teaches crop sciences and breeding, soil sciences, meteorology, agroecology, and biotechnology.

History
The Department of Agronomy was formed in 1902. From 1917 to 1935 it was known as the Department of Farm Crops and Soils.

Dates of Existence
1902–present

Historical Names

  • Department of Farm Crops and Soils (1917–1935)

Related Units

Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Agronomy
Abstract

Digital soil mapping (DSM) increasingly makes use of machine learning algorithms to identify relationships between soil properties and multiple covariates that can be detected across landscapes. Selecting the appropriate algorithm for model building is critical for optimizing results in the context of the available data. Over the past decade, many studies have tested different machine learning (ML) approaches on a variety of soil data sets. Here, we review the application of some of the most popular ML algorithms for digital soil mapping. Specifically, we compare the strengths and weaknesses of multiple linear regression (MLR), k-nearest neighbors (KNN), support vector regression (SVR), Cubist, random forest (RF), and artificial neural networks (ANN) for DSM. These algorithms were compared on the basis of five factors: 1) quantity of hyperparameters, 2) sample size, 3) covariate selection, 4) learning time, and 5) interpretability of the resulting model. If training time is a limitation, then algorithms that have fewer model parameters and hyperparameters should be considered, e.g., MLR, KNN, SVR, and Cubist. If the data set is large (thousands of samples) and computation time is not an issue, ANN would likely produce the best results. If the data set is small (<100), then Cubist, KNN, RF, and SVR are likely to perform better than ANN and MLR. The uncertainty in predictions produced by Cubist, KNN, RF, and SVR may not decrease with large datasets. When interpretability of the resulting model is important to the user, Cubist, MLR, and RF are more appropriate algorithms as they do not function as “black boxes.” There is no one correct approach to produce models for predicting the spatial distribution of soil properties. Nonetheless, some algorithms are more appropriate than others considering the nature of the data and purpose of mapping activity.

Comments

This is a manuscript of an article published as Yones Khaledian , Bradley A. Miller , Selecting appropriate machine learning methods for digital soil mapping, Applied Mathematical Modelling (2019), doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2019.12.016. Posted with permission.

Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Copyright
Tue Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2019
Collections