A Multiscale Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Sustainable Land Management
Rattachement africain : hr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
With the emergence of machine learning methods during the past decade, alternatives to conventional geostatistical methods for soil mapping are becoming increasingly more sophisticated. To provide a complete overview of their performance, this study performed cost–benefit analysis of four soil mapping methods based on five criteria: accuracy, processing time, robustness, scalability and applicability. The evaluated methods were ordinary kriging (OK), regression kriging (RK), random forest (RF) and ensemble machine learning (EML) for the prediction of total soil carbon and nitrogen. The results of these mechanisms were objectively standardized using the linear scaling method, and their relative importance was quantified using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). EML resulted in the highest cost–benefit score of the tested methods, with maximum values of accuracy, robustness and scalability, achieving a 55.6% higher score than the second-ranked RF method. The two geostatistical methods ranked last in the cost–benefit analysis. Despite that, OK could retain its place as the most frequent method for soil mapping in recent studies due to its widespread, user-friendly implementation in GIS software and its univariate character. Further improvement of machine learning methods with regards to computational efficiency could additionally improve their cost–benefit advantage and establish them as the universal standard for soil mapping.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- A Multiscale Cost–Benefit Analysis of Digital Soil Mapping Methods for Sustainable Land Management
- Date Crossref
- 26/09/2022
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.