اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات282
تعداد نشریات سازمان80
تعداد شماره‌ها3,230
تعداد مقالات35,784
تعداد مشاهده مقاله54,007,165
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله93,166,501
زرینی بهادر, مسلم. (1405). نقشه‌برداری رقومی اسیدیته خاک با استفاده از تصاویر ماهواره‌ای لندست 8 و داده‌های کمکی توسط مدل‌های یادگیری ماشین در حوزه آبخیز بدر، استان کردستان. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(1), 55-73. doi: 10.22092/lmj.2026.368002.377
مسلم زرینی بهادر. "نقشه‌برداری رقومی اسیدیته خاک با استفاده از تصاویر ماهواره‌ای لندست 8 و داده‌های کمکی توسط مدل‌های یادگیری ماشین در حوزه آبخیز بدر، استان کردستان". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14, 1, 1405, 55-73. doi: 10.22092/lmj.2026.368002.377
زرینی بهادر, مسلم. (1405). 'نقشه‌برداری رقومی اسیدیته خاک با استفاده از تصاویر ماهواره‌ای لندست 8 و داده‌های کمکی توسط مدل‌های یادگیری ماشین در حوزه آبخیز بدر، استان کردستان', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 14(1), pp. 55-73. doi: 10.22092/lmj.2026.368002.377
زرینی بهادر, مسلم. نقشه‌برداری رقومی اسیدیته خاک با استفاده از تصاویر ماهواره‌ای لندست 8 و داده‌های کمکی توسط مدل‌های یادگیری ماشین در حوزه آبخیز بدر، استان کردستان. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1405; 14(1): 55-73. doi: 10.22092/lmj.2026.368002.377

نقشه‌برداری رقومی اسیدیته خاک با استفاده از تصاویر ماهواره‌ای لندست 8 و داده‌های کمکی توسط مدل‌های یادگیری ماشین در حوزه آبخیز بدر، استان کردستان

مدیریت اراضی
مقاله 5، دوره 14، شماره 1، شهریور 1405، صفحه 55-73    اصل مقاله (2.32 M)
نوع مقاله: پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/lmj.2026.368002.377
نویسنده
مسلم زرینی بهادر*
کارشناس تحقیقات خاک و آب مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان تهران، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی(تات)، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
pH خاک یکی از ویژگی‌های مهم خاک است که معیاری از اسیدی یا قلیایی بودن خاک می‌باشد و عمیقاً بر دسترسی به مواد مغذی و فعالیت میکروبی تأثیر می‌گذارد و مستقیماً بر رشد و سلامت گیاه تأثیر دارد. محصولات مختلف در محدوده‌های pH خاص رشد می‌کنند و حفظ سطح pH بهینه تضمین می‌کند که مواد مغذی ضروری به راحتی در دسترس گیاهان باشند. مطالعه حاضر با هدف نقشه‌برداری رقومی pH خاک با استفاده از متغیرهای کمکی محیطی و تصاویر ماهواره لندست 8 و مدل‌های پیش‌بینی کننده و معرفی بهترین مدل‌ها، در حوضه آبخیز بدر در جنوب شهرستان قروه انجام گرفت. برای انجام این پژوهش در مرحله اول، نقشه‌ی ژئومورفولوژی با استفاده از نقشه زمین‌شناسی و بر اساس روش ژئوپدولوژی زینک در محیط سامانه اطلاعات جغرافیائی ترسیم گردید. در مرحله‌ی دوم، محل125 خاکرخ مطالعاتی بر اساس تکنیک ابر مکعب لاتین تعیین گردید، و pH در گل اشباع توسط دستگاه پ‌هاش‌متر اندازه‌گیری شد. متغیرهای کمکی شامل مشتقات مدل رقومی ارتفاع، شاخص‌های سنجش از دور دریافتی از ماهواره لندست 8 و نقشه ژئوپدولوژی بودند که انتخاب متغیرهای کمکی مناسب با استفاده از روش تجزیه مؤلفه‌های اصلی (PCA) انجام گرفت. در مرحله سوم، مدلسازی انجام، نقشه‌های رقومی کلاس‌ها و ویژگی‌های خاک تهیه گردید و ارزیابی مدل‌ها صورت گرفت. متغیرهای کمکی مهم در پیش‌بینی مقدار pH خاک به ترتیب اهمیت عبارت‌اند از: ژئومورفولوژی، سطح‌مبنای شبکه آبراهه‌ای، شاخص کربنات، جهت شیب، موقعیت نسبی شیب، عامل طول شیب و شاخص انحنا. پیش‌بینی pH توسط مدل‌های نزدیک‌ترین همسایه K، تحلیل درخت تصمیم، شبکه عصبی مصنوعی، جنگل تصادفی و رگرسیون خطی چندگانه صورت گرفت. در میان مدل‌های استفاده‌شده برای پیش‌بینی pH، با استفاده از روش اعتبارسنجی کافلد 10 مکانی، مدل رگرسیون خطی چندگانه با ضریب تبیین 0/698 و ریشه دوم متوسط مربعات خطا 0/190 از بیشترین دقت برای پیش‌بینی برخوردار بود. بر اساس روش اعتبارسنجی کافلد 5 تصادفی، دقت و صحت مدل نزدیک‌ترین همسایه بهترین عملکرد را در پیش‌بینی pH خاک دارا بوده است. به طور کلی، بر اساس روش‌های ارزیابی کافلد 10 مکانی و کافلد 5 تصادفی، می‌توان بیان داشت که روش‌های ترکیبی دارای قابلیت بیشتری برای پیش‌بینی pH می‌باشند. این بدین معنی است که ترکیب نتایج پیش‌بینی سایر مدل‌ها می‌تواند نقشه‌هایی با دقت بالاتر را تولید کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
جنگل تصادفی؛ ژئومورفولوژی؛ رگرسیون خطی چندگانه؛ ارزیابی مدل
عنوان مقاله [English]
Digital mapping of soil pH using Landsat 8 satellite images and auxiliary data by machine learning models in Badr Watershed, Kurdistan Province
نویسندگان [English]
Moslem Zarinibahador
PhD in Soil Science; Soil and Water Research Expert; Tehran Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center; Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO); Varamin; Iran.
چکیده [English]
Objectives
Soil pH is a key chemical property that governs nutrient availability, microbial activity, and overall soil fertility, thereby exerting a significant influence on plant growth and productivity. Accurate spatial prediction of soil pH is essential for site-specific soil management and precision agriculture. The present study aims: 1) to prepare a digital map of the spatial distribution of soil pH in the 0–25 cm soil layer at Badr Watershed, southern Qorveh County, using environmental covariates derived from terrain attributes, remote sensing data, and geopedological information; 2) to evaluate the predictive performance of machine learning and statistical models, including Random Forest (RF), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Decision Tree (DT), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) used for soil pH estimation; 3) to identify the most influential environmental variables controlling the spatial variability of soil pH; and 4) to determine the modeling approach capable of producing the most accurate and reliable digital soil pH maps to support precision agriculture and sustainable soil management.
Material and Methods
This study was conducted in Badr Watershed located in the southern part of Qorveh County, Kurdistan Province, Iran, covering an area of approximately 6,700 ha. The objective was to develop a digital soil pH map of the 0–25 cm soil layer by integrating environmental covariates with machine learning and statistical modeling approaches.
A geopedological map was first generated in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment based on the Zink geopedological approach using geological and topographic information. Soil sampling locations were subsequently selected using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) technique to ensure representative coverage of the environmental variability across the study area. A total of 125 surface soil samples (0–25 cm) were collected and soil pH was determined in saturated soil paste using a calibrated pH meter following standard laboratory procedures.
A comprehensive set of environmental covariates was prepared to represent the soil-forming factors, including terrain attributes derived from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), remote sensing indices extracted from Landsat 8 Imagery, and geopedological variables. These covariates were used as predictor variables for digital soil mapping.
Soil pH was modeled using five predictive approaches, including Random Forest (RF), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Decision Tree (DT), K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), implemented in the R statistical software environment. Model performance was evaluated using both 10-fold cross-validation and 5-fold random validation procedures. Predictive accuracy was assessed based on the coefficient of determination (R²), root mean square error (RMSE), and other relevant statistical performance indices. The resulting prediction maps were subsequently generated to characterize the spatial distribution of soil pH across the study area.
 
 
Results
The environmental covariates exhibited varying degrees of influence on the spatial prediction of soil pH. Variable importance analysis identified geomorphology as the most influential predictor, followed by watershed network base level, carbonate index, slope aspect, relative slope position, slope length factor (LS), and curvature index.
The the above-mentioned five statistical and machine learning models (namely, MLR, RF, ANN, DT, and KNN) were evaluated in terms of their predictive performance using both 10-fold cross-validation and 5-fold random validation procedures. The results revealed differences in prediction accuracy among the models evaluated.
Based on the 10-fold cross-validation results, the Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) model achieved the highest predictive performance, with a coefficient of determination (R²) of 0.698 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.190, indicating its strong capability of soil pH estimation across the study area. In contrast, the 5-fold random validation results identified the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) model as the most accurate and precise approach for soil pH prediction.
Comparison of the validation approaches further indicated that ensemble or combined prediction strategies would generally outperform individual models. In this regard, integrating the prediction outputs from multiple models improved the overall reliability and spatial accuracy of the digital soil pH maps generated, resulting in a more robust characterization of soil pH variability across the study watershed.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating environmental covariates with statistical and machine learning approaches for digital mapping of soil pH in Badr Watershed. The results confirmed that terrain- and geopedology-related variables played fundamental roles in explaining the spatial variability of soil pH, highlighting the importance of incorporating multiple environmental factors into digital soil mapping frameworks.
Model evaluation revealed that predictive performance varied depending on the validation strategy adopted. This is evidenced by the fact that Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) provided the highest predictive accuracy under the 10-fold cross-validation scheme, whereas the K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN) model performed best under the 5-fold random validation approach. These findings indicate that no single model is universally superior and that model performance depends on both the characteristics of the validation procedure and the spatial structure of the dataset.
Furthermore, the superior performance of combined prediction approaches suggests that, compared to individual models, ensemble modeling can improve the reliability and spatial accuracy of digital soil pH maps. The soil pH maps thus generated provide valuable spatial information that can support site-specific soil management, precision agriculture, and sustainable land-use planning in the study area.
Overall, the integration of geopedological information, terrain derivatives, remote sensing data, and advanced predictive models yields a robust framework for digital soil pH mapping. Future studies may be recommended to investigate hybrid and ensemble machine learning techniques, incorporate additional environmental covariates and higher-resolution remote sensing data, and evaluate the transferability of the modeling framework proposed herein to other regions with different soil and environmental conditions.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Random Forest, geomorphology, Multiple linear regression, Model evaluation
مراجع
  1. Angiulli, F., 2005, August. Fast condensed nearest neighbor rule. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, 25-32.

https://doi.org/10.1145/1102351.1102355

  1. Bohn, H. L., & McNeal, B. L. O Connor, GA (2001). Soil Chemistry.
  2. Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Machine learning, 45.5-32.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

  1. Chen, Z.S., Hsieh, C.F., Jiang, F.Y., Hsieh, T.H. and Sun, I.F., 1997. Relations of soil properties to topography and vegetation in a subtropical rain forest in southern Taiwan. Plant Ecology, 132, pp.229-241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009762704553
  2. Cheng-Jim, J.I., Yuan-He, Y.A.N.G., Wen-Xuan, H.A.N., Yan-Fang, H.E., Smith, J. and Smith, P., 2014. Climatic and edaphic controls on soil pH in alpine grasslands on the Tibetan Plateau, China: a quantitative analysis. Pedosphere, 24(1), pp.39-44.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(13)60078-8

  1. Chytrý M., Danihelka J., Ermakov N., Hájek M., Hájková P., Kočí M. Plant species richness in continental southern Siberia: effects of pH and climate in the context of the species pool hypothesis [J]. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2007, 16(5): 668–678.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00320.x

  1. Fabian, C., Reimann, C., Fabian, K., Birke, M., Baritz, R., Haslinger, E. and GEMAS Project Team, 2014. GEMAS: Spatial distribution of the pH of European agricultural and grazing land soil. Applied Geochemistry, 48, pp.207-216.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.07.017

  1. Filippi, P., Cattle, S. R., Bishop, T. F., Odeh, I. O., & Pringle, M. J. (2018). Digital soil monitoring of top-and sub-soil pH with bivariate linear mixed models. Geoderma, 322, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.02.033
  2. Gentili, R., Ambrosini, R., Montagnani, C., Caronni, S. and Citterio, S., 2018. Effect of soil pH on the growth, reproductive investment and pollen allergenicity of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Frontiers in plant science, 9, p.1335.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01335

  1. Gruba, P. and Socha, J., 2016. Effect of parent material on soil acidity and carbon content in soils under silver fir (Abies alba Mill.) stands in Poland. Catena, 140, pp.90-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.01.020
  2. Grunwald, S. 2006. Environmental soil-landscape modeling: Geographic information technologies and pedometrics. CRC Press, New York, 300p.
  3. Hariri, A. 1995. An attitude on the origin of a group of different rocks in the Qorve area. Master's thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. (In Persian).
  4. He, X., Hou, E., Liu, Y. and Wen, D., 2016. Altitudinal patterns and controls of plant and soil nutrient concentrations and stoichiometry in subtropical China. Scientific reports, 6(1), p.24261. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24261
  5. Heung, B., Ho, H.C., Zhang, J., Knudby, A., Bulmer, C.E. and Schmidt, M.G., 2016. An overview and comparison of machine-learning techniques for classification purposes in digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 265, pp.62-77.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.11.014

  1. Hosseini, M. 1996. Description of Geological Map 1:100000 Quarter Corners (Map Attachment), Geological and Mineral Exploration Organization of the country. (In Persian).
  2. Khosravani, P., Baghernejad, M., Moosavi, A.A. and FallahShamsi, S.R., 2024. Digital Mapping of Soil Texture Particles with Machine Learning Models and Environmental Covariates. Water & Soil, 37(6). (In Persian).

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.2023.84413.1331

  1. Leo, B., 2001. Random forests. Machine learning, 45, pp.5-23.
  2. Liu, K., Liu, Z., Zhou, N., Shi, X., Lock, T.R., Kallenbach, R.L. and Yuan, Z., 2022. Diversity‐stability relationships in temperate grasslands as a function of soil pH. Land Degradation & Development, 33(10), pp.1704-1717. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4259
  3. Lu, Q., Tian, S. and Wei, L., 2023. Digital mapping of soil pH and carbonates at the European scale using environmental variables and machine learning. Science of the Total Environment, 856, p.159171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159171
  4. McBratney, A.B., Santos, M.M. and Minasny, B., 2003. On digital soil mapping. Geoderma, 117(1-2), pp.3-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00223-4
  5. Meng, C., Tian, D., Zeng, H., Li, Z., Yi, C. and Niu, S., 2019. Global soil acidification impacts on belowground processes. Environmental Research Letters, 14(7), p.074003. 1088/1748-9326/ab239c
  6. Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B. and Ladson, A.R., 1991. Digital terrain modelling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological processes, 5(1), pp.3-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360050103
  7. Moore, I.D., Gessler, P.E., Nielsen, G.A.E. and Peterson, G.A., 1993. Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis. Soil science society of america journal, 57(2), pp.443-452. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700020026x
  8. Nemes, A., Rawls, W.J. and Pachepsky, Y.A., 2006. Use of the nonparametric nearest neighbor approach to estimate soil hydraulic properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70(2), pp.327-336. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0128
  9. ÖZTÜRK, M., KILIÇ, M. and GÜNAL, H., 2024. Digital Mapping of Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity: A Comparative Analysis of Kriging and Machine Learning Approaches. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(4), pp.1168-1185.

 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14542860

  1. pahlavanrad, M. , Toomanian, N. and Khormali, F. (2017). Digital soil mapping. Land Management Journal, 4(2), 97-114. https://doi.org/22092/lmj.2017.109482
  2. Reuter, H.I., Lado, L.R., Hengl, T. and Montanarella, L., 2008. Continental-scale digital soil mapping using European soil profile data: soil pH. Hamburger Beiträge zur Physischen Geographie und Landschaftsökologie, 19(1), pp.91-102.
  3. Salehi, M. H., and Khademi, H. 2008. Basics of soil mapping. Isfahan University Jihad Publications. 210 pages. (In Persian).
  4. Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A. and Benham, E.C. eds., 2012. Field book for describing and sampling soils. Government Printing Office.
  5. Scull, P., Franklin, J. and Chadwick, O.A., 2005. The application of classification tree analysis to soil type prediction in a desert landscape. Ecological modelling, 181(1), pp.1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.06.036
  6. Sillanpää, M., 1982. Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils: a global study (Vol. 48). Food & Agriculture Org..
  7. Simonson, R.W., 1995. Factors of soil formation. A system of quantitative pedology. Geoderma, 68(4), pp.334-335.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/link_gateway/1995Geode..68..334S/doi:10.1016/0016-7061(95)90014-4

  1. Smola, A.J. and Schölkopf, B., 2004. A tutorial on support vector regression. Statistics and computing, 14, pp.199-222. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88
  2. Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Soil Taxonomy: A basic systems of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 12th Edition. NRCS. USDA.
  3. Sreenivas, K., Dadhwal, V.K., Kumar, S., Harsha, G.S., Mitran, T., Sujatha, G., Suresh, G.J.R., Fyzee, M.A. and Ravisankar, T., 2016. Digital mapping of soil organic and inorganic carbon status in India. Geoderma, 269, pp.160-173.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.02.002

  1. SYS, C., Van Ranst, E. and DEBAVEYE, J., Land Evaluation. Part I: principles in land evaluation and crop production calculations. Agricultural Publications nr. 7, GADC, Brussels, Belgium, 1991.
  2. Tziachris, P., Metaxa, E., Papadopoulos, F. and Papadopoulou, M., 2017. Spatial modelling and prediction assessment of soil iron using kriging interpolation with pH as auxiliary information. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(9), p.283.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6090283

  1. Tziachris, P., Aschonitis, V., Chatzistathis, T., Papadopoulou, M. and Doukas, I.J.D., 2020. Comparing machine learning models and hybrid geostatistical methods using environmental and soil covariates for soil pH prediction. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 9(4), p.276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9040276
  2. Valavi, R., Elith, J., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J. and Guillera-Arroita, G., 2018. blockCV: An r package for generating spatially or environmentally separated folds for k-fold cross-validation of species distribution models. Biorxiv, p.357798.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/357798

  1. Vandana, N., Suresh, G., Mitran, T. and Mahadevappa, S.G., 2024. Digital Mapping of Soil pH and Electrical Conductivity Using Geostatistics and Machine Learning. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 14(2), pp.273-286. DOI: 10.9734/IJECC/2024/v14i23944
  2. Vasu, D., Singh, S.K., Tiwary, P., Chandran, P., Ray, S.K. and Duraisami, V.P., 2016. Pedogenic processes and soil–landform relationships for identification of yield-limiting soil properties. Soil Research, 55(3), pp.273-284. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR16111
  3. Vasu, D., Singh, S.K., Sahu, N., Tiwary, P., Chandran, P., Duraisami, V.P., Ramamurthy, V., Lalitha, M. and Kalaiselvi, B., 2017. Assessment of spatial variability of soil properties using geospatial techniques for farm level nutrient management. Soil and Tillage Research, 169, pp.25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.01.006
  4. Vasundhara, R., Dharumarajan, S., Hegde, R., Moharana, P. C., Kalaiselvi, B., Prakash, H., & Patil, N. (2025). Modeling Soil pH at regional scale using environmental covariates and machine learning algorithm. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 197(7), 799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-025-14254-5
  5. Vaysse, K., Heuvelink, G. B., & Lagacherie, P. (2017). Spatial aggregation of soil property predictions in support of local land management. Soil Use and Management, 33(2), 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12350
  6. Were, K., Bui, D.T., Dick, Ø.B. and Singh, B.R., 2015. A comparative assessment of support vector regression, artificial neural networks, and random forests for predicting and mapping soil organic carbon stocks across an Afromontane landscape. Ecological Indicators, 52, pp.394-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.028
  7. Wilding, L. and Drees, L.R., 1983. Spatial variability and pedology. In Developments in Soil Science(Vol. 11, pp. 83-116). Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2481(08)70599-3

  1. Zeraatpisheh, M., Jafari, A., Bodaghabadi, M. B., Ayoubi, S., Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, R., Toomanian, N., .& Xu, M. (2020). Conventional and digital soil mapping in Iran: Past, present, and future. Catena, 188, 104424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104424
  2. Zhang, Y., Biswas, A. and Adamchuk, V.I., 2017. Implementation of a sigmoid depth function to describe change of soil pH with depth. Geoderma, 289, pp.1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.11.022
  3. Zhang, Y.Y., Wu, W. and Liu, H., 2019. Factors affecting variations of soil pH in different horizons in hilly regions. Plos one, 14(6), p.e0218563.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218563

  1. Zhao, X., He, C., Liu, W.S., Liu, W.X., Liu, Q.Y., Bai, W., Li, L.J., Lal, R. and Zhang, H.L., 2022. Responses of soil pH to no‐till and the factors affecting it: A global meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology, 28(1), pp.154-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15930
  2. Zhao, Z.D., Zhao, M.S., Lu, H.L., Wang, S.H. and Lu, Y.Y., 2023. Digital mapping of soil pH based on machine learning combined with feature selection methods in east China. Sustainability, 15(17), p.12874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712874
  3. Zinck, J.K. 1989. Physiography and soil. Lecture notes for K 6 course. Soil Division. ITC. Enschede, The Netherlands. 156 p.
  4. Zolfaghari, A. A. Tirgar Soltani, M. T. Dyck, M. and Weldeyohannes, A. 2013. Comparison of K-nearest neighbor and artificial neural network methods for predicting cation exchange capacity of soil. 50th anniversary Alberta soil science workshop. Book of Abstracts. 77-94. (In Persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.23221267.1392.3.1.5.2
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 329
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 113


counter
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب