Author
Listed:
- Jia Liu
(College of Land Resources and Environment, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)
- Yingcong Ye
(College of Land Resources and Environment, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)
- Cui Wang
(Geographic Information Engineering Brigade, Jiangxi Provincial Bureau of Geology, Nanchang 330001, China)
- Songchao Chen
(Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology Application, College of Environmental and Resource Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)
- Yameng Jiang
(College of Land Resources and Environment, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)
- Xi Guo
(College of Land Resources and Environment, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)
- Yefeng Jiang
(College of Land Resources and Environment, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China)
Abstract
Soil texture, defined by the proportions of sand, silt, and clay particles in the soil, is one of the most essential physical properties of soil. High-resolution soil texture data can provide critical parameter support for soil hydrological modeling, agricultural production management, and ecosystem assessment. In digital soil mapping, previous studies often predicted the sand, silt, and clay contents in soil and then indirectly calculated soil texture. Currently, approaches that directly map soil texture by classification modeling are gaining increasing attention due to the decreased error from data conversion, but few studies have systematically compared these two methods yet. In this study, we comprehensively assessed the performance of direct and indirect predicting soil texture using four machine learning algorithms (e.g., extreme gradient boosting, random forest, gradient boosting decision tree, and extremely randomized tree) with 190 covariates from the Digital Elevation Model, Sentinel-1/2 satellite images, and classification maps and generated a 10 m resolution soil texture map based on 405 topsoil (0–20 cm) sample data collected in Suichuan County, China. The results showed that compared with indirect predictions, direct predictions improved overall accuracy (OA) by 20.57–44.19% and the Kappa coefficient (Kappa) by 0.220–0.402. Among the models used, the XGB model achieved the highest accuracy (OA: 0.948; Kappa: 0.931) and the lowest uncertainty (confusion index: 0.052). The direct prediction map (nine classes recorded) exhibited more detailed and diverse spatial distribution patterns than the indirect prediction map (six classes recorded), aligning better with the actual environment. Based on accuracy validation and spatial distribution, the performance of the XGB model was best during direct prediction. The Shapley additive explanation from the XGB model revealed that the normalized height and stream power indices were the most significant factors driving the soil texture in the study area. Our results provide a reference for future studies on soil texture mapping using machine learning models.
Suggested Citation
Jia Liu & Yingcong Ye & Cui Wang & Songchao Chen & Yameng Jiang & Xi Guo & Yefeng Jiang, 2025.
"Machine Learning-Based Comparative Analysis on Direct and Indirect Mapping of Soil Texture Types Through Soil Particle Size Fractions Using Multi-Source Remote Sensing,"
Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-21, June.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:13:p:1395-:d:1690037
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:13:p:1395-:d:1690037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.