Mapping soil salinity in irrigated land using optical remote sensing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil salinity caused by natural or human-induced processes is certainly a severe environmental problem that already affects 400 million hectares and seriously threatens an equivalent surface. Salinization causes negative effects on the ground; it affects agricultural production, infrastructure, water resources and biodiversity. In semi-arid and arid areas, 21% of irrigated lands suffer from waterlogging, salinity and/or sodicity that reduce their yields. 77 million hectares are saline soils induced by human activity, including 58% in the irrigated areas. In the irrigated perimeter of Tadla plain (central Morocco), the increased use of saline groundwater and surface water, coupled with agricultural intensification leads to the deterioration of soil quality. Experimental methods for monitoring soil salinity by direct measurements in situ are very demanding of time and resources, and also very limited in terms of spatial coverage. Several studies have described the usefulness of remote sensing for mapping salinity by its synoptic coverage and the sensitivity of the electromagnetic signal to surface soil parameters. In this study, we used an image of the TM Landsat sensor and field measurements of electrical conductivity (EC), the correlation between the image data and field measurements allowed us to develop a semi-empirical model allowing the mapping of soil salinity in the irrigated perimeter of Tadla plain. The validation of this model by the ground truth provides a correlation coefficient r² = 0.90. Map obtained from this model allows the identification of different salinization classes in the study area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".