Estimating Soil Moisture Over Winter Wheat Fields During Growing Season Using Machine-Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil moisture is vital for the crop growth and directly affects the crop yield. The conventional synthetic aperture radar (SAR) based soil moisture monitoring is often influenced by vegetation cover and surface roughness. The machine-learning methods are not constrained by physical parameters and have high nonlinear fitting capabilities. In this study, machine-learning methods were applied to estimate soil moisture over winter wheat fields during its growing season. RADARSAT-2 data with quad polarizations and 240 sample plots in the study area were acquired and collected, respectively. In addition to the four linear polarization channels, polarimetric decomposition parameters were extracted to expand the SAR feature space. Three advanced machine-learning models were selected and compared, which were support vector regression, random forests (RF), and gradient boosting regression tree. To improve the performances of the models, three feature-selection methods were compared, which were based on Pearson correlation, support vector machine recursive feature elimination, and RF, respectively. The coefficient of determination (R2) and root-mean-square error (RMSE) were used to compare and assess the performances of those models. The results revealed that polarimetric decomposition parameters were effective in estimating soil moisture, and RF model obtained the highest prediction accuracy (training set: RMSE = 2.44 vol.% andR2= 0.94; and validation set: RMSE = 4.03 vol.%, andR2= 0.79). This study finally concluded that using polarimetric decomposition parameters combined with machine-learning and feature-selection methods could effectively estimate soil moisture at a high accuracy, which helps monitor soil moisture across the agricultural field during its growing season.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".