4.7 Article

Credal decision tree based novel ensemble models for spatial assessment of gully erosion and sustainable management

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82527-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Birzeit University [251166]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study introduced novel hybrid ensemble models for gully erosion susceptibility mapping in Northern Iran, evaluating the relative importance of predictor factors and identifying the most influential variables for mapping GES. The CDT-RF model was found to be the most robust and accurate in predicting gully erosion susceptibility.
We introduce novel hybrid ensemble models in gully erosion susceptibility mapping (GESM) through a case study in the Bastam sedimentary plain of Northern Iran. Four new ensemble models including credal decision tree-bagging (CDT-BA), credal decision tree-dagging (CDT-DA), credal decision tree-rotation forest (CDT-RF), and credal decision tree-alternative decision tree (CDT-ADTree) are employed for mapping the gully erosion susceptibility (GES) with the help of 14 predictor factors and 293 gully locations. The relative significance of GECFs in modelling GES is assessed by random forest algorithm. Two cut-off-independent (area under success rate curve and area under predictor rate curve) and six cut-off-dependent metrics (accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-score, odd ratio and Cohen Kappa) were utilized based on both calibration as well as testing dataset. Drainage density, distance to road, rainfall and NDVI were found to be the most influencing predictor variables for GESM. The CDT-RF (AUSRC=0.942, AUPRC=0.945, accuracy=0.869, specificity=0.875, sensitivity=0.864, RMSE=0.488, F-score=0.869 and Cohen's Kappa=0.305) was found to be the most robust model which showcased outstanding predictive accuracy in mapping GES. Our study shows that the GESM can be utilized for conserving soil resources and for controlling future gully erosion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据