4.6 Article

Modelling soil moisture using climate data and normalized difference vegetation index based on nine algorithms in alpine grasslands

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1130448

关键词

soil quality; global change; random forest; alpine ecosystem; alpine region; 'third pole'; Tibetan plateau; NDVI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the ability of nine algorithms to estimate soil moisture variation using climate data and the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) was evaluated. The constructed random forest models based on climate data and NDVI showed the best performance in estimating soil moisture variation. Therefore, these models can be applied to estimate spatiotemporal variations in soil moisture and for other related scientific research.
Soil moisture (SM) is closely correlated with ecosystem structure and function. Examining whether climate data (temperature, precipitation and radiation) and the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) can be used to estimate SM variation could benefit research related to SM under climate change and human activities. In this study, we evaluated the ability of nine algorithms to explain potential SM (SMp) variation using climate data and actual SM (SMa) variation using climate data and NDVI. Overall, climate data and the NDVI based on the constructed random forest models led to the best estimated SM (R (2) >= 94%, RMSE <= 2.98, absolute value of relative bias: <= 3.45%). Randomness, and the setting values of the two key parameters (mtry and ntree), may explain why the random forest models obtained the highest accuracy in predicating SM. Therefore, the constructed random forest models of SMp and SMa in this study can be thus be applied to estimate spatiotemporal variations in SM and for other related scientific research (e.g., differentiating the relative effects of climate change and human activities on SM), at least for Tibetan grassland region.

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

4.6
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