Abstract

This research aims to model soil temperature (ST) using machine learning models of multilayer perceptron (MLP) algorithm and support vector machine (SVM) in hybrid form with the Firefly optimization algorithm, i.e. MLP-FFA and SVM-FFA. In the current study, measured ST and meteorological parameters of Tabriz and Ahar weather stations in a period of 2013–2015 are used for training and testing of the studied models with one and two days as a delay. To ascertain conclusive results for validation of the proposed hybrid models, the error metrics are benchmarked in an independent testing period. Moreover, Taylor diagrams utilized for that purpose. Obtained results showed that, in a case of one day delay, except in predicting ST at 5 cm below the soil surface (ST5cm) at Tabriz station, MLP-FFA produced superior results compared with MLP, SVM, and SVM-FFA models. However, for two days delay, MLP-FFA indicated increased accuracy in predicting ST5cm and ST 20cm of Tabriz station and ST10cm of Ahar station in comparison with SVM-FFA. Additionally, for all of the prescribed models, the performance of the MLP-FFA and SVM-FFA hybrid models in the testing phase was found to be meaningfully superior to the classical MLP and SVM models.

Highlights

  • Soil temperature (ST) and its spatial and temporal changes directly or indirectly affect the extent and direction of many processes occurring in soil (Mehdizadeh et al, 2018) such as seed germination, root elongation, evaporation, storage and movement of water and microbial activities, nutrient cycle, and many other dynamic processes of the soil (Beltrami, 2001; Citakoglu, 2017; Qian et al, 2011)

  • ST5cm, ST10cm, ST20cm ST5cm, ST10cm, ST20cm ST5cm, ST10cm, ST20cm ST5cm, ST10cm, ST20cm ST5cm, ST10cm, ST20cm to determine whether the proposed multilayer perceptron (MLP)-FFA and SVMFFA hybrid models were capable of data-driven tools for modeling the soil temperature at different depths with one and two days delay (Table 4)

  • We followed the notion that there is no rule of thumb for that the universal way the training and Station Output parameter Best model R2 mean absolute error (MAE) ( ̊C) root mean squared error (RMSE) ( ̊C) R2 MAE ( ̊C) RMSE ( ̊C)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Soil temperature (ST) and its spatial and temporal changes directly or indirectly affect the extent and direction of many processes occurring in soil (Mehdizadeh et al, 2018) such as seed germination, root elongation, evaporation, storage and movement of water and microbial activities, nutrient cycle, and many other dynamic processes of the soil (Beltrami, 2001; Citakoglu, 2017; Qian et al, 2011). Soil temperature is affected by several factors, including topography, solar radiation, air temperature, precipitation, soil moisture content and soil thermal conductivity, and heat transfer coefficients (Bilgili, 2010, 2011; Hillel, 1998). ST at various depths may be either directly measured or estimated by air temperature modeling. Many studies have been carried out on soil temperature estimation. Using the numerical method, Hanks et al (1971) estimated ST as a function of time and depth. Zheng et al (1993) using air temperature and applying linear regression, estimated ST at a depth of 10 cm under six climate types in the United States. For ST estimation, Plauborg (2002) offered experimental and straightforward relationships. The outcomes revealed that the experimental model with

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call