2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11629-019-5409-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the performance of decision tree and neural network models in mapping soil properties

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Model testing was based on 15% of the data while 15% was used for model validation. As the performance of the DT is better than ANN (Appendix 1 and 2 ), the output of the DT model was adopted as the main input for calculating the K factor 59 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model testing was based on 15% of the data while 15% was used for model validation. As the performance of the DT is better than ANN (Appendix 1 and 2 ), the output of the DT model was adopted as the main input for calculating the K factor 59 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using Normalized Difference Salinity Index to measure soil salinity, [30] selected and evaluated several indices that had the highest response to salinity, based on the reports from various studies conducted on plants and mineral salts. The images used in their study were Landsat satellite images orbiting the Earth once every 99 minutes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, ML algorithms such as Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), and Discriminant Analysis (DA) are still widely used [35][36][37]. Owing to their relatively high speed and accuracy, together with the ability to accommodate non-linearity and multicollinearity [10,38,39], ML methods have become popular in soil erosion studies over the past few years [25,[40][41][42][43]. Among these ML methods, SVM and RF consistently showed better performance relative to other ML methods [44], but when compared among themselves (SVM and RF), it is still unclear which method can outperform the other.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%