Estimation of Soil Moisture Using Multi-Source Remote Sensing and Machine Learning Algorithms in Farming Land of Northern China

Abstract

Soil moisture is a key parameter for the circulation of water and energy exchange between surface and the atmosphere, playing an important role in hydrology, agriculture, and meteorology. Traditional methods for monitoring soil moisture suffer from spatial discontinuity, time-consuming processes, and high costs. Remote sensing technology enables the non-destructive and efficient retrieval of land information, allowing rapid soil moisture monitoring to schedule crop irrigation and evaluate the irrigation efficiency. Satellite data with different resolutions provide different observation scales. Evaluating the accuracy of estimating soil moisture based on open and free satellite data, as well as exploring the comprehensiveness and adaptability of different satellites for soil moisture temporal and spatial observations, are important research contents of current soil moisture monitoring. The study utilized three types of satellite data, namely GF-1, Landsat-8, and GF-4, with respective temporal and spatial resolutions of 16 m (every 4 days), 30 m (every 16 days), and 50 m (daily). The gray relational analysis (GRA) was employed to identify vegetation indices that selected sensitivity to soil moisture at varying depths (3 cm, 10 cm, and 20 cm). Then, this study employed random forest (RF), Extra Tree (ETr), and linear regression (LR) algorithms to estimate soil moisture at different depths with optical satellite data sources. The results showed that the accuracy of soil moisture estimation was different at different growth stages. The model accuracy exhibited an upward trend during the middle and late growth stages, coinciding with higher vegetation coverage; however, it demonstrated a decline in accuracy during the early and late growth stages due to either the absence or limited presence of vegetation. Among the three satellite images, the vegetation indices derived from GF-1 exhibited were more sensitive to vegetation characteristics and demonstrated superior soil moisture estimation accuracy (with R2 ranging 0.129–0.928, RMSE ranging 0.017–0.078), followed by Landsat-8 (with R2 ranging 0.117–0.862, RMSE ranging 0.017–0.088). The soil moisture estimation accuracy of GF-4 was the worst (with R2 ranging 0.070–0.921, RMSE ranging 0.020–0.140). Thus, GF-1 is suitable for vegetated areas. In addition, the ETr model outperformed the other models in both accuracy and stability (ETr model: R2 ranging from 0.117 to 0.928, RMSE ranging from 0.021 to 0.091; RF model: R2 ranging from 0.225 to 0.926, RMSE ranging from 0.019 to 0.085; LR model: R2 ranging from 0.048 to 0.733, RMSE ranging from 0.030 to 0.144). Utilizing GF-1 is recommended to construct the ETr model for assessing soil moisture variations in the farming land of northern China. Therefore, in cases where there are limited ground sample data, it is advisable to utilize high-spatiotemporal-resolution remote sensing data, along with machine learning algorithms such as ETr and RF, which are suitable for small samples, for soil moisture estimation.

A longitudinal analysis of soil salinity changes using remotely sensed imageries

“…Regression analysis is a commonly used statistical tool to study relationships between factors, making it straightforward to analyze multifactor data 54 . This study employs SVR 44 , 55 – 59 , RF 22 , 58 , 60 – 62 , DT 63 , 64 , and the XGBoost 16 , 65 – 68 methods to investigate the association between remotely sensed imagery data and field soil salinity. The Scikit-learn for Python (version 1.3.0) is used to implement these algorithms 69 .…”

Inversion of Farmland Soil Moisture Based on Multi-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar Data and Optical Data

“…In the study on SSM inversion using remote sensing data, the data mainly originate from microwave remote sensing and optical remote sensing technologies [15]. Optical remote sensing has the advantages of high spatial resolution, large width, and easy data acquisition [16].…”