Agaba, S.; Ferré, C.; Musetti, M.; Comolli, R. Mapping Soil Organic Carbon Stock and Uncertainties in an Alpine Valley (Northern Italy) Using Machine Learning Models. Land2024, 13, 78.
Agaba, S.; Ferré, C.; Musetti, M.; Comolli, R. Mapping Soil Organic Carbon Stock and Uncertainties in an Alpine Valley (Northern Italy) Using Machine Learning Models. Land 2024, 13, 78.
Agaba, S.; Ferré, C.; Musetti, M.; Comolli, R. Mapping Soil Organic Carbon Stock and Uncertainties in an Alpine Valley (Northern Italy) Using Machine Learning Models. Land2024, 13, 78.
Agaba, S.; Ferré, C.; Musetti, M.; Comolli, R. Mapping Soil Organic Carbon Stock and Uncertainties in an Alpine Valley (Northern Italy) Using Machine Learning Models. Land 2024, 13, 78.
Abstract
In this study, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the spatial distribution of soil organic carbon stock (SOC stock) and the associated uncertainties in two soil layers (0–10 cm and 0–30 cm; SOC stock 10 and SOC stock 30 respectively), in Valchiavenna, an alpine valley located in northern Italy . We employed the digital soil mapping (DSM) approach within different machine learning models, including multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), random forest (RF), support vector regression (SVR), and elastic net (ENET). Our dataset comprised soil data from 110 profiles, with SOC stock calculations for all sampling points based on bulk density (BD), whether measured or estimated, considering the presence of rock fragments. As environmental covariates for our research we utilized environmental variables, in particular geomorphometric parameters derived from a digital elevation model (with a 20 m pixel resolution), land cover data, and climat-ic maps. To evaluate the effectiveness of our models, we evaluated their capacity to predict SOC stock 10 and SOC stock 30 using the coefficient of determination (R2). The results for the SOC stock 10 were as follows: MARS 0.39, ENET 0.41, RF 0.69, and SVR 0.50. For the SOC stock 30, the corresponding R2 values were: MARS 0.45, ENET 0.48, RF 0.65, and SVR 0.62. Additionally, we calculated the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for further assessment. To map the spatial distribution of SOC stock and address uncertainties in both soil layers, we chose the RF model, due to its better performance, as indicated by the highest R2 and the lowest RMSE and MAE. The resulting SOC stock maps using the RF model demonstrated an accuracy of RMSE = 1.35 kg.m-2 for the SOC stock 10 and RMSE= 3.36 kg.m-2 for the SOC stock 30. To further evaluate and illustrate the precision of our soil maps, we conducted an uncertainty assessment and mapping by analyzing the standard deviation (SD) from 50 iterations of the best-performing RF model. This analysis effectively highlighted the high accuracy achieved in our soil maps. The maps of uncertainty demonstrated that the RF model better predicts the SOC stock 10 compared to the SOC stock 30.
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
