Abstract
To achieve the best high spectral quantitative inversion of salt-affected soils, typical saline-sodic soil was selected from northeast China, and the soil spectra were measured; then, partial least-squares regression (PLSR) models and principle component regression(PCR) models were established for soil spectral reflectance and soil salinity, respectively. Modelling accuracies were compared between two models and conducted with different spectrum processing methods and different sampling intervals. Models based on all of the original spectral bands showed that the PLSR was superior to the PCR; however, after smoothing the spectra data, the PLSR did not continue outperforming the PCR. Models established by various transformed spectra after smoothing did not continue showing superiority of the PCR over the PLSR; therefore, we can conclude that the prediction accuracies of the models were not only determined by the smoothing methods, but also by spectral mathematical transformations. The best model was the PCR based on the median filtering data smoothing technique (MF) + log (1/X) + baseline correction transformation (R2 = 0.7206 and RMSE = 0.3929). To keep the information loss becoming too large, this suggested that an 8 nm sampling interval was the best when using soil spectra to predict soil salinity for both the PLSR and PCR models.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Soil salinization is one of the most important obstacle factors that has caused adverse effects on soil production, such as a decrease in cultivated soil fertility and crop failures, which restrict the global development of agriculture1,2,3,4,5,6. At the same time, soil salinization greatly influences the ecological environment, which is closely related to human lives and seriously influences the development of the social economy7,8,9,10,11.
Traditional field sampling analysis technology is time-consuming and laborious and different sampling methods have a large number of uncertainties and errors when expressing the soil salinization level in a study area12,13,14. Technology regarding hyperspectral analysis is time-saving, can perform rapid analysis, saves energy, has a low cost, is not destructive, and can simultaneously estimate the multiple components in soil given new technology and methods for soil information research12,14,15,16,17. The soil spectrum is a comprehensive reflection of various soil physical and chemical properties.
In recent years, soil spectral characteristics have used to estimate soil organic matter18,19,20, total nitrogen21, heavy metals22,23, and soil moisture content24,25 and have obtained certain achievements and built abundant models. The use of hyperspectral data to estimate soil salinization information has gradually developed for different salt components26,27,28,29,30.
Regarding the use of a high-spectral quantitative model to predict soil properties, due to multiple spectral variables, the correlation between variables needs to be eliminated when building models. Most authors have established partial least-squares regression (PLSR) models31 and obtained good precision28,29,32,33,34. Several authors have obtained better principle component analysis (PCR) models35,36, which perform better than the PLSR. Some authors asserted that the PLSR method performs better than the PCR method. Others asserted the opposite opinion. Sometimes these models are not directed at the same property (e.g., soil salinity). For salinity, it is hypothesized that the precision of a model is associated with the processing methods, such as smoothing and various mathematical transformations. Therefore, it is not rigorous and arbitrary to determine which modelling method is better to predict soil salinity under non-unified modelling conditions.
In addition, we often develop transformations to soil spectral data when building models, such as smoothing, multiplicative scatter correction (MSC), and vector normalization (SNC). A number of different spectral transformations have been carried out when predicting soil organic matter, total nitrogen and soil heavy metals with high spectra31. However, the chemical properties of soil decide whether the selected data transformations are different. For soil salinity research, due to geographical differences among regions, the same data processing methods have different model precisions as those for different soil salt components37,38. Our early studies have indicated that when the PLSR model is used to predict soil salinization, the best data transformation was smoothing + MSC37. However, it is still necessary to prove whether the PCR model has the same regulations when using the same transformations. The same type of saline soil should be selected to ensure uniform condition of modelling, so that the models could be compared.
China has vast areas of saline-sodic soil distributed mainly in the arid and semi-arid areas of northern China39. It not only restricts the regional development of agriculture and the economy, but it also has adverse effects on regional food and ecological security. Therefore, monitoring soil salinization is a very important task40. The soil type in the study area is classified as Aquic Alkalic Halosol based on Chinese Soil Taxonomy41. The above studies of soil salinity inversion models were less focused on saline-sodic soil37. Because soil compositions are very complicated, the inversion methods established from the areas with different soil salinization types had certain limitations. Even if an adequate and complex model has already been established in the same type of soil regions42, it cannot guarantee the applicability in a wider region. Establishing the best quantitative model in this region has important significance. Therefore, the saline-sodic soil was selected as the study subject.
Based on the above literatures and analysis, we find that the main existed problems were: (1) there was no definite conclusion on which model is more suitable for predicting soil salinity in soil with same salt components, and lacking of systematic analysis because of the different conditions of modelling in previous studies. (2) It is need to verify whether different spectral processing methods affect the accuracy of the two models under the uniform external conditions. Thus, this study aimed to (1) build PCR and PLSR models between the soil reflection spectrum and the soil salinity content and compare the pros and cons of the two methods when predicting soil salinity in saline-sodic soil and (2) analyse the influence of different spectral transformation methods on the accuracy of the two models and determine the best spectral transformation methods. This conclusion can be used as a reference for the establishment of the spectral model and the selection of the spectral transformation method in investigation of soil salinity, and the best model can also be used in the prediction of soil salinity in saline-sodic soil.
Results
The accuracy of the soil electrical conductivity prediction models based on the original spectra
We established the PLSR and PCR models based on the original spectral bands and soil electrical conductivity (EC) values; the prediction accuracy of the established models can be seen in Table 1. The calibration accuracies of the PLSR model and the PCR model were R2 = 0.8623 and R2 = 0.5373, respectively. The calibration accuracy of the PLSR method was significantly higher than that of the PCR method, and the independent prediction accuracy of the PLSR method (R2 = 0.5346 and RMSE = 0.5071) was superior to that of the PCR method (R2 = 0.4534 and RMSE = 0.5496). However, it was too soon that conclude that the prediction of EC with the PLSR method was significantly higher than that with the PCR method. The soil spectra data required further processing and mathematical transformation; models established based on the processed spectra data may strengthen the results. Therefore, we were able to perform spectral transformations when building models to verify which model was superior.
The accuracy of models based on different spectral smoothing methods
When establishing a soil property inversion model, one of the most commonly used methods for hyperspectral data processing is spectrum smoothing. There are four main methods for spectral smoothing: Moving-Average data smoothing technique (MA), Savitzky-Golay data smoothing technique (SG), Median filtering data smoothing technique (MF), and Gaussian filtering data smoothing technique (GF)43. This paper chose four smoothing methods to smooth soil spectra and aimed to determine which smoothing method was better, as well as verify whether the PLSR model continued to outperform the PCR model based on the smoothed spectra. Based on the smoothed spectra data, the PLSR and PCR models for soil EC were established, and the model accuracies are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that smoothing improved the accuracy of the models after implementing different spectral smoothing methods. Although the calibration of the models had a good prediction (R2 > 0.7600), the independent prediction of models showed different results. In addition to the PLSR model, which was established based on spectra that were smoothed with the MA method, the other PLSR models that were established based on the remaining spectral smoothing methods all achieved good results; of these results, the PLSR model based on the median filter smoothing was the best (R2 = 0.6414 and RMSE = 0.4452).
As for the PCR models, four smoothing methods significantly improved the precision of the prediction. Among them, the best smoothing method was the median filtering method (R2 = 0.6799 and RMSE = 0.4206).
However, compared with the models based on the original spectra, the PLSR models did not continue outperforming the PCR models. This indicated that the accuracy of prediction model regarding soil electrical conductivity was also affected by some factors besides the model itself. Looking at the model accuracy based on four types of spectral smoothing, the prediction accuracy of the PLSR with the second smoothing method approached the prediction accuracy of the PCR. For the MA, MF and GF smoothing methods, the prediction accuracies of the PCR were obviously better than those of the PLSR model. The changes of prediction accuracies between PLSR and PCR models mainly occurred after the smoothing. Soil spectra were only processed by the smoothing method. Therefore, from the above results, we concluded that the smoothing method affected the predictive precision of the PLSR and PCR models.
Model accuracies based on different spectral mathematical transformations
From the four types of smoothing methods mentioned above, both the MA and SG smoothing methods represent a linear smoothing spectrum method, while both the MF and GF methods represent a nonlinear smoothing spectrum method. To verify the above deduction, we chose the MA and MF smoothed spectrum methods (both have prediction accuracies of PCR > PLSR) and performed various mathematical transformations. If the deduction was correct, the prediction accuracy of the models, which were established on various transformation spectrums after smoothing, continued showing the accuracies better for the PCR than for the PLSR.
Regarding the MA smoothing method, the prediction accuracy of models, which were established for various transformation spectra after MA smoothing, did not continue to show PCR superiority over the PLSR (Table 3).
As for the MF smoothing method, the prediction accuracy of models, which were established for various transformation spectra after MA smoothing, also did not show PCR superiority to the PLSR (Table 4). Therefore, we can conclude that the prediction accuracy of the models was not only determined by the smoothing methods, but also by the spectra mathematical transformations.
According to the results from the spectral mathematical transformations, three types of methods, including the MF + log(1/X) transformation, the MF + log(1/X) + baseline correction transformation, and the MF + area normalization transformation, had adequate prediction accuracies for the PCR and PLSR models, where the PCR model based on the MF + log(1/X) + baseline correction transformation had the highest prediction accuracy (R2 = 0.7206 and RMSE = 0.3929).
The accuracy of the PCR models based on different resampled hyperspectral data
The resampling of hyperspectral soil was conducted at intervals of 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 32, and 64 nm based on the smoothing + log (1/X) processing method in order to find the optimal sampling interval for modelling the prediction of soil salt. The relevant content regarding the effects of different resampling intervals in the PLSR model (based on MF smoothing) has been discussed in our previous studies37; here, this paper mainly studies the effect of different resampling intervals on the PCR (based on MF smoothing).
As Table 5 shows, all the prediction accuracies of the PCR calibration models were high, with R2 ranging from 0.75 to 0.83; these values were higher than those of the corresponding validation models and prediction models, and the RMSEs for all the calibration models were lower than those of the corresponding validation models and prediction models. With an increasing in sampling interval, the precision of the calibration model also gradually increased, with an R2 ranging from 0.7518 to 0.8298, and the RMSE decreased to 0.3938 from 0.4602. With an increase in sampling interval, the precision of the cross-validation set slowly increased. There was a significant turning point at the 32 nm interval. When comparing the calibrated PCR models and the cross-validation PCR models, the precision of the independent validation set showed different changes. With an increase in sampling interval from 2 nm to 8 nm, the change in R2 was minimal; as the sampling interval gradually increased, the RMSE gradually declined.
Discussion
From the view of the established models based on optimal smoothing (MF), most PCR models were superior to the PLSR models (Table 4). Different smoothing methods had different principles, which affected the extraction of the principal components. The MF smoothing method used a filtering principle, which obviously improved the accuracy of the PCR model. The MA smoothing method used a linear principle, which did not obviously improve the accuracy of the PCR model.
Different mathematical transformation methods based on different smoothing methods had different prediction accuracies, which indicated that mathematical transformations had different effects than those from smoothing methods36,43.
It can be seen from the above results that the treatment of spectral data was necessary and significantly improved the precision of the model28. However, the results did not show that increasing the transformation applications resulted higher the prediction accuracy of the models. For example, for the PLSR, MA + log(1/X) (R2 = 0.6088 and RMSE = 0.4650) > MA + log(1/X) + baseline correction (R2 = 0.5863 and RMSE = 0.4782) > MA (R2 = 0.3069 and RMSE = 0.6189). This result corresponds to the previous reserches37. Therefore, we should choose the appropriate mathematical method when modelling. From the perspective of mathematical processing convenience and practicability of the model, we recommend the MF + log(1/X) and MF + area normalization transformations to soil spectra when building PCR and PLSR models.
Because the hyperspectral data interval was small, the hyperspectral data provided rich information regarding redundancy and noise. In addition, the small data interval also caused inconvenience in the calculation due to the huge amounts of hyperspectral data in other spectral applications. Resampling of the spectrum can reduce noise and the number of independent variables, which can improve the efficiency of modelling and prediction accuracy23.
Kemper and Sommer44 thought that a large sampling interval (20 nm or 10 nm) reduced the influence of noise and produced adequate prediction results; their study was similar to our study. However, when the sampling interval was 32 nm, the prediction accuracy of the PCR obviously changed; the PCR models were barely able to predict soil salt. Therefore, if the focus is on reducing noise, a spectrum interval that is too large will cause a loss in spectrum information and a decline in prediction accuracy when using the spectrum.
As for the PLSR models analysed in this study37, the performance was similar to that of the PCR models. However, if the prediction accuracy of the PLSR reached a certain level (i.e., R2 exceeded 0.6), then the sampling interval could not exceed 8 nm. Otherwise, the prediction accuracy would decrease. To avoid the large loss of information, it was suggested that a sampling interval of 8 nm was the best when using soil spectra to predict soil salinity both with PLSR and PCR models.
Conclusions
In this paper, we established PLSR and PCR models based on original spectral bands and soil conductivity; it is feasible to predict salinity in saline-sodic soil using soil spectra. Smoothing improved the accuracy of the models, and the best smoothing method was median filtering for both the PLSR and PCR. According to the results of the spectral mathematical transformations, the best model was the PCR model based on the MF + log(1/X) + baseline correction transformation, which had the highest prediction accuracy. The prediction accuracies of the models were not just determined by smoothing methods, but also by spectral mathematical transformations. To avoid a large loss of information, it was suggested that a sampling interval of 8 nm was best when using soil spectra to predict soil salinity with both PLSR and PCR models.
This paper built adequate prediction models and determined the effect of spectral transformations on models; however, it should be noted that the best model we established was suitable for saline-sodic soil. This model whether or not is suitable for other types of soil salt needs to be verified.
Methods
Study area
Our study area is located west of the Jilin Province in northeast China (44°13′57″–46°18′N,121°38′–124°22′50″E). The area has a very typical and large area of saline-sodic soil. The soil type in the study area is classified as Aquic Alkalic Halosol based on Chinese Soil Taxonomy41. The study area belongs to the temperate continental monsoon climate, and the average annual precipitation is only 400–450 mm, while annual evaporation reaches 1200 mm. The small amount of precipitation and large amount of evaporation leads to climate droughts. In addition to the special climate, hydrogeological conditions and human activities have contributed to soil salinization in the area39.
Field Sampling and Laboratory Measurements
Soil samples were collected from the typical saline-sodic soil of the Songnen Plain, which consists of 6 counties that encompass 29302 km2 in northeast China (Fig. 1). A soil sample experienced 5–7 subsamples at each sampling point, then the soils were mixed and transfered (1–2 kg) into plastic bags, labelled, then taken back to the lab for analysis. A total of 126 soil samples were collected from the surface to a depth of 20 cm and sieved through a 2-mm mesh, and a 0.147 mm mesh. The soil samples equally represent all soil types and land uses. Soil sieved through a 2-mm mesh was used to measure the soil electrical conductivity, and soil sieved through a 0.147-mm mesh was used to measure the soil spectrum for excluding the effect of particle size on soil spectra45,46. The soil electrical conductivity was measured at 1:5 of soil: water using conductometry47.
Soil spectral measurement and processing
Soil samples sieved through a 0.147-mm mesh were ground until fine particles(<0.038 mm) were obtained and then were tabulated. After the tabulated soil dried at a low temperature, the soil spectrum was measured using the Lamdar900 spectrum test45,46. A total of 1051 bands were measured, with wavelengths ranging from 400 to 2500 nm and a spectrum sampling interval of 2 nm (see Supplementary spreadsheet S1).
There were four main methods of spectral smoothing: MA, SG, MF, GF43. To study the effects of spectral smoothing on the accuracy of a hyperspectral soil model, our original spectral data were smoothed by the four types of smoothing methods, subsequently.
To study the influence of other mathematical transformations on the precision of the hyperspectral soil model, a variety of mathematical transformations, including the SNV, MSC, baseline correction, area normalization, the maximum normalization (MAX), range normalization, first derivative (FD), and logarithm transformation, were conducted based on the smoothed spectrum43,48. Finally, the soil spectra were resampled to compare the influences of different sampling intervals on the prediction accuracy of the spectral model.
Modelling and verification methods
Because the number of hyperspectral variables was greater than the number of soil samples, the ordinary least-squares model cannot be used. For this situation, the commonly used methods for modelling soil hyperspectral data are the PCR and PLSR methods. These two types of modelling methods extract the principal components from spectral variables and exhibit adequate spectral prediction49,50,51. Both the PLSR and the PCR methods extract the maximum information reflecting the variation of the data. The principal components extracted by PCR were orthogonal, while the principal components extracted by PLSR were based on three analytical methods: principal component analysis, canonical correlation analysis and multivariate linear regression analysis. This paper used these two types of common methods for modelling49,50,51.
The calibration and validation set would have a significant impact on the results. In this study, the distribution of soil salt content of soil samples collected is widespread and data of soil salt content distributed in each grade of soil salinization (0.02–30 g/kg), therefore, the Rank method52 was chosen in this paper. The procedure was: all samples were sorted according to the electrical conductivity (EC) content, and then two neighbouring soil samples were selected as calibration sets for each soil sample to avoid this effect. The remaining soil samples were selected as validation sets. The cross-set was the same as the calibration set. In all, ninety samples were selected as a calibration set, and 36 samples were selected as an independent validation set for prediction. The whole established models were tested by the independent validation set. The evaluation of the model precision mainly adopted determination coefficient R2 and the root mean square error (RMSE) to forecast and measure values, respectively50. The larger the value of R2, the better the precision of the model. In addition, the smaller the RMSE, the better the precision of the model. The root mean square error algorithm is as follows
where X represents the real value, Y represents the predictive value, and N represents the sample number.
We had discussed the accuracy of PLSR models under different spectral transformation methods37. In this manuscript, we will establish the PCR models under the unified condition on the basis of the previous study, and analyze the accuracies of the two types of model (PLSR and PCR). The purpose of this paper is to compare the modelling accuracies between the two models (PLSR and PCR), specifically by analyzing the influence of different spectral transformation methods on the accuracy of the two models and considering the consistency of the models in experiments with four different spectral smoothing methods and a variety of spectral mathematical transformations. For convenience a small portion of the data were quoted from the reference37 for reuse and analysis. To avoid misunderstanding and ensure the seriousness and rigour of the article, we added annotations to the involved data (Tables 2 and 4).
References
Qadir, M. & Oster, J. D. Crop and irrigation management strategies for saline-sodic soils and waters aimed at environmentally sustainable agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 323, 1–19 (2004).
Wichelns, D. & Qadir, M. Achieving sustainable irrigation requires effective management of salts, soil salinity, and shallow groundwater. Agric. Water Manage. 157, 31–38 (2015).
Singh, K., Singh, B. & Singh, R. R. Effect of land rehabilitation on physicochemical and microbial properties of a sodic soil. Catena. 109, 49–57 (2013).
Ouni, Y. et al. Effects of two composts and two grasses on microbial biomass and biological activity in a salt-affected soil. Ecol. Eng. 60, 363–369 (2013).
Rady, M. M. Effect of 24-epibrassinolide on growth, yield, antioxidant system and cadmium content of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants under salinity and cadmium stress. Sci. Hortic. 129, 232–237 (2011).
Yan, K. et al. Physiological adaptive mechanisms of plants grown in saline soil and implications for sustainable saline agriculture in coastal zone. Acta Physiol. Plant. 35, 2867–2878 (2013).
Jiang, H. et al. The spatial and seasonal variation characteristics of fine roots in different plant configuration modes in new reclamation saline soil of humid climate in China. Ecol. Eng. 86, 231–238 (2016).
Li, X. B. et al. First and second-year assessments of the rapid reconstruction and re-vegetation method for reclaiming two saline–sodic, coastal soils with drip-irrigation. Ecol. Eng. 84, 496–505 (2015).
Liu, G. M. et al. GIS-mapping spatial distribution of soil salinity for Eco-restoring the Yellow River Delta in combination with Electromagnetic Induction. Ecol. Eng. 94, 306–314 (2016).
Ouni, Y. et al. Influence of municipal solid waste (MSW) compost on hormonal status and biomass partitioning in two forage species growing under saline soil conditions. Ecol. Eng. 64, 142–150 (2014).
Kitamura, Y., Yano, T., Honna, T., Yamamoto, S. & Inosako, K. Causes of farmland salinization and remedial measures in the Aral Sea Basin-Research on water management to prevent secondary salinization in rice-based cropping system in arid land. Agric. Water Manage. 85, 1–14 (2006).
Metternicht, G. I. & Zinck, J. A. Remote sensing of soil salinity: Potentials and constraints. Remote Sensing of Environment. 85, 1–20 (2003).
Farifteh, J., Farshad, A. & George, R. J. Assessing salt affected soils using remote sensing, solute modelling, and geophysics. Geoderma. 130, 191–206 (2006).
Shoshany, M., Goldshleger, N. & Chudnovsky, A. Monitoring of agricultural soil degradation by remote-sensing methods:A review. Int. J. Remote. Sens. 34, 6152–6181 (2013).
Liu, Y., Pan, X. Z., Wang, C. K., Li, Y. L. & Shi, R. J. Can subsurface soil salinity be predicted from surface spectral information? From the perspective of structural equation modelling. Biosystems Engineering. 152, 138–147 (2016).
Zhang, T. T. et al. Using hyperspectral vegetation indices as a proxy to monitor soil salinity. Ecol. Eng. 11, 1552–1562 (2011).
Allbed, A. & Kumar, L. Soil salinity mapping and monitoring in arid and semi-arid regions using remote sensing technology: a review. Advances in Remote Sensing. 2, 373–385 (2013).
Shi, Z., Ji, W., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Chen, S. & Zhou, Y. Prediction of soil organic matter using a spatially constrained local partial least squares regression and the Chinese vis –NIR spectral library. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66, 679–687 (2015).
Clairotte, M. et al. National calibration of soil organic carbon concentration using diffuse infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma. 276, 41–52 (2016).
Liu, H. J., Zhang, X. L. & Zheng, S. F. Black Soil Organic Matter Predicting Model Based on Field Hyperspectral Reflectance. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis. 30, 3355–3358 (2011).
Chang, C. & David, L. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopic analysis of soil C and soil N. Soil Science. 167, 110–116 (2002).
Wu, Y. Z., Zhang, X., Liao, Q. L. & Ji, J. F. Can contaminant elements in soils be assessed by remote sensing technology: A case study with simulated data. Soil Science. 176, 196–205 (2011).
Ren, H. Y. et al. Estimation of As and Cu contamination in agricultural soils around a mining area by reflectance spectroscopy: A case study. Pedosphere. 19, 719–726 (2009).
Haubrock, S. N., Chabrillat, S., Lemmnitz, C. & Kaufmann, H. Surface soil moisture quantification models from reflectance data under field conditions. Int. J. Remote. Sens. 29, 3–29 (2008).
Li, Y., Liu, S. B., Liao, Z. H. & He, C. S. Comparison of two methods for estimation of soil water content from measured reflectance. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92, 845–857 (2012).
Weng, Y. L., Gong, P. & Zhu, Z. L. Reflectance spectroscopy for the assessment of salt content in soils of the Yellow River Delta of China. Int. J. Remote. Sens. 29, 5511–5531 (2008).
Zhang, F., Ding, J. L., Tashpolat., T. & He, Q. S. Spectral Data Analysis of Salinity Soils with Ground Objects in the Delta Oasis of Weigan and Kuqa Rivers. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis. 28, 2921–2926 (2008).
Farifteh, J., Van der Meer, F., Atzberger, C. & Carranza, E. J. M. Quantitative analysis of salt-affected soil reflectance spectra: A comparison of two adaptive methods (PLSR and ANN). Remote Sensing of Environment. 110, 59–78 (2007).
Nawar, S., Buddenbaum, H., Hill, J. & Kozak, J. Modeling and mapping of soil salinity with reflectance spectroscopy and landsat data using two quantitative methods (PLSR and MARS). Remote Sensing. 6, 10813–10834 (2014).
Liu, Y., Pan, X. Z., Wang, C. K., Li, Y. L. & Shi, R. J. Predicting soil salinity with Vis-NIR spectra after removing the effects of soil moisture using external parameter orthogonalization. PLoS One. 10, e0140688 (2015).
Stenberg, B., Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Mouazen, A. M. & Wetterlind, J. Visible and near infrared spectroscopy in soil science. Adv. Agron. 107, 163–215 (2015).
Shi, X. Z., Aspandiar, M. & Oldmeadow, D. Using hyperspectral data and PLSR modelling to assess acid sulphate soil in subsurface. Journal of Soils and Sediments. 14, 904–916 (2014).
Zeng, R. et al. Selection of “Local” models for prediction of soil organic matter using a regional soil Vis-NIR spectral library. Soil Science. 181, 13–19 (2016).
Qu, Y. H. et al. Quantitative Retrieval of Soil Salinity Using Hyperspectral Data in the Region of Inner Mongolia Hetao Irrigation District. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis. 29, 1362–1366 (2009).
Ren, H. Y., Zhuang, D. F., Qiu, D. S. & Pan, J. J. Analysis of Visible and Near-Infrared Spectra of As-Contaminated Soil in Croplands Beside Mines. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis. 29, 114–118 (2009).
Chang, C. W., Laird, D. A., Mausbach, M. J. & Hurburgh, C. R. Near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy–principal components regression analyses of soil properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65, 480–490 (2001).
Zhang, X. G. et al. Quantitative Prediction of Soil Salinity Content with Visible-Near Infrared Hyper-Spectra in Northeast China. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis. 32, 2075–2079 (2012).
Ben-Dor, E., Ong, C. & Lau, I. C. Reflectance measurements of soils in the laboratory: standards and protocols. Geoderma. 245–246, 112–124 (2015).
Wang, Z. Q., Zhu, S. Q. & Yu, R. P. Saline Soil of China. (ed. Chen, P. L.) 130–216 (Science Press, 1993).
Zhang, S. W., Yang, J. C., LI, Y., Zhang, Y. Z. & Chang, L. P. Changes of saline-alkali land in Northeast China and its causes since the mid-1950s. Journal of natural resources. 25, 435–442 (2015).
Gong, Z. T. et al. Chinese Soil Taxonomy: Theory, methodology and practices. (ed. Chen, P. L.) 885–893 (Science Press, 1999).
Wang, J., Liu, X. N., Huang, F. & Zhao, L. B. Salinity forecasting of saline soil based on ANN and hyperspectral remote sensing. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 25, 161–166 (2009).
Xu, L. & Shao, X. G. Methods of Chemomeletcs, second. (eds Liu, J. L., Wang, Z. X. & Wu, L. L.) 130–177, (Science Press, 2004).
Kemper, T. & Sommer, S. Estimate of heavy metal contamination in soils after a mining accident using reflectance spectroscopy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 2742–2747 (2002).
Wu, Y. Z., Chen, J., Ji, J. F., Tian, Q. J. & Wu, X. M. Feasibility of reflectance spectroscopy for the assessment of soil mercury contamination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 873–878 (2005).
Xia, X. Q. et al. Reflectance spectroscopy study of Cd contamination in the sediments of the Changjiang River, China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 3449–3454 (2007).
Lu, R. K. Methods of soil and agro-chemical analysis. (eds Liu, X. S. & Chen, S. H.) 130–216 (China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, 2000).
Roberts, C., Workman, J. & Reeves, J. Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Agriculture. (eds Roberts, C., Workman, J. & Reeves, J.) 1–646 (Soil Science Society of America, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America, 2004).
Mevik, B. H. & Wehrens, R. The pls package: principal component and partial least squares regression in R. J. Stat. Softw. 18, 1–24 (2007).
David, M. H. & Edward, V. T. Partial least-squares methods for spectral analyses. 1. relation to other quantitative calibration methods and the extraction of qualitative information. Anal. Chem. 60, 1193–1202 (1988).
Wold, S., Sjostrom, M. & Eriksson, L. PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems. 58, 109–130 (2001).
Tang, J., Baldocchi, D. D., Qi, Y. & Xu, L. Assessing soil CO2 efflux using continuous measurements of CO2 profiles in soils with small solid-state sensors. Agric. For. Meteorol. 118, 207–220 (2003).
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41601211), the Open Fund at the State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture (No. Y20160007), Talent Fund of Qingdao Agricultural University (No. 1114344) and the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest (No. 200903001-01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Xiaoguang Zhang and Biao Huang conceived and designed the experiments, Xiaoguang Zhang analysed the data, and Xiaoguang Zhang wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, X., Huang, B. Prediction of soil salinity with soil-reflected spectra: A comparison of two regression methods. Sci Rep 9, 5067 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41470-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41470-0
This article is cited by
-
Soil salinity mapping using Landsat 8 OLI data and regression modeling in the Great Hungarian Plain
SN Applied Sciences (2021)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.