تحلیل روش طیف‌سنجی مادون‌قرمز و روش‌های پیش‌پردازش در پیش‌بینی شوری خاک

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه شیراز

چکیده

میزان شوری خاک یکی از عوامل تأثیرگذار بر مدیریت آبیاری و مزرعه می‌باشد اما اندازه‌گیری شوری با روش‌های معمول آزمایشگاهی امری وقت‌گیر وپر هزینه می‌باشد. لذا استفاده از روش طیف‌سنجی مادون‌قرمز در اندازه‌گیری میزان شوری خاک به‌عنوان روشی سریع و غیرمخرب ارزشمند خواهد بود. در این تحقیق طیف‌های بازتابی، جذبی و مشتق اول طیف بازتابی خاک‌های با شوری طبیعی و مصنوعی در سطوح مختلف شوری  (dS.m-1 2/1 تا 5/307) در بافت‌های خاک سبک تا سنگین توسط روش‌های مختلف هموارسازی پردازش‌شده و جهت پیش‌بینی شوری خاک از مدل رگرسیونی حداقل مربعات جزئی (PLSR) استفاده شد، با توجه به ضرایب تبیین (R2) و مجذور میانگین مربعات خطا (RMSE) استفاده از طیف جذبی نسبت به طیف‌های بازتابی و مشتق اول طیف بازتابی نتایج دقیق‌تری را ارائه نمود. همچنین پیش‌بینی شوری خاک با استفاده از طیف جذبی در هر دو دسته خاک سنگین و سبک روشی کارآمد و موفق بود، هرچند این روش در خاک‌های با بافت سنگین (836/0 =R2) نتایج دقیق‌تری را در پیش‌بینی شوری خاک نسبت به خاک سبک (756/0 =R2) ارائه کرد. همچنین مشخص گردید که روش‌های پردازش میانگین متحرک و فیلتر ساویتزکی- گلای بیشترین تأثیر را بر بهبود نتایج پیش‌بینی شوری خاک ارائه نمودند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Analysis of Infrared Spectroscopy and Pre-processing Methods in Soil Salinity Prediction

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saghar Fahandej saadi
  • Masoud Noshadi
Shiraz University
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Although the soil salinity as an effective factor on soil and water management is typically assessed by measuring the soil electrical conductivity (ECe), this conventional laboratory method is time-consuming and costly. Therefore, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIR) as a fast, cheap and non-destructive method to assess soil salinity level can be considered as a valuable alternative method. Reviews of literature on the application of NIR spectroscopy for soil salinity prediction have shown that there is no sufficient information about the effect of soil texture on results accuracy; therefore, in this study the soil salinity was predicted under different soil salinity levels and various soil textures. The effect of different pre-processing methods was also investigated to improve the predicted soil salinity.
Materials and Methods: Twenty three surface soil samples were collected from different places in Fars province, then; some soil properties such as percentage of particles size and ECe were measured. These samples were artificially salted by adding the water in different salinity levels to the soil samples. The ECe of these soils were between 2.1 to 307.5 dS/m and then all samples dried to reach the field capacity level. Soil reflectance spectra were obtained in 350-2500 nm wavelength range. The absorbance and derivative of reflectance spectra were calculated based on the reflectance spectra. In order to determine the effect of smoothing technique, as a pre-processing method, 4 various methods (moving average, Gaussian, median and Savitzky-Golay filters) in 12 different segment sizes (3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23 and 25) were applied and the processed spectra introduced to Partial Least Square Regression (PLSR) model to predict soil salinity in two calibration and validation steps. At the first step, the soil salinity was predicted for all samples using of reflectance, absorbance and derivative of reflectance spectra under 4 pre-processing methods and 12 segment sizes. According to the R2 and RMSE indices, the best type of spectra, the effect of various pre-processing methods and the best segment size in prediction of soil salinity were determined as absorbance spectra, moving average and Savitzky-Golay filters for segment size of 25 and 15, respectively. In the second step, the effect of soil texture on prediction accuracy was investigated. For this purpose, soil samples were divided into the coarse and fine textures and soil salinity was predicted for each of these groups using different pre-processing methods and different segment sizes.
Results and Discussion: In prediction of soil salinity by absorbance, reflectance and derivative of reflectance spectra, the R2 values in validation step were 0.742, 0.706 and 0.670; and RMSE values were 29.92, 31.96 and 33.9 (dS.m-1), respectively. The absorbance spectra were the best spectra type in prediction of soil salinity. Therefore, in next step, absorbance spectra were used only for predicting the salinity in fine and coarse soil textures. Results showed that the prediction in coarse texture was better than that of the fine texture (R2= 0.836 and R2=0.756, respectively). It was also revealed that the highest R2 occurred in coarse texture and the accuracy of prediction was reduced in fine textures. The results showed that the performance of different pre-processing methods is related to the spectrum type. Although the pre-processing methods had no positive effect in using of reflectance spectra, but it improved the predicted values which were obtained using of absorbance and derivative of reflectance spectra. The best results were occurred when the absorbance spectra were used. Moving average method increased the accuracy of prediction more than the other pre-processing methods, and according to the results this method, for the segment size of 25, was the best technique in soil salinity prediction.
Conclusion: According to the R2 and RMSE indices, the prediction of soil salinity by absorbance spectra was more accurate than the prediction using reflectance and derivative of reflectance spectra (R2= 0.742, 0.706 and 0.670, respectively). Although the predicted soil salinity in coarse soils were more accurate than that in fine soils. Using of absorbance spectra to predict the soil salinity in all soil textures was efficient. The results showed that using of pre-processing methods improved the soil salinity prediction by absorbance and derivative of reflectance spectra, and the moving average and Savitzky-Golay filter were the best pre-processing methods.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Infrared
  • Pre-processing
  • Smoothing
  • Soil salinity
  • Soil texture
  • Spectroscopy
1- Babaeian E., Homaee M., and Norouzi A.A. 2014. Deriving and validating parametric spectrotransfer functions for estimating soil hydraulic properties in VIS-NIR-SWIR range. Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation 3(3): 21-36. (In Persian)
2- Debaene G., Niedzwiecki J., and Pecio A. 2010. Visible and near-infrared spectrophotometer for soil analysis: preliminary results. Polish Journal of Agronomy 3: 3-9.
3- Eijsackers H. 2004. Leading concepts towards vital soil. In: Vital Soil: Function, Value, and Properties (eds P. Doelman & H. Eijsackers), pp. 1–20. Developments in Soil Science, 29. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
4- Farifteh J., Van der Meer F., Atzberger C., and Carranza E.J.M. 2007. Quantitative analysis of salt-affected soil reflectance spectra: A comparison of two adaptive methods (PLSR and ANN). Remote Sensing of Environment 110(1): 59-78.
5- Gras J.P., Barthès B.G., Mahaut B., and Trupin S. 2014. Best practices for obtaining and processing field visible and near infrared (VNIR) spectra of topsoil. Geoderma 215: 126–134.
6- Guerrero C., Rossel R.A.V., and Mouazen A.M. 2010. Special issue ‘Diffuse reflectance spectroscopy in soil science and land resource assessment’. Geoderma 158(1): 1-2.
7- Hong Y., Yu L., Chen Y., Liu Y., Liu Y., Liu Y., and Cheng H. 2017. Prediction of soil organic matter by VIS–NIR spectroscopy using normalized soil moisture index as a proxy of soil moisture. Remote Sensing 10(1): 28.
8- Janik L.J., Forrester S.T., and Rawson A. 2009. The prediction of soil chemical and physical properties from mid-infrared spectroscopy and combined partial least-squares regression and neural networks (PLS-NN) analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 97(2): 179-188.
9- Khayamim F., Khademi H. ,Stenberg B., and Wetterlind J. 2015. Capability of vis-NIR Spectroscopy to Predict Selected Chemical Soil Properties in Isfahan Province. Journal of Water and Soil Science, Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources 19(72): 81-92. (In Persian)
10- Liu W., Baret F., Gu X., Tong Q., Zheng L., and Zhang B. 2002. Relating soil surface moisture to reflectance. Remote Sensing of Environment 81: 238–246.
11- Liu Y., Pan X., Wang C., Li Y., and Shi R. 2015. Predicting soil salinity with Vis–NIR spectra after removing the effects of soil moisture using external parameter orthogonalization. PloS one, 10(10), e0140688.
12- McCarty G.W., Reeves J.B., Reeves V.B., Follett R.F., and Kimble J. M. 2002. Mid-infrared and near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for soil carbon measurement. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66(2): 640-646.
13- Mousavi F., Abdi E., Ghalandarzadeh A., Bahrami H., Majnounian B., and Mirzaei S. 2018. Estimate of soil cation exchange capacity using reflectance spectrometry. Journal of Forest Research and Development 4(3): 347-361. (In Persian)
14- Nawar S., Buddenbaum H., and Hill J. 2014. Estimation of soil salinity using three quantitative methods based on visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy: a case study from Egypt. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 1-14.
15- Ranjbar R., Owliaie H., Ranjbar H., and Adhami E. 2018. Change detection of soil salinity using remote sensing in Zahed Shahr, Fars province. Journal of RS and GIS for Natural Resources 9(3): 115-128.
16- Rinnan Å., van den Berg F., and Engelsen S.B. 2009. Review of the most common pre-processing techniques for near-infrared spectra. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry 28(10): 1201-1222.
17- Savitzky A., and Golay M.J. 1964. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analytical Chemistry 36(8): 1627-1639.
18- Schneider W. E., and Young R. 1997. Spectroradiometry methods. Application note (A14), 49.
19- Stenberg B., Rossel R.A.V., Mouazen A.M., and Wetterlind J. 2010. Chapter five-visible and near infrared spectroscopy in soil science. Advances in Agronomy 107: 163-215.
20- Summers D., Lewis M., Ostendorf B., and Chittleborough D. 2011. Visible near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy as a predictive indicator of soil properties. Ecological Indicators 11(1): 123-131.
21- Vasques G.M., Grunwald S., and Sickman J.O. 2008. Comparison of multivariate methods for inferential modeling of soil carbon using visible/near-infrared spectra. Geoderma 146 (1–2): 14–25.
22- Viscarra Rossel R.V., Walvoort D.J.J., McBratney A.B., Janik L.J., and Skjemstad J.O. 2006a. Visible, near infrared, mid infrared or combined diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for simultaneous assessment of various soil properties. Geoderma 131(1–2): 59–75.
23- Wander M.M., and Drinkwater L.E. 2000. Fostering soil stewardship through soil quality assessment. Applied Soil Ecology 15: 61–73.
24- Wang Q., Li P., and Chen X. 2012. Modeling salinity effects on soil reflectance under various moisture conditions and its inverse application: A laboratory experiment. Geoderma 170: 103-111.
25- Wang J., Ding J., Abulimiti A., and Cai L. 2018. Quantitative estimation of soil salinity by means of different modeling methods and visible-near infrared (VIS–NIR) spectroscopy, Ebinur Lake Wetland, Northwest China. PeerJ, 6, e4703.
26- Weng Y., Gong P., and Zhu Z. 2008. Reflectance spectroscopy for the assessment of soil salt content in soils of the Yellow River Delta of China. International Journal of Remote Sensing 29(19): 5511-5531.
27- Workman J. 2004. Near-infrared spectrophotometers. Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Agriculture, (nearinfraredspe), 11-31.
28- Xian-Li X.I.E., Xian-Zhang P.A.N., and Bo S.U.N. 2012. Visible and near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectroscopy for prediction of soil properties near a copper smelter. Pedosphere 22(3): 351-366.