Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Use of Principal Components for Scaling Up Topographic Models to Map Soil Redistribution and Soil Organic Carbon
Published on: October 16, 2018
Evaluation of the prediction effectiveness for geochemical mapping using machine learning methods: A case study from
Songjian Lv1, Ying Zhu1, Li Cheng1
1Center for Health Geology & Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality of Lanzhou University, Key Laboratory of Western China's Environmental Systems (Ministry of Education), College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Abstract:
This study compares seven machine learning models to investigate whether they improve the accuracy of geochemical mapping compared to ordinary kriging (OK). Arsenic is widely present in soil due to human activities and soil parent material, posing significant toxicity. Predicting the spatial distribution of elements in soil has become a current research hotspot. Lianzhou City in northern Guangdong Province, China, was chosen as the study area, collecting a total of 2908 surface soil samples from 0 to 20 cm depth. Seven machine learning models were chosen: Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Ridge Regression (Ridge), Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Gaussian Process Regression (GPR). Exploring the advantages and disadvantages of machine learning and traditional geological statistical models in predicting the spatial distribution of heavy metal elements, this study also analyzes factors affecting the accuracy of element prediction. The two best-performing models in the original model, RF (R2 = 0.445) and GBDT (R2 = 0.414), did not outperform OK (R2 = 0.459) in terms of prediction accuracy. Ridge and GPR, the worst-performing methods, have R2 values of only 0.201 and 0.248, respectively. To improve the models' prediction accuracy, a spatial regionalized (SR) covariate index was added. Improvements varied among different methods, with RF and GBDT increasing their R2 values from 0.4 to 0.78 after enhancement. In contrast, the GPR model showed the least significant improvement, with its R2 value only reaching 0.25 in the improved method. This study concluded that choosing the right machine learning model and considering factors that influence prediction accuracy, such as regional variations, the number of sampling points, and their distribution, are crucial for ensuring the accuracy of predictions. This provides valuable insights for future research in this area.
More Related Videos
07:15Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
12:26Integrating Remote Sensing with Species Distribution Models; Mapping Tamarisk Invasions Using the Software for Assisted Habitat Modeling SAHM
Published on: October 11, 2016
Related Concept Videos
Manipulation and Analysis
Levels of Use of a GIS
Selected Data About Geographic Locations
Methods of Obtaining Topography