基于分数阶微分的土壤重金属锌和镍的定量反演模型研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)10-2850-08

Abstract
References
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (7633 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Integer-order derivative methods (such as 1st or 2nd order) are traditional preprocessing methods for soil heavy-metal inversion models, which ignore the fractional-order spectral reflectance information associated with the target variable. Fractional order derivative (FOD) can flexibly select the differential order to enhance the spectral signal effectively. This study focused on the farmland soil in Mojiang Hani Autonomous County, Pu'er City, Yunnan Province, China. Sixty-one soil hyperspectral reflectance information and soil heavy metal content data (zinc and nickel) were measured. The spectral reflectance information underwent 0 to 2 fractional-order derivative preprocessing with intervals of 0.05. The preprocessed spectral reflectance information at each order was input into the Successive Projections Algorithm (SPA) to select characteristic bands. Subsequently, three soil heavy metal prediction models were separately established using Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR), Random Forest (RF), and Bagging methods. The results show that after the fractional order derivative processing from 0 to 2 orders (41 orders in total with an interval of 0.05), the overall spectral intensity gradually weakens and gradually approaches zero with the increase of fractional orders. The spectral absorption band gradually narrows, and the differences between different spectral curves gradually decrease. As the derivative order increases, more abundant peaks and valleys are produced. The best-order models based on fractional derivatives are better than the original spectral model and the integer order model, and most of the better orders of the model are concentrated in low-order fractional orders. For heavy metal zinc, the best prediction model accuracy was achieved by the RF model of 0.75 order (R²=0.675, RMSE=6.149, RPD=1.755), followed by the Bagging model of 0.75 order (R²=0.633, RMSE=6.534, RPD=1.652), and the lowest was achieved by the PLSR model of 0.25 order (R²=0.551, RMSE=7.230, RPD=1.493). For the heavy metal nickel, the best prediction model accuracy was the RF model of order 0.80 (R²=0.854, RMSE=127.823, RPD=2.618), the Bagging model of order 0.80 was the next best (R²=0.841, RMSE=133.304, RPD=2.510), the PLSR model of order 0.40 lowest (R²=0.762, RMSE=163.162, RPD=2.051). Visible, the nonlinear models (RF and Bagging) constructed based on FOD preprocessing and SPA dimensionality reduction in this study have certain applicability in estimating heavy metal content in farmland soil. They can be a reference for predicting heavy metal content in similar regions.

Key words：Fractionalorder derivative; Hyperspectral; Soil heavy metals Zn and Ni; Random forest; Bagging method

Received: 2024-01-24 Accepted: 2024-05-31

ZTFLH:

P237

Corresponding Authors: FU Cheng-biao E-mail: fcb@kust.edu.cn

Cite this article:

JIANG Yu-heng,YAN Bo,ZHUANG Qing-yuan, et al. Quantitative Inversion Model of Soil Heavy Metals Zn and Ni Based on Fractional Order Derivative[J]. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2024, 44(10): 2850-2857.

URL:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)10-2850-08 OR https://www.gpxygpfx.com/EN/Y2024/V44/I10/2850

[1] Xia Fang, Zhao Zefang, Niu Xiang, et al. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2024, 465: 133215.
[2] Wang Jingzhe, Ding Jianli, Yu Danlin, et al. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 707: 136092.
[3] Yang Meihua，Chen Songchao，Xu Dongyun，et al. Geoderma，2023，433：116461.
[4] Yang Han，Wang Zhaohai，Cao Jianfei，et al. Environmental Research，2023，217：114870.
[5] Frank Riedel, Michael Denk, Ingo Müller, et al. Geoderma, 2018, 315: 188.
[6] Zhang Shiwen, Shen Qiang, Nie Chaojia, et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, 2019, 211: 393.
[7] Tan Kun, Chen Lihan, Wang Huimin, et al. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 347：119196.
[8] Mao Yachun，Liu Jing，Cao Wang，et al. Infrared Physics & Technology，2021，112：103602.
[9] Yu Bo，Yan Changxiang，Yuan Jing，et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy，2023，293：122452.
[10] Xie Shugang，Li Yuhuan，Wang Xi，et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy，2021，260：119963.
[11] Wang Zheng，Zhang Xianlong，Zhang Fei，et al. Ecological Indicators，2020，119：106869.
[12] Zhang Zipeng，Ding Jianli，Wang Jingzhe，et al. CATENA，2020，185：104257.
[13] WANG Jin-jie，DING Jian-li，GE Xiang-yu，et al(王瑾杰，丁建丽，葛翔宇，等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析)，2022，42(11): 3559.
[14] Said Nawar, Abdul M Mouazen. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture，2018，151：469.
[15] Wang Jingzhe, Hu Xianjun, Shi Tiezhu, et al. Geoderma, 2022, 405：115399.
[16] Chen Jie, Bai Tiecheng, Zhang Nannan, et al. Infrared Physics & Technology, 2022, 125: 104240.
[17] LIU Wen-zheng, ZHOU Xue-jian, PING Feng-jiao, et al(刘文政，周雪健，平凤娇，等). Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery(农业机械学报), 2024, 55(2): 372.
[18] Bappa Das, Pooja Rathore, Debasish Roy, et al. CATENA, 2022, 217: 106485.
[19] Leila Lotfollahi, Mohammad Amir Delavar, Asim Biswas, et al. Journal of Environmental Management, 2023, 345: 118854.
[20] MAO Ji-hua，ZHAO Heng-qian，JIN Qian，et al(毛继华，赵恒谦，金倩，等). Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering(农业工程学报)，2023, 39(22): 144.
[21] Cui Shichao，Zhou Kefa，Ding Rufu，et al. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy，2022，275：121190.
[22] ZHANG Jun-hua，SHANG Tian-hao，CHEN Rui-hua，et al(张俊华，尚天浩，陈睿华，等). Transactions of the Chinese Society for Agricultural Machinery(农业机械学报)，2022，53(11)：379.
[23] LIU Hao，YANG Xi-zhen，ZHANG Bei，et al(刘浩，杨锡震，张蓓，等). Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering(农业工程学报)，2023，39(13)：131.
[24] Hong Yongsheng，Shen Ruili，Cheng Hang，et al. Science of The Total Environment，2019，651：1969.
[25] Chen Lihan，Lai Jian，Tan Kun，et al. Science of The Total Environment，2022，813：151882.