| Literature DB >> 31627421 |
Anhong Tian1, Chengbiao Fu2, Xiao-Yi Su3, Her-Terng Yau4, Heigang Xiong5,6.
Abstract
Soil salinization is very complex and its evolution is affected by numerous interacting factors produce strong non-linear characteristics. This is the first time fractional order chaos theory has been applied to soil salinization-level classification to decrease uncertainty in salinization assessment, solve fuzzy problems, and analyze the spectrum chaotic features in soil with different levels of salinization. In this study, typical saline soil spectrum data from different human interference areas in Fukang City (Xinjiang) and salt index test data from an indoor chemical analysis laboratory are used as the base information source. First, we explored the correlation between the spectrum reflectance features of soil with different levels of salinization and chaotic dynamic error and chaotic attractor. We discovered that the chaotic status error in the 0.6 order has the greatest change. The 0.6 order chaotic attractors are used to establish the extension matter-element model. The determination equation is built according to the correspondence between section domain and classic domain range to salinization level. Finally, the salt content from the chemical analysis is substituted into the discriminant equation in the extension matter-element model. Analysis found that the accuracy of the discriminant equation is higher. For areas with no human interference, the extension classification can successfully identify nine out of 10 prediction data, which is a 90% identification accuracy rate. For areas with human interference, the extension classification can successfully identify 10 out of 10 prediction data, which is a success rate of 100%. The innovation in this study is the building of a smart classification model that uses a fractional order chaotic system to inversely calculate soil salinization level. This model can accurately classify salinization level and its predictive results can be used to rapidly calculate the temporal and spatial distribution of salinization in arid area/desert soil.Entities:
Keywords: areas with different levels of human interference; arid area soil; dynamic error; extension matter-element model; fractional order compound master-slave chaotic system; salinization level
Year: 2019 PMID: 31627421 PMCID: PMC6833114 DOI: 10.3390/s19204517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Chua’s circuit.
Figure 2Chua’s circuit voltage-current characteristic curve.
Figure 3Classic mathematics crisp set.
Figure 4Extension set.
Figure 5Distribution of soil-sampling points.
Figure 6Spectrum reflectance of the 55 sampling points.
Soil salinization levels.
| Value of Salinization Degree | Salt Content (g/kg) |
|---|---|
| Non salinized soil | Smaller than 5.0 |
| Slightly salinized soil | Between 5.0–10.0 |
| Moderately salinized soil | Between 10.0–15.0 |
| Strongly salinized soil | Between 15.0–20.0 |
| Salinized soil | Greater than 20.0 |
Figure 7Spectrum reflectance of different salinization level sampling points. (a) Area A. (b) Area B.
Descriptive statistics of Na+ and Cl− ion contents (unit: g/kg).
| Ion | Area A | Area B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | |
| Na+ | 0.640 | 4.890 | 1.590 | 0.622 | 8.299 | 2.148 |
| Cl− | 0.077 | 9.882 | 1.167 | 0.077 | 15.646 | 3.081 |
Figure 8Area A’s chaotic dynamic error distribution.
Figure 9Area B’s chaotic dynamic error distribution.
Figure 10Chaotic attractor distribution for 0.6 order of the six sampling points in Area A.
Figure 11Chaotic attractor distribution for 0.6 order of the six sampling points in Area B.
Figure 12Area A classic domain and section domain.
Figure 13Area B classic domain and section domain.
Comparison of extension classification correlation value and salt content in Area A’s calibration set.
| Sample | Saline Soils | Severe Saline | Mild Saline | Salt Content (g/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 1 | −1 | 0.9801 | 21.6 |
| A2 | −0.278 | 1 | −1 | 18.8 |
| A3 | −0.7309 | 1 | −1 | 16.8 |
| A4 | −0.2332 | 1 | −1 | 16.4 |
| A5 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 6.2 |
| A6 | −0.9949 | −1 | 1 | 5.2 |
Comparison of extension classification correlation value and salt content in Area B’s calibration set.
| Sample | Saline Soils | Severe Saline | Salt Content (g/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 1 | −1 | 33.1 |
| B2 | 1 | −1 | 31.9 |
| B3 | 1 | −1 | 28.3 |
| B4 | −1 | 1 | 17.6 |
| B5 | −1 | 1 | 16.4 |
| B6 | −1 | 1 | 15.9 |
Comparison of extension classification correlation value and salt content in Area A’s verification set.
| Sample | Salt Content (g/kg) | Saline Soils | Severe Saline | Mild Salinization |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proof A1 | 31.5 | 1 | −1 | 0.9801 |
| Proof A2 | 22.7 | 1 | −1 | 0.9972 |
| Proof A3 | 22.4 | 1 | −1 | 0.9867 |
| Proof A4 | 21.6 | 1 | −0.4193 | −1 |
| Proof A5 | 20.4 | 1 | −1 | 0.9942 |
| Proof A6 | 19.0 | −0.9 | −1 | 1 |
| Proof A7 | 18.8 | −0.278 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof A8 | 18.8 | −0.708 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof A9 | 16.8 | −0.730 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof A10 | 16.4 | 0.9484 | 1 | −1 |
Comparison of extension classification correlation value and salt content in Area B’s verification set.
| Sample | Salt Content (g/kg) | Saline Soils | Severe Saline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proof B1 | 35.7 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof B2 | 21.0 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof B3 | 33.1 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof B4 | 15.9 | −1 | 1 |
| Proof B5 | 17.1 | −1 | 1 |
| Proof B6 | 16.4 | −1 | 1 |
| Proof B7 | 20.4 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof B8 | 31.9 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof B9 | 36.4 | 1 | −1 |
| Proof B10 | 26.0 | 1 | −1 |
Comparative analysis of classification methods.
| Methods | Classification Accuracy in Area A Verification Set (%) | Classification Accuracy in Area B Verification Set (%) | Total Consumption Time (Second) | Verification Set Consumption Time (Second) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fractional Sprott Chaos Theory Combined with Extension Theory | 90 | 100 | 30.8 | 0.63 |
| Only SVM | 60.2 | 63.9 | 45.7 | 1.66 |
| Only KNN | 59.4 | 63.7 | 45.9 | 1.64 |