See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346017190

Computational intelligence applied to soil quality index using GIS and

geostatistical approaches in semiarid ecosystem

Article  in  Arabian Journal of Geosciences · November 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s12517-020-06214-9

CITATIONS READS

16 230

4 authors, including:

Huseyin Senol Sinan Demir

T.C. Isparta Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi Isparta University of Applied Sciences
37 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Orhan Dengiz
Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi
233 PUBLICATIONS   1,772 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geopedological Process and Weathering Ratios of Soils under Similar Climate condition and on different gelogical parent materials View project

Determination of Opium Poppy (Papaver Somniferum) Parcels Using High-Resolution Satellite Imagery View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Orhan Dengiz on 23 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2020) 13:1235
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06214-9

ICCESEN 2017

Computational intelligence applied to soil quality index using GIS

and geostatistical approaches in semiarid ecosystem
Hüseyin Şenol 1 & Pelin Alaboz 1 & Sinan Demir 1 & Orhan Dengiz 2

Received: 27 August 2020 / Accepted: 1 November 2020

# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2020

Abstract
The importance of soil quality is increasing every passing day for sustainable agriculture. In recent years, the investigation of the
classification of soil quality with some classification methods known as machine learning algorithms draws attention. The study carried
out for this purpose was hold on the farmland of Isparta University of Applied Sciences. Soil quality index was determined with a linear
combination technique approach and analytical hierarchical process (observed values) and estimated by decision trees (predicted values).
Total and minimum data sets (27 and 15 indicators, respectively) were evaluated by both methods, and all four outputs were compared.
Deterministic (Inverse Distance Weighted-1, 2, 3 powers and radial based functions—completely regularized spline, spline with tension,
multiquadric) and scholastic (spherical, exponential, Gaussian belonging to ordinary kriging, simple kriging and universal kriging)
models were used in the creation of the distribution maps of observed and predicted values. No statistically significant differences were
found in the comparison of soil quality index obtained using both data sets (P > 0.05). In the decision tree where organic matter was
determined as the root node, quality classes can be predicted at 91.1% by separating sand, wilting point, and EC properties into branches
as an internal node. Area under the curve value in evaluating the estimation accuracy was found as 0.991, 0.960, and 0.943 for I, II, and
III classes, respectively (P = 0.00). It was determined that estimation can be done with 91.7% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity at 0.38
cut-off value for class III soils. Consequently, the highest accuracy in distribution maps of predicted and observed soil quality index
values were found with the Gaussian semivariogram model of the ordinary and simple kriging for both data sets.

Keywords Soil quality . Principal components . Interpolation . Decision tree . Soil properties

Introduction
Today, the misuse of agricultural lands with industrialization and
urbanization leads to a spatially decrease in agricultural areas.
Besides, increasing demand for production due to population
growth requires a higher amount of production from the unit area
with the use of more intensive inputs. This case can only be
achieved through sustainable use of the soil, which is the most
important production environment of the terrestrial ecosystem,
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Geo-Resources-Earth-
Environmental Sciences
* Pelin Alaboz
pelinalaboz@isparta.edu.tr
1
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Isparta, Turkey
2
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science and Plant
Nutrition, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey
without losing its functions, and the most important way is to
determine the quality of the soil. Events such as wrong farming
activities, excessive use of pesticide and chemical fertilizers, and
erosion cause degradation of soils, thus failing to perform pro-
ductivity functions. In recent years, while trying to develop fer-
tilization programs based on analysis, these practices are not
sufficient to maintain or improve crop productivity. Evaluation
of soil only in terms of nutrient content and ignoring other bio-
physicochemical properties will be insufficient in ensuring pro-
ductivity and sustainability. Soil quality which is defined as sus-
taining plant and animal production of soil in a natural or man-
aged ecosystem and capacity to increase water and air quality and
to provide all of the functions of creating a suitable living envi-
ronment for human health (Karlen et al. 1997; Doran 2002) is
studied by many researchers (Dengiz 2013; Mukherjee and Lal
2014; Vasu et al. 2016; Seker et al., 2017; Dengiz 2020).
It is reported that the use of minimum data sets in determining
soil quality factors gives the best results in terms of economy,
labor, and data quality produced (Seker et al., 2017). To generate
a minimum data set, principal component analysis with fewer
1235 Page 2 of 20
new variables or basic components is created where the common
effects of the variables are seen. Thus, the dependency structure
between variables is eliminated with the analysis of principal
components (Tatlıdil 2002). Many methods are used in the de-
termination and monitoring of soil quality in the world (Qi et al.
2009; Adeyolanu et al. 2013; Askari and Holden 2015; Dengiz
2020), and the suitability of methods varies according to regional
factors and soil characteristics. Minimum data sets containing
different features were used in determining the soil quality. In
this context, while Askari and Holden (2015) created data set
with organic carbon, penetration resistance, magnesium content,
aggregate size distribution, and carbon-nitrogen ratio, Navarro
et al. (2015) used porosity, available water capacity, organic
carbon, potassium and copper content, vegetation, cation
exchange capacity, pH, dehydrogenase activity and CaCO3
content, and Liu et al. (2014) used characteristics of organic
matter, total nitrogen, pH, dehydrogenase, and arbuscular mycor-
rhiza in albic soils in the evaluation of soil quality. Again, the
total data set and the minimum data set are widely used in many
studies in soil quality evaluation approaches (Doran and Parkin
1994; Qi et al. 2009; Cheng et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2019).
Rather than point-based evaluating the studies on soil quality,
obtaining spatial distribution results is very important on behalf
of decision-makers or producers. For this purpose, geostatistical
approaches in which spatial distributions of point-based data are
evaluated are widely used in the assessment and classification of
lands (Özyazıcı et al. 2016; Tunçay et al. 2018; Aydın and
Dengiz 2019; Mihalikova and Dengiz, 2019). Dengiz (2002),
in his study to determine the quality of agricultural lands in
Ankara Gölbaşı district and its immediate surroundings, deter-
mined 70.1% of the area was very good and good, and 14.2% of
the area was not suitable for agricultural use with parametric and
geostatistical methods. In addition, Koca et al. (2019), in the
study in which they determined the soil quality in the
Çukurova region by focusing on the standard scoring functions
and the analytical hierarchy process, reported 68.3% of the area
as moderate quality. The soil has a very dynamic feature and it is
under the influence of many environmental factors. Therefore,
many criteria need to be considered together when examining a
feature of soil. Besides, because the influencing criteria do not
have the same importance, the use of the analytical hierarchical
process, which is one of the multi-criteria decision-making
methods, in the estimation of the desired feature to determine
their weighing and sub-criteria was considered in the studies
(Turan and Dengiz 2017; Dedeoğlu and Dengiz 2018).
In recent years, pedotransfer functions have become the re-
searchers’ interest in developing artificial intelligence technolo-
gies for the estimation, classification, and revealing of soil prop-
erties. Decision trees, one of the widely used machine learning
algorithms for classification purposes, are controlled learning
algorithms used to divide a dataset with a large number of fea-
tures into smaller clusters by applying a series of decision rules
(Albayrak and Yılmaz 2009). Hateffard et al. (2019), in their
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
study of artificial neural networks and decision tree algorithms
in mapping soil properties, reported that soil properties such as
content of sand, clay, organic carbon, and carbonates can be
predicted by decision trees (R2: 0.70–0.73), and they had better
estimation accuracy than artificial neural networks. In addition,
many researchers evaluated the relationship between digital soil
mapping and soil properties with decision trees (Vågen et al.,
2016; Malone et al. 2017). Kheir et al. (2010) reported that or-
ganic carbon maps created with the decision tree showed accu-
racy between 68.87 and 69.54%.
In this study, which was conducted in application farmlands
of Isparta University of Applied Sciences in Turkey, the follow-
ing are aimed: (i) determination of the soil quality of the area by
creating the data set containing the physical, chemical, biological,
and nutrient properties of the soils and the minimum data set by
using analytical hierarchical process and standard scoring func-
tion; (ii) prediction of soil quality with decision trees; (iii) com-
parison of soil quality distribution patterns obtained in both data
sets; and (iv) evaluation of distribution maps of predicted and
observed quality index values by means of different interpolation
methods.
Material and methods
Study area
The study area is within the campus of Isparta University of
Applied Sciences and located in the east of the Isparta-Burdur
Highway with coordinates 283,100–282,921 North Longitude
and 4,190,355–4,191,399 East Latitudes—WGS 1984 UTM-m
Zone 36 N (Fig. 1). The area covers approximately 150 ha.
Isparta plain is in the south-east direction of the study area, and
it is surrounded by high hills and ridges in other directions.
Almost all the farmland is located on the colluvial deposits from
the alluvial and slope lands brought by the Horozyokuşu River
coming from the West (Akgül and Başyiğit, 2005). High hills
and ridges are made of Cretaceous limestones (Görmüş and
Özkul 1995). The climate can be described as sub-humid, and
according to long-term meteorological data (1974–2017), aver-
age annual precipitation and temperature of the study area are
467 mm and 12.3 °C, respectively. According to Newhall simu-
lation model (Van Wambeke 2000), soil temperature and mois-
ture regimes are Mesic and Dry Xeric, respectively (Fig. 2). The
study area has been generally used for wheat, some vegetables,
and fruit trees.
Soil analysis methods
Fifty-six disturbed and undisturbed soil samples were taken
from 0 to 20 cm depth with the grid system created 150 ×
150 m from the area. Samples were made ready for analysis
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
Fig. 1 Location of the study area
by sieving them with 2 mm sieve after being brought to the
laboratory and becoming dry. Texture was determined with
hydrometer method (Bouyoucous 1951). Lime content was de-
termined with Scheibler calcimeter method (Soil Survey Staff
1993). The pH and EC were determined by pH and EC meter
Page 3 of 20 1235
with glass electrode in saturation extract (Soil Survey Staff
1992). Organic matter content was determined with modified
Walkley-Black method (Jackson 1958). Soil Ca, Mg, K, and
Na contents were determined by extracting with 1 N ammoni-
um acetate (NH4OAc). Total nitrogen, available phosphorus
1235 Page 4 of 20
Fig. 2 Diagram of the soil moisture and temperature regimes
were determined using Kjeldahl (Bremner 1982) and Olsen
methods (Olsen 1954). Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn)
were determined extracting with DTPA (Kacar 2016; Lindsay
and Norvell 1978) by atomic absorption spectroscopy device
(Soil Survey Staff 1992). Aggregation percentages were deter-
mined in soil samples according to US Salinity Laboratory Staff
(1954). Dry bulk density was determined using the core sam-
ples (100 cm3). Field capacity (0.33 bar), wilting point (15 bar),
and available water moisture constants were determined using
the ceramic table pF set (USA, Soil Moisture Equipment
Corp.). Penetration resistance (PR) measurements were per-
formed using the penetrologger. The mentioned device is capa-
ble of measuring between 0 and 10 MPa for each cm. In mea-
surements, cone, 60° (NEN 5140 1996), and a cone-shaped tip
with a 1 cm2 base area were used. Correction equations sug-
gested by Alaboz (2019) were used to determine the penetration
resistance change due to standard moisture content. Urease en-
zyme analysis was performed with the method based on the
hydrolysis of ammonia and the analysis of ammonium formed
in the medium with the urease enzyme of urea added to the
medium (Tabatabai and Bremner 1972). Soil respiration is
based on titration with Ba(OH)2 put in a closed container to
react with CO2 from the soil and HCl solution of unused
Ba(OH)2 (Isermayer 1952). Alkali phosphatase enzyme analy-
sis was determined on the basis of the formation of p-
nitrophenol from p-nitrophenyl phosphate. Determination of
β-glucosidase enzyme activity was based on the hydrolysis of
4-nitrophenyl b-d glucopyranoside to p-nitrophenol (μg of p-
nitrophenol g−1 dry soil h−1) (Arcak et al. 1997).
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
Determination of soil quality
After converting to unitless by applying a standard scoring
function (SSF) to soil properties, indicators were weighted
by the analytical hierarchical process (AHP), which was de-
veloped by Saaty (1980), to highlight which of the soil quality
indicators is important. Soil quality index values were deter-
mined by using the linear combination technique approach.
The Linear combination equation is given below (Eq. 1).
SQI ¼ ∑ni¼1 ðWi:XiÞ ð1Þ
where SQI is the soil quality index for agricultural usage,
Wi the weighting of parameter i, and Xi the sub-criterion score
of parameter i. The above formula was applied to each soil
sample.
Soil quality indicators were converted from 0.1 to 1.0
unitless scores to be comparable to each other using standard
scoring functions (Andrews et al. 2002). In general, there are 3
different scoring functions as “more is better,” “less is better,”
and “midpoint is optimum” (Karlen and Stott. 1994; Masto
et al. 2008). In “more is better” scoring, a high score of the
indicator represents a positive relationship with soil quality,
and in “less is better” scoring, low score of the indicator rep-
resents a negative relationship with soil quality. In “midpoint
is optimum,” threshold values are determined, and depending
on whether indicators are above or below this threshold, they
are converted into unitless form with “more is better” and
“less is better” scoring. The SSF equations for the parameters
are listed in Table 1.
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 5 of 20 1235

It is possible to make binary comparisons of both qualita- compared with element J (i, J……n) properties of binary com-
tive and quantitative factors and to determine their weight and parison matrix;
priorities with the AHP method (Saaty 2008). Saaty (1977) aji = 1/aij.
proposed a comparison of values ranging from 1 to 9, which aij > 0(i,j = 1,2….,n)
defines the degree of importance. In conducted scientific stud- In order for binary comparison to be fully consistent.
ies (Turan and Dengiz 2017; Dedeoğlu and Dengiz 2018), aik = aji ajk(I,j,k = 1,2,….n).
binary comparison is applied to criteria and sub-criteria based If consistent aij = Wi/WJ.
on expert opinions and evaluations. Numerical values indicat- Wi = priority value for element i, Wj: priority value for
ing the relative importance of each other according to the element J.
Saaty scale are given in Table 2. Because each element has equal importance when
Firstly, a comparison matrix (n x n dimensions) is created compared with each other, the values of the elements
between created criteria by considering the impact status of on the diagonal of the comparison matrix must be equal
the criteria (Eq. 2). to 1 (Saaty 1977). After the comparison matrix table is
created, the normalization of the matrix is performed.
2 3 Normalization will be done by dividing the data in each
a11 a12 a13 a14 a1n cell to the cell’s column total. W column vector called
6 a21 a22 a23 a24 a2n 7
6 7 priority vector is obtained with the arithmetic average of
A¼6
6 a31 a32 a33 a34 a3n 7
7
4 a41 the sum of the data in each row in the normalization
a42 a43 a44 a4n 5
table obtained from binary comparisons. This vector ex-
an1 a52 a53 a54 ann
ð2Þ presses the percentage of importance weights of the
criteria (Eq. 3).
All entries in this created matrix must have a positive value.
A: binary comparison matrix aij: the importance of element i

Table 1 Standard scoring functions and parameters for quantitative soil parameters

Parameters FT* SSF Equation**

Sand LB f ðxÞ ¼ f1−0:9  0:1 x−L 1 x≥ L L ≤ x≤ U x≤ U

U −L
Silt LB
EC LB
CaCO3 LB
BD LB
pH LB
PR LB
Na LB
WP LB
OM MB f ðxÞ ¼ f0:9  0:1 x−L 1 þ0:1 x≥L L ≤x≤ U x≤ U
U −L
N, P, Ca, Mg MB
Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn MB
FC MB
AWC MB
Aggregation MB
CO2 MB
Urease MB
Beta glucosidase MB
Phosphatase MB
Clay OR f ðxÞ ¼ f0:9  0:1 x−L1 1 þ0:1 x≥ L1 or x≤U L ≤ x≤ L2
L2−L1
f ðxÞ ¼ f1−0:9  0:1 x−U 1 1 U1 ≤x≤ U 2
U2−U 1 L2 ≤ x≤ U1
*FT means function type; MB means more is better; LB means low is better; OR means optimal range.**SSF means standard scoring function; L and U
are the lower and the upper threshold value, respectively; L1-L2: lower limits of the values determined as the optimal range groups; U1-U2: Upper limits
of the values determined as the optimal range groups
1235 Page 6 of 20 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235

Table 2 Saaty scale (Saaty 1977)

Importance Description Definition

level

1 Equal importance The two elements are equally important

3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong
importance
9 Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
The first criterion is slightly more important than the second criterion
The first criterion is slightly more important than the second criterion
The first criterion is very important compared with the second criterion, dominant or provable in practice
The first criterion is strongly (extremely) important compared with the second criteria; it has the highest
accuracy
It is used when undecided between two close evaluations and a compromise is required between the two
values

n CI ¼ ðλmax−nÞ=ðn−1Þ ð7Þ
∑ aij
j¼1
wi ¼ ð3Þ As seen in equation inequality (7), the consistency ratio
n
(CR) value is obtained by dividing the consistency index
ai = element i in the normalization table (CI) by the random index (RI) value (Table 3). If the calculat-
aj = element j in the normalization table ed CR value is less than 0.10, then the comparisons made by
n = number of criteria the decision-maker are consistent; if CR value is greater than
Wi = priority vector or weighing of criterion i 0.10, the comparisons are inconsistent or there is a calculation
The binary comparison matrix (A) is multiplied by the error. In this case, comparisons should be revised (Saaty
priority vector (w) to obtain the vector D (Eq. 4). 1980).
2 3 2 3 2 3 The Linear combination technique approach of values ob-
a11 a12 a13 ⋯ a1n w1 d1
6 a21 a22 a23 ⋯ a2n 7 6 7 6 7 tained with the analytical hierarchical process and standard
6 7 6 w2 7 6 d2 7
6⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯7 6 7 6 7 scoring functions and classification of soil quality index
D¼AW¼6 7  6 … 7 ¼ 6 … 7 ð4Þ
6⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯7 6 7 6 7
6 7 6 … 7 6…7 values are given in Table 4.
4⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ 5 4 … 5 4…5
an1 an2 an3 … ann wn dn
Statistical techniques
The elements of the D column vector (d1 = a11×w1 + a-
12×w2…..a1n×wn) are divided by the elements of the priority Descriptive statistics of soil properties, principal components
vector (W) to obtain the E values in Eq. 5. analysis (PCA), and decision trees from classification process-
di es were determined using IBM SPSS 23 software. In the prin-
Ei ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3…n ð5Þ cipal components analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and
wi
Bartlett sphericity test results were examined by standardizing
The sum of the Ei values is divided by the number of the soil properties and suitability of the data for factor analysis
criteria, and its arithmetic average is calculated. With this op- was checked. As many basic components as eigenvalue great-
eration, λ the largest eigenvalue of the matrix called max (Eq. er than 1 were picked, and the minimum data set was created
6) is found. by examining correlation matrices. t test was used to compare
the soil quality index values determined with the minimum
n
∑ Ei data set and the data sets in which all the features were eval-
λmax ¼ i¼1
ð6Þ uated together.
n
where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the number Decision tree
of criteria.
The eigenvector method is used to measure the consistency Creating a decision tree takes place in 2 stages and these are
in the comparisons made by the decision-making group. The tree building and tree pruning. All features are first in the root
consistency index (CI) of the comparison matrix is obtained node when building a tree. If all of the samples belong to the
by obtaining the number of criteria from the maximum eigen- same class, the root ends with a leaf; if they do not belong to
vector as seen in Eq. 7 and dividing it by the number of criteria the same class, the features that will divide the best are select-
minus one. ed. Branches with exceptions are pruned in the tree pruning
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 7 of 20 1235

Table 3 Random index values (RI) depending on the number of criteria

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

phase. There are quite different algorithms for determining the The confidence interval for mean differences between H.
roots, nodes, and branching criteria selections in decision group and L. group t variable averages is given in Eq. 10, and
trees. One of the most important and commonly used ones is calculation of the W matrix is given in Eq. 11.
the Chi-square automatic interaction detection (CHAID) algo- sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
 
 a

1 1

Wtt
rithm. It is distinguished from other decision tree algorithms ðdHt−dLtÞ ¼ XHt−XLt ∓t ; ðN −gÞ þ
by allowing more than two divisions from a decision tree node pgðg−1Þ nH nL N −g
and uses chi-square tests to determine the best division at each ð10Þ
stage. Bonferroni fixed p value is used to determine whether
the variables are suitable for division (Pehlivan 2006). Here, N = n1 + n2 + … + ng refers to the number of vari-
Bonferroni approach is based on whether the differences of ables p, g refers to the number of groups, and Wtt refers to the
each group are zero once the difference of mean vectors of diagonal elements of the W matrix.
each group from the general mean vectors found. Average g nt   0
vectors of the general mean vector (X ) and the mean vectors W¼ ∑ ∑ Xtl−Xt Xtl−Xt ð11Þ
t¼1 L¼1
of each group according to the variable g (XgÞ is given in Eq. 8
and the difference of group mean vectors (d1) from general In equality, g: refers to the number of groups, and nt: refers
mean vectors is given in Eq. 9. to the number of units in the group t.
2 3 2 3 2 3
X1 X 11 X 12
6X27 6 X 21 7 6 X 22 7
X ¼6 7 6 7 6
4 ⋮ 5 X 1 ¼ 4 ⋮ 5 X 2 ¼ 4 ⋮ 5Xg
7 Interpolation methods
Xp Xp1 Xp2 In this study, different interpolation methods [inverse distance
2 3 neighborhood similarity (IDW), radial-based functions
X 1g
6 7 (RBF), ordinary kriging (OK), simple kriging and universal
6 X 22 7
¼6 7 ð8Þ kriging] were applied to predict the spatial distribution of soil
4 ⋮ 5
quality index. In the Kriging method, a semivariogram is cre-
Xpg ated, which is a measure of the positional correlation between
2 3 2 3
X 11 X1 two points. Thus, weights vary according to the spatial ar-
6 X 21 7 6 X 2 7 rangement of the samples. Unlike other estimation methods,
d1 ¼ X 1−X ¼ 6 7 6 7
4 ⋮ 5−4 ⋮ 5……:dg kriging evaluates the error or uncertainty in the prediction
Xp1 Xp area. In radial-based function methods, a series of precise in-
2 3 2 3 terpolation techniques are used, which must go through each
X 1g sample value measured for the interpolated surface. It is a
6 7 X17
6 X 22 7 6 method used in the interpolation of multidimensional data.
¼6 7−6 X 2 7 ð9Þ
4 ⋮ 5 4⋮5 The most commonly used completely regularized spline
Xpg Xp (CRS), multiquadric (MQ), and spline with tension (ST) radial
function interpolation were selected to evaluate the soil quality
index distribution. ArcGIS 10.5v software was used to create
soil quality index distribution maps. In the present study, root
Table 4 Classes of soil mean square error (RMSE) was used to assess and figure out
quality index Class Definition SQI
the most suitable interpolation model (Eq. 13). That is why the
I Very low < 0.40 lowest RMSE indicates the most accurate prediction.
II Low 0.40–0.50
III Moderate 0.50–0.65 Evaluation of predictions
IV High 0.65–0.85
V Very high > 0.85 Cross-validation methods were preferred to verify the estima-
tion accuracy of models in decision trees. In the performance
1235 Page 8 of 20
of classification models, evaluations were made by examining
ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve and AUC (area
under a curve) values. ROC is also expressed as the fraction of
true positives to false positives. The ROC curve is formed by
plotting the number of true positives as a function of false
positives according to varying classification threshold values.
Besides, root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute per-
centage error (MAPE), and coefficient of determination (R2)
parameters are used in the comparison of real and predicted
values (Eq. 12, 13, 14).
 
1 n  Zi−Z 
MAPE ¼ ∑  ð12Þ
n i¼1 Zi 
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
∑ðZi−ZÞ2
RMSE ¼ ð13Þ
n Mg, Fe, Zn, OM, S, urease, and β-g aggregation prop-
2 32
6 ∑ZiZ − ∑Zi∑Z
R2 ¼ 6 r
4 h ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ih
n
i5
ð∑ZiÞ2 ð∑ZÞ2
∑Zi − n 2
∑Z − n 2
where Zi is the predicted value, Z is the observed value, and
n is the number of observations.
Results and discussion
Soils properties
Descriptive statistics of soil properties were given in Table 5.
Field capacity, WP, and AWC contents of soil samples vary as
texture class L, CL, SiL, SCL, SL, SiCL, and C, and they were
determined in the ranges of 17.841–31.732%, 10–20.534%,
4.654–14.89%, respectively. There are sampling points where
penetration resistance values (0.71–2.082 MPa) were deter-
mined above 2 MPa (Schoeneberger et al. 2012) which is
the limit value for plant root development and the bulk density
of the soils in the area varied at 1.228–1.750 g cm−3 levels.
Classification of studied soil properties was made ac-
cording to Lindsay and Norvell (1978); FAO (1990);
Arshad and Martin (2002); Borůvka et al. (2005);
Hazelton and Murphy (2016). Organic matter values of
the soils of the study area vary between “very low and
moderate.” A very wide range of soils with low lime
content and very high lime content has a “salt-free“ and
“slightly alkaline” reaction. N contents of 21.4, 76.8,
and 1.8% of the soils are “low,” “sufficient,” and
“high,” respectively, and phosphorus was determined
as “low,” “sufficient,” “high,” and “very high” in 42.9,
39.3, 16.0, and 1.8% of the soils, respectively. Of the
soils, 78.60% and 21.40% include “high” and very
high“ K levels, respectively, and 1.8, 87.5, and 10.7%
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
of the soils have “sufficient,” “high,” and “very high“
Ca content, respectively. Of the soils, 3.60, 30.30, and
66.10% contain “low,” “sufficient,” and “very high”
Mg, respectively. Besides, the copper and manganese
contents of the soils in question were determined at
sufficient levels. According to the results of CO2 output
obtained in the classification by Doran et al. (1997),
very low (18.83 mg CO2 100 g FKT−1 24 h−1) and
low soil (39.27 mg CO2 100 g FKT−1 24 h−1) activities
were determined. According to Hofmann and Hoffmann
(1966), while urease activity varied as low
(29.12 μg N g FKT−1) and high (377 μg N g FKT−1),
β-g Glycosidase enzyme activity was low (1.2–37.7 μg
of p-nitrophenol g−1 dry soil h−1). According to Wilding
et al. (1994) and Mulla and McBratney (2000), K, P,
erties have high (> 35%) coefficient of variation, and
7 other properties have moderate (15–35%) and low (<
7 ð14Þ 15%) coefficient of variation (CV).
Creating a minimum data set
In the study, the results of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test
were found to be 68.93% (0.6893 > 0.5) and the Bartlett test
results (P = 0.000 < 0.05). Thus, it has been determined that
the analysis of the principal components is suitable for the data
set (Karagöz and Kösterelioğlu 2008). Eight principal compo-
nents with an eigenvalue bigger than 1 and at the level where
the variance was explained by 76.6% were taken into account
in the result of the principal components analysis (Table 6).
According to the PCA analysis, the minimum data set was
created with 15 of 27 indicators handled in the total data set.
P, K, Zn, Fe, and Cu features provide the highest contribu-
tion rate in PCA-1. A high correlation (0.85) was found be-
tween P and K. Due to the higher total correlation loads (CT) P
(9.306), the K feature was eliminated. Again, a high correla-
tion between Fe and Zn (0.71) and the total correlation load of
Zn (9.243) were more than Zn, and Fe feature was removed
from the dataset. Since there was no high correlation (> 0.7)
among the other features, the features selected in PCA-1 were
P, Zn, and Cu. In PCA-2, C, S, FC, and WP features are
determined as features with a high contribution rate. FC and
WP have highly correlated (0.804) features. The WP feature
was eliminated from the dataset due to the total contribution
rate of FC which is high (7.97). Since there is no high corre-
lation between the high contribution rate and the characteris-
tics determined in other principal components, selected fea-
tures were included in the minimum data set. Thus physical
properties determined for minimum data set are C, Si, S, FC,
AWC, and PR; chemical properties are N, P, Ca, Cu, and Zn;
and biological properties are β-g, alkali phosphatase, and ure-
ase enzyme activity.
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 9 of 20 1235

Table 5 Descriptive statistics of soil properties

Indicators Min Max Mean Std. Dev. CV Skewness Kurtosis

N% 0.04 0.16 0.10 0.03 26.61 0.45 0.08

P mg kg−1 1.83 76.83 7.96 10.18 60.87 5.88 39.40
K cmol kg −1 0.79 8.11 1.60 0.96 59.88 5.86 39.77
Ca cmol kg −1 27.14 59.59 40.09 6.59 16.44 0.41 0.17
Na cmol kg −1 1.07 3.37 1.83 0.50 27.53 1.31 1.95
Mg cmol kg −1 1.14 8.60 3.70 1.70 45.98 1.00 0.70
Mn mg kg−1 17.05 35.97 26.51 3.64 13.72 0.26 0.80
Fe mg kg−1 3.24 51.46 7.09 6.15 86.71 7.08 51.90
CaCO3% 5.78 34.27 23.78 4.67 19.64 −0.83 3.16
EC dS m−1 0.13 0.39 0.20 0.05 23.96 1.56 4.24
pH 8.04 8.39 8.24 0.08 0.93 −0.23 0.37
OM % 0.12 2.93 0.91 0.53 58.51 1.04 2.36
BD g cm−3 1.23 1.75 1.46 0.12 8.18 0.35 −0.25
Zn mg kg−1 0.35 2.67 0.76 0.40 52.29 2.87 10.63
Cu mg kg−1 1.45 7.87 2.93 0.91 31.15 3.07 15.08
FC % 17.84 31.73 25.34 3.10 12.25 −0.42 −0.24
WP % 10.00 20.53 14.80 2.67 18.05 0.05 −0.88
AWC % 4.65 14.89 10.55 1.85 17.57 0.04 1.03
Aggregation % 14.83 49.97 24.60 8.95 36.36 1.17 0.68
CO2 mg CO2 100 g dry soil 18.83 39.27 29.52 4.07 13.79 0.16 0.57
β-g μg p-nitrophenol g−1 dry soil 1.20 37.70 14.06 9.57 68.05 0.82 −0.06
A-f μg p-nitrophenol g−1 10.77 26.41 18.23 3.66 20.05 0.14 0.13
Urease μgNg dry soil−1 29.12 377.00 130.57 50.52 38.69 2.01 9.39
PR MPa 0.71 2.08 1.17 0.31 26.55 0.73 0.13
Si % 15.72 60.19 37.16 9.19 24.74 0.20 0.25
S% 11.09 59.21 31.63 12.37 39.10 0.31 −0.65
C% 19.25 55.94 31.21 9.77 31.32 1.02 0.18

C clay, Si silt, S sand, FC field capacity, AWC available water content, BD bulk density, WP wilting point, OM organic matter, EC electric conductivity,
PR penetration resistance, A-f alkaline phosphatase, β-g beta glucosidase.

Evaluation of soil quality
As a result of the evaluation of soil properties with AHP, their
weights were given in Table 7, and the weights of the soil
properties selected as a result of PCA analysis were presented
in Table 8. In the analytical hierarchical process, weighting
determinations were created in 4 different hierarchies as soil
physical properties (B1), soil chemical properties (B2), soil
biological properties (B3), and fertility (B4). While the highest
value (0.4147) was determined for hierarchy B1 (physical
parameters), the lowest value (0.1304) was found for soil bi-
ological (Hierarchy B3) properties. Moreover, the highest
contribution of the indicators in each hierarchy B1, B2, B3,
and B4 was determined as clay percentage (0.3470), OM
(0.5430), and CO2 (0.4732), and N (0.2601), respectively.
The fact that soil texture is a highly effective parameter on
water and nutrient retention feature is an indicator of the high
rate of contribution to soil quality (Şenol et al. 2019). Besides,
the fact that the physical structure of a soil that is at an opti-
mum level in terms of chemical content, soil quality, and
management is not in ideal conditions significantly affects
fertility and plant growth. Therefore, it is expected that hier-
archical A will have the highest contribution rate. Again,
Dengiz, and Sarıoğlu (2013) reported that soil texture is
among the basic features in the quality criteria. Penetration
resistance and bulk density, one of the indicators of soil com-
paction, has significant effects on the moisture level in the
field capacity and the water level that the plant can benefit
(Haghighi Fashi et al., 2017).
In the B2 hierarchy, OM content (0.5430) has the highest
contribution rate due to its important functions in the soil and
its effect on the biological and physicochemical properties of
soils. It is one of the parameters that are very effective in
increasing biological activity and productivity on properties
1235 Page 10 of 20 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235

Table 6 Results of principal component analysis (PCA)

Properties Component

PCA- PCA- PCA- PCA- PCA- PCA- PCA- PCA- CT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

N 0.151 0.142 0.109 0.125 0.001 0.841 0.019 0.098 5.303

P 0.95 0.034 0.03 0.075 0.044 0.053 0.161 0.013 9.306
K 0.85 0.032 0.021 0.067 0.004 0.061 0.133 0.05 9.243
Ca 0.03 0.059 0.061 0.754 0.139 0.135 0.125 0.077 4.783
Na 0.569 0.05 0.039 0.02 0.134 0.509 0.232 0.112 7.032
Mg 0.324 0.192 0.519 0.308 0.029 0.289 0.259 0.062 8.040
Mn 0.481 0.141 0.169 0.321 0.422 0.209 0.22 0.158 6.742
Zn 0.825 0.089 0.087 0.051 0.167 0.201 0.003 0.154 9.243
Fe 0.904 0.094 0.083 0.025 0.121 0.102 0.142 0.151 8.909
Cu 0.757 0.411 0.193 0.032 0.017 0.123 0.027 0.071 9.739
CaCO3 0.214 0.351 0.302 0.309 0.087 0.486 0.063 0.131 6.927
EC 0.681 0.02 0.216 0.381 0.159 0.057 0.204 0.108 9.040
pH 0.004 0.042 0.055 0.113 0.897 0.061 0.044 0.008 4.280
OM 0.575 0.302 0.295 0.056 0.223 0.091 0.251 0.01 8.452
C 0.004 0.87 0.007 0.083 0.083 0.101 0.138 0.185 5.873
Si 0.255 0.059 0.018 0.14 0.072 0.015 0.84 0.034 5.054
S 0.193 0.731 0.008 0.038 0.012 0.069 0.515 0.121 6.316
BD 0.085 0.614 0.065 0.029 0.02 0.049 0.403 0.204 5.707
FC 0.243 0.745 0.051 0.467 0.204 0.099 0.016 0.141 7.978
WP 0.279 0.804 0.277 0.115 0.026 0.036 0.059 0.217 7.927
AWC 0.005 0.089 0.485 0.615 0.379 0.218 0.111 0.076 4.831
PR 0.072 0.126 0.68 0.065 0.282 0.152 0.01 0.223 5.568
Aggregation 0.038 0.122 0.578 0.092 0.35 0.413 0.172 0.232 5.287
CO2 0.108 0.409 0.162 0.123 0.452 0.065 0.306 0.542 5.133
Urease 0.04 0.053 0.109 0.038 0.048 0.018 0.065 0.849 3.235
β-g 0.222 0.016 0.79 0.086 0.027 0.021 0.069 0.191 5.850
A-f 0.243 0.028 0.112 0.66 0.289 0.273 0.079 0.183 4.277
Eigenvalue 6.972 3.579 2.660 2.153 1.700 1.357 1.154 1.094
Proportion 0.258 0.133 0.099 0.080 0.063 0.050 0.043 0.041

C clay, Si silt, S sand, FC field capacity, AWC available water content, BD bulk density, WP wilting point, OM organic matter, EC electric conductivity,
PR penetration resistance, A-f alkaline phosphatase, β-g beta glucosidase, CT total correlation

such as organic matter, aggregation, and water retention
(Alaboz et al. 2017); while hierarchies B1 and B2 are more
stable and formation-related features, hierarchies B3 and B4
are among the dynamic properties of the soil and are in a
continuous process of change. Soil respiration and enzyme
activities that play an active role in determining biological
activities in soils are not a stable feature and they constantly
change. Therefore, it is very difficult to determine relations
with soil properties. They are significantly affected by envi-
ronmental conditions. Thus, the weight of biological proper-
ties was determined at the lowest level (Demirtok et al. 2015).
In nutrient content of soils (B4), macroelements play an active
role in plant growth and productivity (Tripathi et al. 2014).
Similar weights were obtained within the properties within the
minimum data set obtained by selecting 15 indicators. The
weights of B1, B2, and B3 hierarchies are 0.5247, 0.3338,
and 0.1416, respectively.
Descriptive statistics and t test results of soil quality index
values obtained as a result of evaluating two data sets are
given in Table 9.
Soil quality index values (SQITDS) obtained as a result of
the total data set using 27 indicators varied between 0.339 and
0.494. Of the soils, 17.85, 60.71, and 21.43% were deter-
mined to be very low, low, and moderate, respectively. Soil
quality index (SQIMDS) values obtained with minimum data
set were found between 0.285 and 0.489. Of the soils,
23.31%, 55.35%, 19.65%, and a very small part (1.78%) were
defined as very low, low, moderate, and high, respectively.
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 11 of 20 1235

Table 7 Contribution weight of total data set indicators to soil quality calculated by the AHP

Hierarchy A

Hierarchy C/indicators Hierarchy B Combine weight ∑ Bi x Ci

(B1) Physical (B2) Chemical (B3) Biological (B4) Fertility
0.4147 0.2959 0.1304 0.1591
C 0.3470 0.1439
Si 0.1570 0.0651
S 0.1802 0.0747
BD 0.0798 0.0331
FC 0.0524 0.0217
WP 0.0524 0.0217
AWC 0.0614 0.0255
Aggregation 0.0369 0.0153
PR 0.0329 0.0136
OM 0.5430 0.1607
EC 0.2445 0.0723
pH 0.1360 0.0402
CaCO3 0.0765 0.0226
CO2 0.4732 0.0617
Urease 0.2827 0.0369
β-g 0.1220 0.0159
A-f 0.1220 0.0159
N 0.2601 0.0414
P 0.2009 0.0320
K 0.1629 0.0259
Ca 0.1029 0.0164
Mg 0.0816 0.0130
Na 0.0584 0.0093
Mn 0.0467 0.0074
Fe 0.0361 0.0057
Cu 0.0264 0.0042
Zn 0.0240 0.0038
∑ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

C clay, Si silt, S sand, FC field capacity, AWC available water content, BD bulk density, WP wilting point, OM organic matter, EC electric conductivity,
PR penetration resistance, A-f alkaline phosphatase, β-g beta glucosidase.

The result of the t test to determine the importance of the
change between the two data sets was determined as P =
0.223. Soil quality index has been determined at close levels
to each other in both data sets that are not statistically signif-
icant. Thus, quality can be accurately evaluated by determin-
ing the features in the minimum data set in determining the
soil quality in this region.
Prediction of soil quality with decision tree
The decision tree created for the estimation of the soil quality
index (SQITDS) values of the total data set obtained as a result
of the evaluation of 27 indicators was given in Fig. 3. Group I,
group II, and group III were determined with a CHAID algo-
rithm with a rate of 100, 88.2, and 91.7%, respectively.
Besides, this feature was predicted at 91.1% with the decision
tree (Table 10).
Organic matter is the root node; S, WP, and EC are internal
nodes; and other nodes are built as leaf nodes in the estimation
of soil quality. Pruning has been carried out on branches using
other features. Generalizations are strengthened by pruning.
With pruning, parts of the decision tree that do not affect or
contribute to the classification accuracy are removed. Thus, a
less complex and more understandable tree is obtained
(Kavzoğlu and Çölkesen 2010). Starting from the root node
1235 Page 12 of 20 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235

Table 8 Contribution weight of

minimum data set indicators to Hierarchy C/indicators (B1) Physical (B2) Chemical (B3) Biological Combine weight ∑ Bi x Ci
soil quality calculated by the AHP 0.5247 0.3338 0.1416

C 0.4497 0.2360
Si 0.1956 0.1026
S 0.1878 0.0985
FC 0.0654 0.0343
AWC 0.0575 0.0301
PR 0.0441 0.0231
N 0.3611 0.1205
P 0.2490 0.0831
Ca 0.2070 0.0691
Cu 0.0638 0.0213
Zn 0.0503 0.0168
pH 0.0687 0.0229
Urease 0.5889 0.0834
A-f 0.2519 0.0357
β-g 0.1593 0.0225
∑ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

C clay, Si silt, S sand, FC field capacity, AWC available water content, PR penetration resistance, A-f alkaline
phosphatase, β-g beta glucosidase

with OM, OM is split into 3 sibling nodes, and in case OM is
≤ 0.3667%, soils are determined as class I with 66.7%; soils
are determined as class II with 0.3667–1.58%, and in case OM
is >1.58%, the soils are determined as class III with 80%. If
OM is ≤0.3667% and S is ≤21.60%, soils found to be class II
and if it is greater, soils found to be class II with 88.9%. When
OM is between 0.3667 and 1.58% and WP is ≤ 10.75, soils are
determined to be class I, and if it is greater, soils are deter-
mined to be class II with 78.4%. A 66.1% success achieved
under the conditions of WP > 10.75%, it is divided into 3 child
nodes according to EC contents. If EC ≤ 0.183 dS/m, soils are
class I and soils are class II with 70% between 0.183–0.217
dS/m range; and if EC > 0.217 dS/m, soils are class II with
92.9%. Hateffard et al. (2019) state that the decision tree
shows high performance in mapping and predicting organic
carbon, and also in another study, they stated that it was an
effective method of classifying satellite images of decision
trees with approximately 92% accuracy (Kavzoğlu and
Çölkesen 2010). Area under a curve (AUC) values and receiv-
er operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the classes speci-
fied in Table 10 are shown in Fig. 4. AUC values determined
Table 9 Results of t test
Minimum Maximum Mean StDev T value P value
SQITDS 0.339 0.494 0.454 0.058 −1.23 0.223
SQIMDS 0.285 0.489 0.447 0.076
SQITDS total data set of soil quality index for 27 indicators, SQIMDS
minimum data set of soil quality index for 15 indicators
as the area under the ROC curve where the estimation accu-
racy of soil quality classes were determined as 1.00, 0.960,
and 0.943, respectively.
Sensitivity, true positive 1-Specificity, is an indicator of
false positive. AUC, which is one of the criteria used to eval-
uate the accuracy of models in making the right decisions, can
take the biggest value of “1” (the positives are separated from
the negatives in the best way) (Kılıç 2013). The closer the
ROC curve to the upper left corner, the higher the overall
accuracy of the test. The AUC value for the class I was deter-
mined as 0.991 (P = 0.00) due to the high estimation accuracy.
The high AUC value is a reason for the large area under the
curve and increased differentiation ability. The cut-off value
for the class I is 0.44 (100% sensitivity, 97.8% specificity),
and for the class II, it is 0.61 (85.3% sensitivity, 95.5% spec-
ificity). For the class III soils, it has been determined that
prediction will be made with 91.7% sensitivity and 90.9%
specificity at 0.38 cut-off value.
The decision tree created in the estimation of the soil qual-
ity index (SQIMDS) classifications obtained with the minimum
data set is given in Fig. 5. As a result of the decision tree
created by the CHAID algorithm, the class I soils in the
SQIMDS estimation were determined correctly at the rate of
61.5%, while the others were 96.8 and 72.7, 0, respectively
(Table 11). In general, the estimation accuracy is 82.1%.
While 3 classes were determined in SQITDS, soils were divid-
ed into 4 classes with SQIMDS.
The clay (C) root node is a prediction of soil quality, Si and
β-g are internal nodes, and other nodes are built as leaf nodes.
The clay node is divided into 4 sibling nodes. If C is ≤
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 13 of 20 1235

Table 10 Classification of
SQITDS Observed Predicted

I II III Percent correct AUC value P value

I 10 0 0 100.0% 0.991 0.00

II 0 30 4 88.2% 0.960 0.00
III 0 1 11 91.7% 0.943 0.00
Overall Percentage 17.9% 55.4% 26.8% 91.1%

26.03%, soils are classes I and II with 50%, soils are class II
with 76.5% between 26.03–33.60%, and soils are class III
with 75% between 33.60–48.69%, and in case C is >
48.69%, soils are class II with 80%. If C is ≤ 26.03% and Si
is ≤ 33.98, soils were determined as class I with 88.9%, and if
Si is > 33.98, soils are determined as class II with 76.9%. β-g
separated as child nodes in soils containing 33.60–48.69%
clay and β-g ≤ 12.80 μg of p-nitrophenol g−1 dry soil h−1 side
branch determined to be class III with 100%. B-g > 12.80 μg
of p-nitrophenol g−1 dry soil h−1 is class II with 75%. The clay

Fig. 3 Decision tree of SQITDS

prediction
1235 Page 14 of 20
Fig. 4 ROC curve of SQITDS classes
content of soils is a very important parameter on nutrient and
water retention and aggregation (Baldock 2007). Besides, the
contribution rate in clay content AHP scores was determined
higher than other physical properties. For this purpose,
starting the root node with C is an indication that the feature
in question is important in quality prediction. β-glucosidase is
responsible for the degradation of carbohydrates and it is con-
sidered to be important for soil as it provides development and
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
energy source for soil heterotrophs (Jian et al., 2016). It has
been reported that β-glucosidase activity is also affected by
the cultivation of soils (Turner et al. 2002).
ROC curves in evaluating the estimation accuracy of soil
quality classes are given in Fig. 6, and AUC values and im-
portance levels are given in Table 11. The AUC values used in
evaluating the validity of the prediction of soil classes were
0.896, 0.815, 0.955, and 0.855, respectively. While the values
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 15 of 20 1235

Table 11 Classification of SQIMDS

Observed Predicted

I II III IV Percent correct AUC value P value

I 8 5 0 0 61.5% 0.896 0.000

II 1 30 0 0 96.8% 0.815 0.000
III 0 3 8 0 72.7% 0.955 0.000
IV 0 1 0 0 0.0% 0.855 0.228
Overall Percentage 16.1% 69.6% 14.3% 0.0% 82.1%

obtained in the first 3 classes were statistically significant
(P < 0.01), estimation accuracy for class IV (high) was found
statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). The low number of class
IV soils is considered as a result of the low success of the
evaluation. While the cut-off values were 0.21 (84.6% sensi-
tivity, 74.4% specificity) for class I and 0.43 (96.8% sensitiv-
ity, 64% specificity) for class II, it is determined that the esti-
mations will be made with 81.8% sensitivity and 93.3% spec-
ificity at class III 0.18 cut-off value.
MAPE, RMSE, and R2 values obtained by comparing
the predicted SQI TDS and SQI MDS values with real
values are given in Table 12. Soil quality index estima-
tion values created by two data sets showed very close
values. MAPE is an evaluation parameter that represents
estimation errors in percent and it classifies the predic-
tion models below 10% as ‘high accuracy’ prediction
(Witt and Witt 1992). High accuracy estimation was
performed using both data sets.
As a result of the evaluation of the data obtained, soil qual-
ity classes obtained by TDS and MDS were determined with
high predictability by decision trees.

Fig. 5 Decision tree of SQIMDS

prediction
1235 Page 16 of 20 Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235

Fig. 6 ROC curve of SQIMDS classes

Spatial distribution of SQI

Fifteen different interpolation semivariogram models were ap-

Table 12 Evaluation of 2 plied in forming the soil quality index distributions of the total
prediction models MAPE (%) RMSE R
data set and the minimum data set obtained as a result of PCA
SQITDS 4.44 0.02 0.80 analysis and in evaluating the distribution maps of the soil
SQIMDS 6.12 0.03 0.78 quality index values predicted as a result of the decision tree
of both data sets, and their RMSE values were given in
SQITDS soil quality index for 27 indicators,
SQIMDS soil quality index for 15 indicators
Table 13, and distribution maps were presented in Fig. 7.
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235 Page 17 of 20 1235

Table 13 Cross-validation and their RMSE values according to different interpolation models

Inverse distance weighing—IDW Radial basis function—RBF

1 2 3 MQ CRS SPT

SQITDS 0.0540 0.0552 0.0567 0.0634 0.0575 0.0562

SQITDS-DT 0.0443 0.0445 0.0448 0.0493 0.0458 0.0453
SQIMDS 0.0732 0.0753 0.0777 0.0893 0.0793 0.0772
SQIMDS-DT 0.0651 0.0658 0.0672 0.0757 0.0686 0.0672
Kriging
Ordinary Simple Universal
Gau. Exp. Sph. Gau. Exp. Sph. Gau. Exp. Sph.
SQITDS 0.0535 0.0550 0.0541 0.0529 0.0549 0.0536 0.0543 0.0556 0.0548
SQITDS-DT 0.0441 0.0450 0.0444 0.0442 0.0454 0.0446 0.0442 0.0450 0.0444
SQIMDS 0.0731 0.0750 0.0738 0.0724 0.0754 0.0735 0.0731 0.0750 0.0738
SQIMDS-DT 0.0660 0.0670 0.0665 0.0650 0.0657 0.0652 0.0660 0.0670 0.0665

TDS total data set, MDS minimum data set, DT decision tree, Gau. Gaussian, Exp. exponential, Sph. spherical, MQ. multiquadric, CRS. completely
regularized spline, ST. spline with tension.

Fig. 7 Observed and predicted

distribution maps of the soil
quality
1235 Page 18 of 20
While the Gaussian model of ordinary (RMSE: 0.0441) and
simple kriging (RMSE: 0.0529) were determined as the most
suitable model for the estimation of soil quality, total data set,
and decision tree, the Gaussian model of ordinary kriging
(RMSE: 0.0650) was determined as the most suitable interpo-
lation model in the minimum data set and decision tree esti-
mation. When the distribution maps were examined, besides
soil quality index values belonging to total data set and min-
imum data sets showed a similar pattern, the distribution pat-
terns of the predicted index values also showed parallelism
with each other. While the soil quality index value increased
in all distribution maps, generally in the north and northeast
parts of the study area, this value decreased in the southern
parts.
Conclusion
In this current study, soil quality index was determined by
using total and minimum data sets with a linear combination
technique approach and analytical hierarchical process. As a
result of statistical analysis, it was determined that there were
no statistically significant differences between the minimum
data set and the soil quality index values obtained from the
total data set (P > 0.05). After that, decision trees were formed
in the prediction of soil quality classes and spatial distribution
maps of observed and predicted values were obtained with
different interpolation methods. The distribution maps created
with both data sets showed similar results. Therefore, in de-
termining the soil quality index for the region soils, it is rec-
ommended to determine the minimum data set in which 15
indicators were determined. Soil quality index classes were
predicted with 91.1% accuracy (SQITDS) by decision trees to
be created using OM, S, WP, and EC contents of soils and
82.1% accuracy (SQIMDS) with C, Si, and β-g. The AUC
values obtained in the validation part of the models varied
between 0.815 and 0.991, and statistically insignificant AUC
value was obtained in class IV estimation in the SQIMDS. In
general, while class I, class II, and class III soil quality was
successfully predicted by decision trees, the accuracy of the
class IV prediction was determined at low levels. As a result of
comparing the soil quality index values predicted with the
decision tree with both data sets with the actual values, high
R2 and low RMSE and MAPE values were obtained at similar
rates.
In this present study, in the creation of distribution maps
with different interpolation methods as a result of estimating
the SQI values obtained by TDS and MDS with the decision
tree; ordinary kriging Gaussian for TDS and simple kriging
for MDS were evaluated as the most suitable model of
Gaussian. Also, in future studies, evaluation of the usability
of models is recommended to be examined in a more compre-
hensive and wider field. In addition in semi-arid ecosystems,
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
the suitability of these geostatistical approaches should be
investigated in practice by revealing in more comprehensive
soil properties and environmental effects.
Acknowledgment We would like to thank the Presidency of Scientific
Research Projects Management Unit of Suleyman Demirel University,
which financially supported the part of this study with Project FYL-
2018-6743.
References
Alaboz P, Işıldar AA, Müjdeci M, Şenol H (2017) Effects of different
vermicompost and soil moisture levels on pepper (capsicum
annuum) grown and some soil properties. Yuzuncu Yıl Univ J
Agric Sci 27(1):30–36
Adeyolanu OD, Are KS, Oluwatosin GA, Ayoola OT, Adelana AO
(2013) Evaluation of two methods of soil quality assessment as
influenced by slash and burn in tropical rainforest ecology of
Nigeria. Arch Agron Soil Sci 59(12):1725–1742
Akgül M, Başyiğit L (2005) Detailed soil survey and mapping of
Suleyman Demirel University farmıng land. Suleyman Demirel
Univ J Inst Sci 9(3):1–10
Alaboz P (2019) The development of prediction models to determine
some soil moisture constants by penetration resistance measure-
ments. Doctoral thesis. Süleyman Demirel University Institute of
science, 142s, Isparta
Albayrak AS, Yılmaz K (2009) Data mining: decision tree algorithms and
an application on ise data. Suleyman Demirel Univ J Faculty Econ
Admin Sci 14(1):31–52
Andrews SS, Karlen DL, Mitchell JP (2002) A comparison of soil quality
indexing methods for vegetable production systems in northern
California. Agric Ecosyst Environ 90:25–45
Arcak S, Kütük AC, Haktanır K, Çaycı G (1997) The effects of tea wastes
on soil enzyme activity and nitrification. Pamukkale Univ J Eng Sci
3(1):261–266
Arshad MA, Martin S (2002) Identifying critical limits for soil quality
indicators in agro-ecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 88(2):153–
160
Askari MS, Holden NM (2015) Indices for quantitative evaluation of soil
quality under grassland management. Geoderma 230–231:131–142
Aydın A, Dengiz O (2019) Determination of physico-chemical and nu-
trient element content of soils formed under semi-humid ecological
environment. Acad J Agric 8(2):301–312
Baldock JA (2007) Composition and cycling of organic carbon in soil. In:
Nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg, pp 1–35
Borůvka L, Vacek O, Jehlička J (2005) Principal component analysis as a
tool to indicate the origin of potentially toxic elements in soils.
Geoderma 128(3–4):289–300
Bouyoucous GA (1951) Determination of particle size in soils. Agron J
42:438–443
Bremner JM (1982) Total nitrogen, methods of soil analysis. Am Soc
Agron Mongrn 10(2):594–624
Cheng J, Ding C, Li X, Zhang T, Wang X (2016) Soil quality evaluation
for navel orange production systems in central subtropical China.
Soil Tillage Res 155:225–232
Dedeoğlu M, Dengiz O (2018) Determination of land suitability classes
by using integrated geographic information systems with multi-
criteria decision making analysis. J Süleyman Demirel Univ Fac
Agric 13(2):60–72
Demirtok M, Kılıç Ş, Doğan K (2015) Mapping of microbial activities in
the widespread soil series of Amik plain. Soil-water J 4(2):14–20
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
Dengiz O (2002) Determination of land quality using parametric ap-
proach in Gölbaşı district of Ankara province. Selcuk J Agric
Food Sci 16(30):59–60
Dengiz O (2020) Soil quality index for paddy fields based on standard
scoring functions and weight allocation method. Arch Agron Soil
Sci 66(3):301–315
Dengiz O, Sarıoğlu FE (2013) Parametric approach with linear combina-
tion technique in land evaluation studies. J Agric Sci 19:101–112
Dengiz O (2013) Land suitability assessment for rice cultivation based on
GIS modeling. Turk J Agric Forest 37(3):51
Doran J, Tim K, Maria T (1997) Field and laboratory solvita soil test
evaluation. USDA-ARS. Department of Agronomy. University of
Nebraska, Lincoln
Doran JW, Parkin TB (1994) Defining and assessing soil quality. In:
Doran JW, Coleman DC, Bezdicek DF, Stewart BA (eds)
Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. SSSA Spec.
Publ., 35, SSSA ASA, Madison, pp 1–21
Doran JW (2002) Soil health and global sustainability: translating science
into practice. Agric Ecosyst Environ 88(2):119–127
FAO (1990) Micronutrient assessment at the country level p 1–208. An
international study (Ed., M. Sillanpa). FAO Soil Bulletin 63.
Published by FAO, Rome, İtaly
Görmüş M, Özkul M (1995) Stratigraphy of the area between Gonen-
Atabey (Isparta) and Aglasun (Burdur). J Sci Ins Suleyman Demirel
Univ 1:43–64
Haghighi Fashi F, Gorji M, Sharifi F (2017) Least limiting water range for
different soil management practices in dryland farming in Iran. Arch
Agron Soil Sci 63(13):1814–1822. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03650340.2017.1308688
Hateffard F, Dolati P, Heidari A, Zolfaghari AA (2019) Assessing the
performance of decision tree and neural network models in mapping
soil properties. J Mt Sci 16(8):1833–1847
Hazelton P, Murphy B (2016) Interpreting soil test results: what do all the
numbers mean? CSIRO publishing
Hofmann ED, Hoffmann GG (1966) Die bestimmung der biologischen
tätigkeit in böden mit enzymmethoden. Adv Enzymol Relat Areas
Mol Biol 28:365–390
Isermayer H (1952) Eine einpache method zur bestimmung der
pflanzenatmung under carbonate in boden. ZPflanzenernahr, Dung
Jackson ML (1958) Soil chemical analysis prentice hall. Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, vol 498, pp 183–204
Jian S, Li J, Chen J, Wang G, Mayes MA, Dzantor K, Hui ED, Luo Y
(2016) Soil extracellular enzyme activities, soil carbon and nitrogen
storage under nitrogen fertilization: a meta-analysis. Soil Biol
Biochem 101:32–43
Kacar B (2016) Physical and chemical soil analysis. Nobel Press, Turkish
Karagöz Y, Kösterelioğlu İ (2008) Developing evaluation scale of com-
munication skills with factor analysis. Dumlupınar Univ J Social Sci
21
Karlen DL, Mausbach MJ, Doran JW, Cline RG, Harris RF, Schuman GE
(1997) Soil quality: a concept, definition, and framework for evalu-
ation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:4–10
Karlen DL, Stott DE (1994) A framework for evaluating physical and
chemical indicators of soil quality. Defin soil qual sustain environ
35:53–72
Kavzoğlu T, Çölkesen İ (2010) Classification of satellite images using
decision trees: Kocaeli case. Electron J Map Technol 2(1):36–45
Kheir RB, Greve MH, Bøcher PK, Greve MB, Larsen R, McCloy K
(2010) Predictive mapping of soil organic carbon in wet cultivated
lands using classification-tree based models: the case study of
Denmark. J Environ Manag 91(5):1150–1160
Kılıç S (2013) ROC analysis in clinical decision making. Psych Behav
Sci 3(3):135
Koca YK, Acar M, Turgut YŞ (2019) Evaluation of quality of agricultural
soils with geostatistical modeling. Harran J Agric Food Sci 23(4):
489–499
Page 19 of 20 1235
Lindsay WL, Norvell WA (1978) Development of a DTPA soil test for
zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42(3):421–
428
Liu Z, Zhou W, Shen J, Li S, Ai C (2014) Soil quality assessment of
yellow clayey paddy soils with different productivity. Biol Fertil
Soils 50:537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-013-0864-9
Malone BP, Minasny B, McBratney AB (2017) Using R for digital soil
mapping. Springer International Publishing, Basel
Masto RE, Chhonkar PK, Purakayastha TJ, Patra AK, Singh D (2008)
Soil quality indices for evaluation of long-term land use and soil
management practices in semi-arid sub-tropical India. Land
Degrad Dev 19(5):516–529
Mihalikova M, Dengiz O (2019) Towards more effective irrigation water
usage by employing land suitability assessment for various irrigatıon
techniques. Irrigation and drainage. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2349
Mukherjee A, Lal R, Zimmerman AR (2014) Effects of biochar and other
amendments on the physical properties and greenhouse gas emis-
sions of an artificially degraded soil. Sci Total Environ 487:26–36
Mulla DJ, McBratney AB (2000) Soil spatial variability. In: Sumner ME
(ed) Handbook of soil science. CRS press, Boca Raton, pp 321–352
Navarro SA, Gil-Vázquez JM, Delgado-Iniesta MJ, Marín-Sanleandro P,
Blanco-Bernardeau A, Ortiz-Silla R (2015) Establishing an index
and identification of limiting parameters for characterizing soil qual-
ity in Mediterranean ecosystems. Catena 131:35–45
NEN 5140 (1996) Nederlandse norm - Geotechniek. Bepaling van de
conusweerstand en de plaatselijke wrijvingsweerstand van grond.
Elektrische sondeermethode. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut,
Delft, p 6
Qi Y, Darilek JL, Huang B, Zhao Y, Sun W, Gu Z (2009) Evaluating soil
quality indices in an agricultural region of Jiangsu Province, China.
Geoderma 149(3–4):325–334
Olsen SR (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extrac-
tion with sodium bicarbonate (no. 939). US Department of
Agriculture
Özyazıcı MA, Dengiz O, Aydoğan M, Bayraklı B, Kesim E, Urla Ö,
Yıldız H, Ünal E (2016) Levels of basic fertility and the spatial
distribution of agricultural soils in central and eastern Black Sea
region. Anadolu J Agri Sci 31(1):136–148
Pehlivan G (2006) CHAID analysis and an application. Yıldız Technical
University, Institute of Science, Unpublished Master Thesis
Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.
J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-
Hill, (This book has been tranlated into Chinese by S. Xu et al.;
information is available from them at the Inst. Of Systems
Engineering, Tianjing Univ., Tianjin, China.), A Translation into
russian by R. Vachnadze is currently underway
Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,
international journal services. Sciences 1(1):83–98
Schoeneberger PJ, Wysocki DA, Benham EC (2012) Soil survey staff
field book for describing and sampling soils. In: Version, 3. National
Soil Survey Center LincolnNE, Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Soil Survey Staff (1992) Procedures for collecting soil samples and
methods of analysis for soil survey. Soil Survey Invest. Rep. I.
U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington D.C. USA
Soil Survey Staff (1993) Soil survey manual. USDA Handbook. No: 18
Washington D.C.
Seker C, Özaytekin HH, Negiş H, Gümüş İ, Dedeoğlu M, Atmaca E,
Karaca Ü (2017) Identification of regional soil quality factors and
indicators: a case study on an alluvial plain (Central Turkey). Solid
Earth 8(3):583–595
Şenol H, Dengiz O, Alaboz P (2019) Determination of spatial variability
of soil quality index based on multi criteria decision analysis.
International Soil Congress 2019 17-19 June Ankara, Turkey
 1235 Page 20 of 20
Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1972) Assay of urease activity ın soils. Soil
Biol Biochem 4:479–487
Tatlıdil H (2002) Applied multivariate statistical analysis. Academy
Printing House, Ankara
Tunçay T, Başkan O, Bayramin İ, Dengiz O, Kılıç Ş (2018) Geostatistical
approach as a tool for estimation of field capacity and permanent
wilting point in semiarid terrestrial ecosystem. Arch Agron Soil Sci
64(9):1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2017.1422081
Turan İD, Dengiz O (2017) Erosion risk prediction using multi-criteria
assessment in Ankara Güvenç Basin. J Agric Sci 23(3):285–297
Turner BL, Hopkins DW, Haygarth PM, Ostle N (2002) β–glucosidase
activity in pasture soils. Appl Soil Ecol 20:157–162
Tripathi DK, Singh VP, Chauhan DK, Prasad SM, Dubey NK (2014)
Role of macronutrients in plant growth and acclimation: recent ad-
vances and future prospective. In: improvement of crops in the era of
climatic changes. Springer, New York, pp 197–216
U.S Salinity Laboratory Staff (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of sa-
lina and alkali soils. Agricultural Handbook 60 U.S.D.A.
View publication stats
Arab J Geosci (2020) 13:1235
Vågen TG, Winowiecki LA, Tondoh JE, Desta LT, Gumbricht T (2016)
Mapping of soil properties and land degradation risk in Africa using
MODIS reflectance. Geoderma 263:216–225
Van Wambeke A R (2000) The Newhall simulation model for estimating
soil moisture and temperature regimes. Department of Crop and Soil
Sciences. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. USA
Vasu D, Singh SK, Ray SK, Duraisami VP, Tiwary P, Chandran P,
Anantwar SG (2016) Soil quality index (SQI) as a tool to evaluate
crop productivity in semi-arid Deccan plateau, India. Geoderma
282:70–79
Wilding LP, Bouma J, Goss DW (1994) Impact of spatial variability on
ınterpretative modelling. ın: quantitative modelling of soil forming
processes. R.B. Bryant ve Arnold R.W. (Ed.) SSSA special publi-
cation number 39. SSSA.Inc. Madison Wisconsin.USA
Witt SF, Witt CA (1992) Modeling and forecasting demand in tourism.
Academic Press, Londra
Wu C, Liu G, Huang C, Liu Q (2019) Soil quality assessment in Yellow
River Delta: establishing a minimum data set and fuzzy logic model.
Geoderma 334:82–89