agronomy
Article
Artificial Intelligence Integrated GIS for Land Suitability
Assessment of Wheat Crop Growth in Arid Zones to Sustain
Food Security
Radwa A. El Behairy 1 , Hasnaa M. El Arwash 2 , Ahmed A. El Baroudy 1 , Mahmoud M. Ibrahim 1 ,
Elsayed Said Mohamed 3 , Nazih Y. Rebouh 4 and Mohamed S. Shokr 1, *
Citation: El Behairy, R.A.; El Arwash,
H.M.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Ibrahim,
M.M.; Mohamed, E.S.; Rebouh, N.Y.;
Shokr, M.S. Artificial Intelligence
Integrated GIS for Land Suitability
Assessment of Wheat Crop Growth
in Arid Zones to Sustain Food
Security. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy13051281
Academic Editor: Gniewko Niedbała
Received: 27 March 2023
Revised: 15 April 2023
Accepted: 27 April 2023
Published: 29 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051281
1 Soil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt;
radwa.elbehairy@agr.tanta.edu.eg (R.A.E.B.); drbaroudy@agr.tanta.edu.eg (A.A.E.B.);
mahmoud.abouzaid@agr.tanta.edu.eg (M.M.I.)
2 Mechatronics Engineering Department, Alexandria Higher Institute of Engineering & Technology (AIET),
Alexandria 21544, Egypt; hasnaa.mohamed@aiet.edu.eg
3 National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences, Cairo 1564, Egypt; salama55@mail.ru
4 Department of Environmental Management (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St.,
117198 Moscow, Russia
* Correspondence: mohamed_shokr@agr.tanta.edu.eg
Abstract: Developing countries all over the world face numerous difficulties with regard to food
security. The purpose of this research is to develop a new approach for evaluating wheat’s suitability
for cultivation. To this end, geographical information systems (GIS) and fuzzy inference systems
(FIS) are used as the most appropriate artificial intelligence (AI) tools. Outcomes of investigations
carried out in the western Nile Delta, Egypt. The fuzzy inference system used was Mamdani
type. The membership functions used in this work are sigmoidal, Gaussian, and zmf membership.
The inputs in this research are chemical, physical, and fertility soil indices. To predict the final
soil suitability using FIS, it is required to implement 81 IF-THEN rules that were written by some
experts. The obtained results show the effectiveness of FIS in predicting the wheat crop’s suitability
compared to conventional methods. The research region is split into four classes: around 241.3 km2
is highly suitable for wheat growth, and 224 km2 is defined as having moderate suitability. The
third soil suitability class (low), which comprises 252.73 km2 , is larger than the unsuitable class,
which comprises 40 km2 . The method given here can be easily applied again in an arid region.
Decision-makers may benefit from the research’s quantitative findings.
Keywords: wheat cultivation; crop suitability; fuzzy inference system; GIS; drylands
1. Introduction
The demand for agricultural products and food is increasing, and there is a growing
need to expand and improve the use of agricultural land to meet this demand, which puts
extra strain on natural resources [1–3]. Recently, many developed and developing nations
have recognized the significance of the issues and changed their agricultural policies
to preserve and properly utilize their agricultural areas [4]. Additionally, the impacts of
climate change and potential food security adjustments need to be given more consideration
in dry and semi-arid regions [5]. Thus, ensuring the sustainability of agricultural production
is the primary objective of new policies [6,7]. Comparatively to other land uses, agricultural
land use is more demanding in terms of soil performance and quality. Due to the different
crop nutrient needs and the physico-chemical characteristics of soils, not all soils can
be used for agriculture, and not all crops can be successfully produced under certain
soil conditions [8]. Researchers believe that mapping land suitability is crucial for this
reason [1,9,10]. After rice and corn, wheat is the field crop with the largest cultivation area
(217 million hectares), the highest production (776 million tons), and the highest commerce
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 2 of 23

volume (189 million tons) [11]. To fulfill the demands of the growing global population, the
yearly production of 642 million tons of wheat needs to be raised to 840 million tons by
the middle of the 21st century [12]. The world’s largest wheat collection at the N.I. Vavilov
Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) evaluated winter wheat adaptation to climate change
for 50 years of genepool research [13], as the control of wheat diseases using bioagents is
not well studied under field conditions [14]. In this regard, land suitability analyses are
necessary to guarantee an efficient and sustainable supply of wheat from agricultural lands,
which are scarce natural resources [15–17]. Parent materials, soil texture, organic matter,
slope, and depth are intrinsic soil features that affect land suitability. Similarly, elements
that may be influenced by human management, such as drainage, irrigation, soil and
water quality, soil fertility, and crop management [1], can also affect land sustainability. In
certain wheat-growing regions, excessive nitrogen levels also caused a drop in agronomic
productivity [18].
A number of high-quality decision-making tools that execute complex treatments
involving numerous variables have been made possible by the new models and analysis
techniques [19,20]. Transferring fertile lands to future generations for their food and
fiber products requires an accurate assessment of the suitability of the land for multiple
uses [21]. The physical and chemical characteristics of the soil are analyzed in terms
of their appropriateness for the chosen irrigation systems [22,23]. However, all of these
studies fail to take into account how soil qualities vary over time, which makes their
evaluations insufficiently accurate [24]. The geometric mean algorism (GMA), which is the
nth root of a sequence of values, has been extensively utilized to evaluate soil quality and
crop suitability [25–27]. GMA was used to determine the chemical, physical, and fertility
indicators, demonstrating its meticulous performance in assessing the suitability for wheat
and rice crops [16,28].
The characteristics of soil change over time issue can be solved by using an effective
optimization technique such as fuzzy inference system (FIS), which, can be considered one
of the most effective artificial intelligence techniques based on expert systems [29] dealing
with uncertainty in soil indicators. However, these uncertainties affect the final decision.
When planning for the production of a particular crop, the combination of fuzzy algorithms
and GIS techniques is an appropriate strategy for assessing the suitability of the land and
minimizing the harmful environmental effects of agricultural activities in many previous
studies [30–35].
In [31], the FAO framework for land evaluation is used to determine suitability. The
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used for MCE to judge the parameters and
compute the priority index for each parameter. To create a land suitability map with
unique characteristics, the various thematic layers were overlaid using ArcGIS version
9.2 software. The estimation of agricultural land suitability depends on the inference rules
relating land features to suitability classes. The fuzzy inference is built with specified
evaluation criteria, such as value ranges for fuzzy linguistic terms and weights of land
variables in fuzzy logic modeling for agricultural land evaluation [32]. A GIS-integrated
fuzzy rule-based inference system for land suitability evaluation in agricultural watersheds,
incorporating both land potential and surface water potential. The terrain, soil physico-
chemical properties, soil moisture stress, and feasibility of supplementary irrigation from
surface water resources are all taken into account when determining suitability. To make
modeling easier, a large number of attributes are used [33]. GIS is regarded as a valuable tool
that the agricultural sectors in developing countries must employ because of its interactive
and obvious capacity for developing wise decisions that result in effective agriculture
management systems [31]. As [34,35] mentioned, the fuzzy inference system model is an
effective and robust system for land assessment, with higher accuracy than conventional
methods because of its high accuracy. The proposed model was found to be reasonably
useful for assessing land suitability.
Many studies on the application of fuzzy systems and GIS in determining optimal
cultivation areas in various parts of the world have been conducted, and a number of these
 Many studies on the application of fuzzy systems and GIS in determining optimal
cultivation areas in various parts of the world have been conducted, and a number of
these studies have used fuzzy systems to evaluate agricultural land suitability
[7,24,36,37]. The Nile Delta is one of the most densely populated regions in the world,
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 3 of 23
and it is well known for its agricultural activities [38]. Hence, in order to boost the pro-
duction of agricultural crops, alternative methods of land evaluation are required.
In this article, the main objective is to evaluate and predict the suitability of the land
studies have used fuzzy systems to evaluate agricultural land suitability [7,24,36,37]. The
for growing wheat by means of developing a novel approach based on the fuzzy infer-
Nile Delta is one of the most densely populated regions in the world, and it is well known
ence system (FIS), an effective artificial intelligence technique, and GIS in a semi-arid and
for its agricultural activities [38]. Hence, in order to boost the production of agricultural
arid region
crops, (West Nile
alternative Delta,
methods of Egypt). The crop
land evaluation aresuitability
required. discussed in this article will take
into consideration the main
In this article, the seventeen soilis characteristics.
objective Decision-makers
to evaluate and predict and
the suitability of stakeholders
the land
may benefit from
for growing wheatthebystudy’s
means offindings as they
developing work
a novel to further
approach boost
based agricultural
on the output in
fuzzy inference
the area and pursue sustainable development goals.
system (FIS), an effective artificial intelligence technique, and GIS in a semi-arid and arid
region (West Nile Delta, Egypt). The crop suitability discussed in this article will take into
2.consideration
Materials andtheMethods
seventeen soil characteristics. Decision-makers and stakeholders may
benefit from the study’s findings as they work to further boost agricultural output in the
2.1. Study Area
area and pursue sustainable development goals.
The Nile Delta in northwest, Egypt is where we decided to conduct our research. the
2. Materials
area is 797.00and kmMethods
2, and it is located between the coordinates 30°15′0″ 30°40′0″ E and

2.1. Study
31°7′15″ Area
31°30′45″ N, as indicated in Figure 1. The location is categorized as having a
Mediterranean climate
The Nile Delta in [39]. DuringEgypt
northwest, the dry season,
is where weAugust
decidedfrequently
to conduct records a relatively
our research.
the area is 797.00 km 2 , and it is located between the coordinates 30◦ 150 000 30◦ 400 000 E and
high average maximum temperature of 30 °C. The typical low temperature in January is
◦ 70 1500 31◦ 300 4500 N, as indicated in Figure 1. The location is categorized as having a
1331°C. With a typical annual rainfall of roughly 17.23 mm/year from November to Feb-
Mediterranean
ruary. climate
Precipitation is [39]. During light
frequently the dry
andseason,
foggy. August
Due frequently records a relatively
to the comparatively high tem-
high average maximum temperature of 30 ◦ C. The typical low temperature in January is
peratures in June and September, evaporation rates are at their maximum. The lowest
13 ◦ C. With a typical annual rainfall of roughly 17.23 mm/year from November to February.
rates of evaporation are noticed in January and December because of the low tempera-
Precipitation is frequently light and foggy. Due to the comparatively high temperatures
tures.
in JuneTheand most widely produced
September, evaporation field crops
rates are in
at the
theirresearch
maximum. areaThe
are lowest
rice, wheat, maize,
rates of
and
evaporation are noticed in January and December because of the low temperatures. Thecitrus
alfalfa. The three tree fruits that are most frequently planted in orchards are
(orange),
most widely guava, and mango
produced [40].in Typic
field crops Torrifluvents,
the research area are Typic Torripsamments,
rice, wheat, Typic Hap-
maize, and alfalfa.
losalids,
The three Vertic
tree Natrargids,
fruits that areandmostVertic Torrifluvents
frequently planted in are some are
orchards proposed classifications
citrus (orange), guava, for
and mango
these [40]. Typic Torrifluvents, Typic Torripsamments, Typic Haplosalids, Vertic Natrargids,
soils [40].
and Vertic Torrifluvents are some proposed classifications for these soils [40].

Figure 1. The location of the subject region.

Figure 1. The location of the subject region.
2.2. Collecting Samples and Laboratory Testing
Based on geomorphological field mapping of the study region [41] using the global
positioning system (GPS), a total of 15 soil profiles were georeferenced, as shown in Figure 2.
According to FAO [42] and USDA [43], morphological descriptions and classifications of
 2.2. Collecting Samples and Laboratory Testing
Based on geomorphological field mapping of the study region [41] using the global
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 positioning system (GPS), a total of 15 soil profiles were georeferenced, as shown in4Fig- of 23
ure 2. According to FAO [42] and USDA [43], morphological descriptions and classifica-
tions of soil profiles were conducted, respectively. Soil profiles were excavated down to
the
soilwater table,
profiles wereorconducted,
at a depthrespectively.
of 150 cm. SoilSoil profiles
profiles vary
were in depth from
excavated down 80totothe
150water
cm.
Chemical analyses, such as salinity (EC), soil response (pH), percentage
table, or at a depth of 150 cm. Soil profiles vary in depth from 80 to 150 cm. Chemical of calcium car-
bonate
analyses,(CaCO ), salinity
such 3as and percentage
(EC), soil of exchangeable
response sodium (ESP),
(pH), percentage are carbonate
of calcium conducted. Addi-),
(CaCO 3
tionally, the physical properties of the soil, such as particle size distribution,
and percentage of exchangeable sodium (ESP), are conducted. Additionally, the physical hydraulic
conductivity
properties of(HC), and
the soil, water
such holding size
as particle capacity (WHC) [44],
distribution, and fertility,
hydraulic which(HC),
conductivity is meas-
and
ured
waterby the percentage
holding of soil organic
capacity (WHC) [44], and matter (SOM%)
fertility, which and the amount
is measured by theof accessible
percentageni- of
trogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium (K), and zinc (Zn) in the soil,
soil organic matter (SOM%) and the amount of accessible nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), were also carried
out [45–49].(K),
potassium Theand analysis was in
zinc (Zn) conducted in thealso
the soil, were accredited soil,[45–49].
carried out water, andTheplant
analysislabora-
was
tory at Tanta University’s Faculty of Agriculture in accordance with ISO/IEC
conducted in the accredited soil, water, and plant laboratory at Tanta University’s Faculty 17025:2017
requirements.
of Agriculture in accordance with ISO/IEC 17025:2017 requirements.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Soil
Soilprofile
profilelocation.
location.

2.3. Soil
2.3. SoilProperties
PropertiesMapping
Mapping with
with Inverse
Inverse Distance
Distance Weight
Weight(IDW)
(IDW)
The term
The term “inverse”
“inverse”denotes
denotesthat,
that,inincomparison
comparisonto tosample
samplepoints
pointsthat
thatare
arefar
faraway,
away,
sample points that are close have larger weights and have more of
sample points that are close have larger weights and have more of an impact on the cal- an impact on the
calculation
culation of missing
of missing or or unknown
unknown points
points [50].
[50]. IDW
IDW interpolationisisan
interpolation anexact
exactmethod
methodwithwithaa
linear combination
linear combination of of data.
data. Because
BecauseIDW IDWisisuncomplicated,
uncomplicated,simple,
simple,and
andeasy to to
easy useuse
[51–54]
[51–
as well as superior and precise to kriging [55–58], it is frequently employed
54] as well as superior and precise to kriging [55–58], it is frequently employed in soil in soil research,
utilizing the
research, ArcGIS
utilizing the10.7 IDW10.7
ArcGIS tool,IDW
which is frequently
tool, used to interpolate
which is frequently maps of certain
used to interpolate maps
soil attributes [59,60]. Equation (1) illustrates how the local impact
of certain soil attributes [59,60]. Equation (1) illustrates how the local impact reduces as reduces
one moves as
away
one fromaway
moves the measurement site.
from the measurement site.
 
z
∑nI=1 dii
zp =   (1)
∑ni=1 d1i

where zp is the value anticipated at point P, zi is the z value at the observed location, i and
di is the spacing between those two points.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 5 of 23

2.4. Crop Suitability Assessment Using FIS

Land suitability analysis is a land evaluation method that assesses the degree to which
land is suitable for a certain use [16]. The current study is a quantitative evaluation of
land to identify its suitability for wheat cultivation based on its soil properties in the study
area. According to [61,62], Table S1, which shows the selection of influencing elements, was
based on the wheat crop’s growth requirements. Seventeen parameters have been used
in this paper to investigate land suitability for wheat. These are salinity, pH, ESP, CaCO3 ,
drainage, texture, depth, topography, surface stoniness, hard pan, hydraulic conductivity,
water holding capacity, organic matter, N, P, K, and Zn. In determining land suitability,
three thematic indicators were used: soil chemical, physical, and fertility suitability indices.
The GMA was used to calculate the three suitability indices [16,25–28] from Equation (2)
as follows: p
Indexx = n S1 × S2 × S3 × . . . × Sn (2)
where x is the suitability index, S is the score of the parameter, and n is the number
of parameters.
The scores of parameters ranged from 0.2 to 1, namely from the worst condition to the
best condition based on [61,62], as shown in Table S1.
Each index was split into four groups, with Class 1 denoting a high suitability, Class 2
a moderate suitability, Class 3 a low suitability, and Class 4 a very low suitability. The
range of values for each index was divided by the four intervals to obtain the width of
each interval. By adding this number to each index’s lowest value and continuing in the
same way until the index’s top range was reached, the upper limit of the first interval was
generated [25,63].
To achieve the goal of crop suitability (CS) assessment, an efficient, advanced, time-
saving, and more accurate method is required. All these features are available in the widely
used artificial intelligence technologies of recent times. In this work, the fuzzy inference
system (FIS) will be used as one of the most important applications of artificial intelli-
gence, which has proven its effectiveness and efficiency in various fields of agricultural
research [7,32,35–37,64]. This application depends on several steps, as shown in Figure 3.

2.4.1. Fuzzification
Fuzzification is the process of converting sharp attribute values into the common
range of 0 to 1 using the Membership Function (MF) [65–67]. The MF in the FIS is a function
that assesses a variable’s membership in a given class and determines its degree of truth
(membership grade/possibility). A variable’s MF must be defined in terms of a precise
quantitative value. Where appropriate, membership is chosen for the function used [65–67].
In this paper, sigmoidal, Gaussian, and zmf membership functions are chosen to express the
different input degrees depending on their ability to specify this problem. Zmf membership
(Equation (3)) is assumed to describe a very low variable; Gauss MF (Equation (4)) is
assumed for low and moderate variables; and sigmoidal (Equation (5)) describes a very
high variable. The symmetric Z-shaped membership function depends on two parameters,
a and b, as given by:


 1, x≤a
  2
x−a
x ≤ a+2 b

1 − 2 b−a ,


f(x; a, b) =  2 (3)
x−b a+b



 2 b−a , 2 ≤ x ≤ b

0, x>b


where f is the Zmf of variable x; a and c are the Zmf membership parameters, which depict
the shape of the zmf function.
Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 23
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 6 of 23

Figure 3. A model of FIS for identifying optimal areas of wheat crop suitability.
Figure 3. A model of FIS for identifying optimal areas of wheat crop suitability.
However, the symmetric Gaussian function depends on two parameters σ and c, as
2.4.1.
givenFuzzification
by:
−(x−c)m
Fuzzification is the process of converting
f(x; σ, c) = sharp
e 2ex attribute values into the common(4)
range of 0 to 1 using the Membership Function (MF) [65–67]. The MF in the FIS is a func-
where
tion that fassesses
is the Gaussian MF of
a variable’s a variable x;
membership inσa isgiven
the standard
class anddeviation
determines anditsc is the mean
degree of
value, which depict the shape of the Gaussian function. Here c
truth (membership grade/possibility). A variable’s MF must be defined in termsσ of represents center, repre-
a
sents width
precise and m value.
quantitative represents fuzzification
Where appropriate,factor and it is equal
membership 2.
is chosen for the function
Moreover,
used [65–67]. In the
thissigmoidal function, sigmf
paper, sigmoidal, (x [a, c]),
Gaussian, andaszmf
given in the following
membership equation
functions areby
f (x; a,toc) express
chosen is a mapping on a vector
the different input x, and depends
degrees on two on
depending parameters a and
their ability to cspecify
as following:
this
problem. Zmf membership (Equation (3)) is assumed 1 to describe a very low variable;
Gauss MF (Equation (4)) is assumed f(x; a,for = and−amoderate
c) low variables; and sigmoidal(5)
1 + e (x−c)
(Equation (5)) describes a very high variable. The symmetric Z-shaped membership
function depends
2.4.2. Input on two
Attribute parameters,for
Descriptions a and b, asfor
the MF given
Site by:
Suitability
Chemical Suitability Ranking 1, x≤a
The chemical suitability index ⎧ (CSI) isxan−indispensable
a a + bin selecting a suitable
factor
⎪1soil
site for crop agriculture as it defines −2 degradation., The chemical
x≤
b−a 2suitability index can be
𝑓(x; a,(6)
calculated from Equation b)as=follows: (3)
⎨p x − b a+b
2
CSI =⎪4 ECb×
, ≤x≤b
−pH
a × ESP × CaCO
2 3 (6)
⎩ 0, x>b
where CSI = chemical suitability index; EC = soil salinity; pH = soil reaction; ESP = soil
where f is the Zmf
exchangeable of variable
sodium x; a and
percentage; andcCaCO
are the Zmf membership parameters, which de-
3 = proportion of soil calcium carbonate. Four
pict the shape of the zmf function.
categories—very low, low, moderate, and high—are used in the present research to catego-
rize the suitability of chemical substances, as shown in Table S2. Using Equations (7)–(10)
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 7 of 23

for various chemical suitability index values, it is possible to calculate the chemical suitabil-
ity index MF of each class. The chemical suitability index is expressed in percentage terms
in these equations. If µCSI (VL), µCSI (L), µCSI (M) and µCSI (H) are the MFs for the classes
very low, low, moderate, and high, then,

µCSI (VL) = f(CSI; aCSIVL , bCSIVL ) (7)

µCSI (L) = f(CSI; σCSIL , cCSIL ) (8)

µCSI (M) = f(CSI; σCSIM , cCSIM ) (9)

µCSI (H) = f(CSI; aCSIH , cCSIH ) (10)

where CSI is the chemical suitability index, and the subscripts (CSIVL, CSIL, CSIM, and
CSIH) denote the classes of chemical suitability index for which the MF parameters a, b,
and c fall into the very low, low, moderate, and high categories, respectively.

Physical Suitability Ranking

As it defines soil degradation, the physical suitability index (PSI) is also an important
component in selecting a suitable location for crop production. As stated in the following
Equation (11), the physical suitability index can be derived.
√
8
PSI = R × T × D × FF × SS × HP × HC × WHC (11)

where PSI = physical index; R = drainage; T = texture; D = depth; FF = topography; SS = %

surface stoniness; HP = hard pan; HC = hydraulic conductivity (cm/h); and WHC = water
holding capacity (%). In this study, physical appropriateness is broken down into four
categories: very low, low, moderate, and high, as shown in Table S3. Equations (12)–(15) for
various chemical suitability index indices can be used to calculate the MFs for each class of
physical suitability index. In these equations, the physical suitability index is expressed as
a percentage. If µPSI (VL), µPSI (L), µPSI (M), and µPSI (H) are the MF for the classes very low,
low, moderate, and high, then,

µPSI (VL) = f (PSI; aPSIVL , bPSIVL ) (12)

µPSI (L) = f (PSI; σPSIL , cPSIL ) (13)

µPSI (M) = f (PSI; σPSIM , cPSIM ) (14)

µPSI (H ) = f (PSI; aPSIH , cPSIH ) (15)

PSI is the physical suitability index, and the subscripts (PSIVL, PSIL, PSIM, and PSIH)
indicate that the MF parameters a, b, and c belong to the very low, low, moderate, and high
classes of the physical suitability index, respectively.

Fertility Suitability Ranking

Because soil fertility loss and nutrient depletion are the main causes of low production,
it is obligatory to reduce loss and improve usage efficiency in order to achieve sustainable
development. The fertility suitability index (FSI) was calculated using the following
Equation (16): √
5
FSI = N × P × K × OM × Zn (16)
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 8 of 23

where FSI = fertility suitability index; N, P, and K = available nitrogen, phosphorus, potas-
sium, respectively; OM = organic matter (%); and Zn = available zinc. The appropriateness
of fertility is divided into four groups in the present investigation: very low, low, moderate,
and high, as shown in Table S4. The MF for each class of fertility appropriateness index
can be calculated using Equations (17)–(20) for different fertility suitability indexes. The
fertility appropriateness index is represented as a percentage in these equations. If the MF
for the classes very low, low, moderate, and high is µFSI (VL), µFSI (L), µFSI (M), and µFSI (H),
respectively, then

µFSI (VL) = f (FSI; aFSIVL , bFSIVL ) (17)

µFSI (L) = f (FSI; σFSIL , cFSIL ) (18)

µFSI (M) = f (FSI; σFSIM , cFSIM ) (19)

µFSI (H ) = f (FSI; aFSIH , cFSIH ) (20)

The subscripts (FSIVL, FSIL, FSIM, and FSIH) indicate that the MF parameters a, b, and
c belong to the very low, low, moderate, and high classes of the fertility suitability index.

Final Crop Suitability Ranking

The final crop suitability index (FCSI) was described according to Equation (21):
√3
FCSI = CSI × PSI × FSI (21)

where FCSI = final crop suitability index; CSI = chemical suitability index; PSI = physical
suitability index; and FSI = fertility index. In the current study, the suitability of the
final crop is classified as unsuitable, low, moderate, and high, as shown in Table S5.
Equations (22)–(25) for different final crop suitability indexes can be used to calculate
the MF for each class of final crop suitability appropriateness index. In these equations,
the final crop suitability and appropriateness index are represented as a percentage. If the
MF is µFCSI (US), µFCSI (L), µFCSI (M), and µFCSI (H) for the classes unsuitable, low, moderate,
and high, respectively, then

µFCSI (US) = f(FCSI; aFCSIUS , bCSIUS ) (22)

µFCSI (L) = f(FCSI; σFCSIL , cFCSIL ) (23)

µFCSI (M) = f(FCSI; σFCSIM , cFCSIM ) (24)

µFCSI (H) = f(FCSI; aFCSIH , cFCSIH ) (25)

The subscripts (FCSIUS, FCSIL, FCSIM, and FCSIH) indicate that the MF parameters
a, b, and c belong to the unsuitable, low, moderate, and high classes of the final crop
suitability index.

2.4.3. MF Parameters for the Input Variables

The triangle curve’s structure is defined by the MF parameters, which have a min-
imum value of 0 and a maximum value of 1. This method depends on the availability
of data and the desired application, and the MF parameters are often defined by expert
knowledge and/or developed using measured data. Numerous researchers have employed
optimization methods to determine the ideal set of MF parameters for a certain FIS applica-
 2.4.3. MF Parameters for the Input Variables
The triangle curve’s structure is defined by the MF parameters, which have a min-
imum value of 0 and a maximum value of 1. This method depends on the availability of
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 data and the desired application, and the MF parameters are often defined by expert 9 of 23
knowledge and/or developed using measured data. Numerous researchers have em-
ployed optimization methods to determine the ideal set of MF parameters for a certain
FIS application [68–70]. However, because there is not enough data to compare the re-
tion [68–70]. However, because there is not enough data to compare the results of the FIS
sults of the FIS output to the observed data, the MF parameters in this paper are deter-
output to the observed data, the MF parameters in this paper are determined based on a
mined based on a review of the literature and the knowledge of some experts in the field.
review of the literature and the knowledge of some experts in the field. The MF parameters
The MF parameters of fuzzy sets translate the input variable into a number of overlap-
of fuzzy sets translate the input variable into a number of overlapping fuzzy regions, as
ping fuzzy regions, as opposed to conventional sets with sharp borders [65,71,33]. The
opposed to conventional sets with sharp borders [33,65,71]. The advantage of fuzzy sets
advantage of fuzzy
is that the setsinisthe
elements thatsetthe elements
become in the
partial set become
because partial
the fuzzy because
regions the fuzzy
overlap, and the
regions overlap, and the transition from one region to another is gradual. The MFs
transition from one region to another is gradual. The MFs of the different are as shown of the
different are as
in (Figure 4).shown in (Figure 4).

(a)

Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 23

(b)

(c)
Figure 4. (a)
Figure Chemical
4. (a) suitability
Chemical index
suitability membership
index membership function (CSI).
function (b) Physical
(CSI). suitability
(b) Physical indexindex
suitability
membership function (PSI). (c) Fertility suitability index membership function (FSI).
membership function (PSI). (c) Fertility suitability index membership function (FSI).

AsAs shown
shown in in
Figure
Figure 4a,4a,
many
many MFMF classes
classesoverlap,
overlap, andand anan individual
individual element cancan
element
belong
belongto to
multiple
multipleclasses. AsAs
classes. shown
shown in Figure 4, the
in Figure MFs
4, the MFsof of
thetheinput
inputvariables
variablesoverlap.
overlap.
AsAssuch,
such, a value
a valueof of
8%8% in in
thethe
chemical
chemical suitability index
suitability indexfalls in in
falls bothboththethe
low and
low andmedium
medium
classes with
classes varying
with varying degrees
degreesof of
belongingness
belongingness (Figure
(Figure4a). ForFor
4a). thethelow, medium,
low, medium, and high
and high
classes, thethe
classes, membership
membership values
valuesforfor
thethe
8%8%slope
slopewould
would be be
0.2,0.2,
0.8,0.8,
andand0, respectively. It It
0, respectively.
should be noted that a given element’s various classes must all have
should be noted that a given element’s various classes must all have membership values membership values
that add
that addupup to to
one. In Figure
one. In Figure4b,4b,
thethe
MFsMFsof physical
of physicaland fertility
and areare
fertility depicted
depictedsimilarly in in
similarly
Figure 4c. Table 1 lists the membership function limits to input the three variables ac-
cording to their types and as decided by wheat growers.

Table 1. Fuzzy membership function parameters.

Very Low Low Moderate High

Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 10 of 23

Figure 4c. Table 1 lists the membership function limits to input the three variables according
to their types and as decided by wheat growers.

Table 1. Fuzzy membership function parameters.

Very Low Low Moderate High

a b c Σ c σ a c
CSI 0.2 0.38 0.38 0.066 0.53 0.061 0.65 0.57
PSI 0.53 0.63 0.64 0.054 0.77 0.05 0.78 0.88
FSI 0.167 0.29 0.32 0.078 0.51 0.073 0.52 0.59

2.4.4. Creation of the Crop Suitability Fuzzy Rule Base

The studies [72–75], in addition to the consulted experts, served as the foundation for
the fuzzy rule established in this work. Because each of the three input types is divided
into four categories using the fuzzy outputs of the FIS, as was already mentioned, there
are 81 IF-THEN rules in the FIS. All levels of suitability—unsuitable, low, moderate, and
high—are acceptable. A common illustration of the FIS rules is:
If the CSI is low, the PSI is low, and the FSI is high, check the compatibility of the soil.
In this research, all three variables are given equal weighting in the FIS rules. Each
rule base regulation takes a group of input variables from the fuzzy set and then provides
the suitable score for the soil in the suitability class for a particular crop. Some of the
rules-based expert system for the crop suitability score will be demonstrated in Figure 5,
and the rest of the 81 rules will be in the same manner. As shown in Figure 5, the rules will
be as follows:
1. If (CSI is very low) and (PSI is very low) and (FSI is moderate), then (FCSI is low), as
shown in orange lines.
2. If (CSI is low), (PSI is moderate), and (FSI is very low), then (FCSI is unsuitable), as
shown in the green lines.
3. If (CSI is high) and (PSI is very low) and (FSI is high), then (FCSI is moderate), as
shown in the violet lines.
4. If (CSI is high) and (PSI is low) and (FSI is low), then (FCSI is high), as shown in the
blue lines.

2.4.5. Aggregation of Rules

For assessing the overall suitability of a site for a specific crop, the output from all the
fuzzy rules is combined. The method of obtaining the desired output from the rule base is
referred to as rule aggregation. This study employs the Mamdani Implication approach, a
maximum-minimum aggregation method [33,65,76]. This method selects a criterion’s MF
property based on its lowest value. The outputs from each rule’s set are selected for their
maximum values, and the corresponding outputs from each rule are then combined using
the fuzzy union operator, as shown in Equations (26) and (27) below [33,65]:
  
Soil suitabilty (µ) = max min µkc (variable 1), µkc (variable 2), µkc (variable 3) (26)

k = 1, 2, . . . , 81 (number of rules) and c = 1, 2, 3) (27)

where soil suitability (µ) is the membership grade of the suitability, µkc is the membership
level of the input variable in rule k, and variable 1. Moreover, variables 1, 2, and 3 are the
input variables to the FIS. Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of the developed FIS.
The inference engine considers the fuzzified input variables and evaluates all fuzzy rules;
the resulting fuzzed-up output is then defuzzified to determine the suitability class.
3, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 11 of 23 11 of 23

Figure 5. Some of the rules-based

Figure 5. Some ofsystems.
the rules-based systems.

2.4.6. Defuzzification of the FIS Output

2. If (CSI is low), (PSI is moderate), and (FSI is very low), then (FCSI is unsuitable), as
In the Mamdani method of rule aggregation, the output of the FIS is a fuzzy variable
shown in the green lines.
that needs to be defuzzified in order to be used in the decision domain. There are several
3. 3 If (CSI is high) and (PSI is very low) and (FSI is high), then (FCSI is moderate), as
defuzzifications, including these:
shown in the violet lines.
1. The centroid technique [65];
4. 4.If (CSI is high)
2. andThe (PSI is low)
principle, and
mean (FSI is low),
maximum then (FCSI
membership [65]; is high), as shown in the
blue lines. 3. The weighted average method [33];
4. The use of inflection points [77].
2.4.5. Aggregation of Rules
The most frequently used technique is maximum membership. In this study, the
maximum
For assessing the overall membership principle
suitability was applied
of a site during defuzzification.
for a specific crop, the output The maximum
from all of the
largest membership value of the suitability class serves as the most representative value in
the fuzzy rules is combined. The method of obtaining the desired output from the rule
this method.
base is referred to asBased
rule on
aggregation.
the chemical,This study
physical, andemploys the Mamdani
fertility characteristics Implication
of the soil, FIS is used in
approach, a maximum-minimum aggregation
this study to determine method
the best locations [65,33,76].
for growing This
wheat method
crops, selects
which aids a
in increasing
criterion’s MF property based on its lowest value. The outputs from each rule’s set are this
crop yield. The Fuzzy Logic Toolbox and the MATLAB module were used to further
selected for their research,
maximum andvalues,
all aspects
andof the
the study’s model were
corresponding subjected
outputs fromto this
eachprocess.
rule are Figure 6
depicts the crop suitability score’s output membership as it is presented using FIS.
then combined using the fuzzy union operator, as shown in Equations (26) and (27) be-
low [65,33]:

Soil suitabilty (μ) = max min μ (variable 1), μ (variable 2), μ (variable 3) (26)

k = 1, 2, . . . , 81 (number of rules) and c = 1, 2, 3) (27)

where soil suitability (µ) is the membership grade of the suitability, μ is the member-
ship level of the input variable in rule k, and variable 1. Moreover, variables 1, 2, and 3 are
the input variables to the FIS. Figure 2 shows a schematic representation of the developed
FIS. The inference engine considers the fuzzified input variables and evaluates all fuzzy
rules; the resulting fuzzed-up output is then defuzzified to determine the suitability class.

2.4.6. Defuzzification of the FIS Output

 Based on the chemical, physical, and fertility characteristics of the soil, FIS is used in
this study to determine the best locations for growing wheat crops, which aids in in-
creasing crop yield. The Fuzzy Logic Toolbox and the MATLAB module were used to
further this research, and all aspects of the study’s model were subjected to this process.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 12816 depicts the crop suitability score’s output membership as it is presented using12 of 23
Figure
FIS.

Figure
Figure 6. The output 6. The output
membership membership
of the of the
final crop final cropindex
suitability suitability index as presented
as presented using FIS.
using FIS.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Soil Characteristics in the Study Area
3.1. Soil CharacteristicsThe
in study
the Study
area’sArea
soil characteristics are listed in Table 2 and interpolated in Figure S1.
There are differences in soil texture between clay, silt clay, silt clay loam, sand, and sandy
The study area’s soil characteristics are listed in Table 2 and interpolated in Figure
loam. Hydraulic conductivity (HC), which ranged from 0.29 to 14.56 (cm h−1 ), expresses
S1. There are differences
water flowinand soilpore
texture between
structure in soil clay, silt clay, silt
[78]. Hydraulic clay loam,
conductivity is asand,
crucialandindicator
sandy loam. Hydraulic conductivity (HC), which ranged from 0.29
of soil pore structure and water movement [27]. Moreover, the water holding to 14.56 (cm h−1), ex-
capacity
presses water flow and ofpore
(WHC) structure
soil varies widelyin from
soil [78].
5.47 toHydraulic
50.63%. Theconductivity
depth of the soil is was
a crucial
between in-80 and
150 cm.
dicator of soil pore Both non-saline
structure and water andmovement
high-salinity[27]. soils Moreover,
may be found thein water
this region, where the
holding
− 1 ± 5.31be-dS m−1 .
capacity (WHC) EC values
of soil rangewidely
varies from 0.64 to 19.64
from 5.47dS tom50.63%., with The
an average
depthvalueof the of soil
5.45 was
Most salinized soils are found in drylands because of the arid climate and high evaporation
tween 80 and 150 cm. Both non-saline and high-salinity soils may be found in this region,
rates [79]. This fits the overall pattern of the northern delta, where excessive soil salinity
where the EC values range from
characterizes 0.64 to 19.64
the majority of the dSsoilm
−1, with an average value of 5.45 ± 5.31
[80–84]. Leaching high-salinity soils requires high-
dS m−1. Most salinized soils [85,86].
quality water are found in drylands
The soil because
pH in the research of the
region arid
ranges fromclimate
8.08 toand8.86, high
making the
evaporation ratesenvironment
[79]. This fits the to
alkaline overall
stronglypattern ofAreas
alkaline. the northern delta,and
in the northeast where excessive
southeast of the study
area had thethe
soil salinity characterizes highest pH values
majority of the(Figure
soilS1b). ThereLeaching
[80–84]. is a significant degree of pHsoils
high-salinity similarity
requires high-quality water [85,86]. The soil pH in the research region ranges from 8.08 to (SD)
among the various units in the research area, as indicated by the standard deviation
of pH = 0.25 [87]. Physical, chemical, and biological aspects are known to be influenced
8.86, making the environment alkaline to strongly alkaline. Areas in the northeast and
by soil pH [88–90]. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) has a range of 7.5 to 90.4 g Kg−1 . Shell
southeast of the study area
particles couldhad thecause
be the highest
of thepH values
highest CaCO (Figure S1b). There is a significant
3 value [91]. The data show that the CaCO3
degree of pH similarity among
content varies the various
greatly within theunitsstudyinarea
the(SD research
= 20.26).area,
CaCO as3 levels
indicated by highest
were the the in
standard deviationthe (SD)
middleofandpHsouthwest
= 0.25 [87].
of thePhysical,
investigated chemical, andS1d).
area (Figure biological aspects
The formation are hard
of very
layers that
known to be influenced byare impermeable
soil pH [88–90]. to water
Calciumand crop roots, as(CaCO
carbonate well as phosphorus
3) has a range fixation fertilizer
of 7.5
to 90.4 g Kg−1. Shell particles could be the cause of the highest CaCO33 value [91]. The dataof ESP
in calcareous soils, can result in areas with the highest CaCO values [92]. The range
values is 3.22% to 24.94%, with an average of 11.27 ± 6.06%, indicating sodicity hazards
show that the CaCO3 content varies greatly within the study area (SD = 20.26). CaCO3
in the area [93]. The upper northwest of the research area has seen an increase in the
levels were the highest in the middle
spatial patterns andESP
of EC and southwest of the Clay
(Figure S1a,c). investigated
and SOM area content(Figure S1d).to the
are related
The formation ofCEC,
verywhich
hardranges
layersfrom
that5.82
aretoimpermeable −
42.24 cmol kg to, with1 water anand cropofroots,
average kg−1 [94].
as well
29.80 cmol
− 1
as phosphorus fixation fertilizer
The research area’sinSOM
calcareous soils,varied
concentration can result in areas
from 2.04 to 12.2 with
g Kgthe. highest
A slight SOM
CaCO3 values [92]. The range of ESP values is 3.22% to 24.94%, with an average of 11.27is ±crucial
concentration was noted in the research area’s soils, despite the fact that SOM
6.06%, indicatingfor enhancing the physical and chemical characteristics of soil [95,96]. The available N
sodicity hazards in the area −1 [93]. The upper northwest of the research
ranges from 7.5 to 81 mg N kg , demonstrating that the nitrogen content in the study area
differs from low to moderate [28]. According to [88], the research area’s available P and
K content is categorized as moderate since the average values are 14.97 mg P Kg−1 and
277 mg K Kg−1 , respectively.
 content in the study area differs from low to moderate [28]. According to [88], the re-
search area’s available P and K content is categorized as moderate since the average
values are 14.97 mg P Kg−1 and 277 mg K Kg−1, respectively.

Table
Agronomy 2023, 13, 2. Statistics
1281 of selected soil properties (n = 61). 13 of 23

C pH ESP CaCO3 Depth WHC HC AN AP AK AZn OM

S m−11:2.5 % g kg−1 cm 2. Statistics

Table %of selected soil
cmproperties
h−1 mg (n
kg=−161). g kg−1

64 8.08 3.22 EC 7.50 pH ESP

80.00 CaCO
5.47
3 Depth WHC
0.29 HC
7.50 AN 9.30
6.30 AP AK
0.20 AZn
2.40 OM

.64 8.86 Statistical

24.94 dS 90.40 150.00 cm
1:2.5 % g kg50.63
−1 cm 14.56
% 81.00 22.30
mg kg−457.10
1 1.50 12.20 g kg−1
Param. m−1 h−1
45 8.49 11.27 39.04 128.67 36.78 4.39 48.34 14.97 277.00 1.16 8.16
Min. 0.64 8.08 3.22 7.50 80.00 5.47 0.29 7.50 6.30 9.30 0.20 2.40
31 0.25 6.06 20.26 26.42 18.41 4.87 24.53 5.10 173.91 0.52 3.26
Max. 19.64 8.86 24.94 90.40 150.00 50.63 14.56 81.00 22.30 457.10 1.50 12.20
80 −0.19 0.66 0.85 −0.80 −1.12 1.51 −0.53 −0.23 −0.81 −1.10 −0.76
Mean 5.45 8.49 11.27 39.04 128.67 36.78 4.39 48.34 14.97 277.00 1.16 8.16
14 −1.05 0.17 2.09 −0.76 −0.70 0.74 −1.06 −1.28 −1.10 −0.55 −0.43
St. Dev. 5.31 0.25 6.06 20.26 26.42 18.41 4.87 24.53 5.10 173.91 0.52 3.26
Min—Minimum; Max—Maximum; SD—standard deviation; EC—electrical conductivity; pH—soil
Skewness 1.80 −0.19 0.66 0.85 −0.80 −1.12 1.51 −0.53 −0.23 −0.81 −1.10 −0.76
reaction; ESP—exchangeable sodium percentage; CaCO3—calcium carbonate percentage;
KurtosisWHC—water
3.14 −1.05 0.17 capacity;
holding 2.09 −0.76 −0.70
HC—hydraulic 0.74 −1.06 AN—available
conductivity; −1.28 −1.10 nitrogen;−0.55 −0.43
Min—Minimum; Max—Maximum; SD—standard deviation; EC—electrical
AP—available phosphorous; AK—available potassium; AZn—available zinc; and OM—organic conductivity; pH—soil reaction;
ESP—exchangeable sodium percentage; CaCO3 —calcium carbonate percentage; WHC—water holding capacity;
matter. HC—hydraulic conductivity; AN—available nitrogen; AP—available phosphorous; AK—available potassium;
AZn—available zinc; and OM—organic matter.
Figure 7 demonstrates how a type-2 Mamdani system makes inferences. In this case,
Figure 7 firing
the fuzzified inputs generate demonstrates howfor
strengths a type-2
bothMamdani
the upper system
and makes
lowerinferences.
membership In this case,
the fuzzified inputs generate firing strengths for both the upper and lower membership
functions. If CSI = 0.3, which means very low, PSI = 0.6, which means low class, and FSI =
functions. If CSI = 0.3, which means very low, PSI = 0.6, which means low class, and
0.9, which indicates
FSIhigh
= 0.9,class,
whichthen the final
indicates crop then
high class, suitability
the finalindex (FCSI) will
crop suitability be (FCSI)
index 0.569, will be
which means moderate suitability
0.569, which means for wheatsuitability
moderate crop cultivation. In the
for wheat crop same manner,
cultivation. themanner,
In the same
wheat soil suitability for any
the wheat value
soil of CSI,
suitability for PSI, and FSI
any value of any
of CSI, PSI, soil canofbeany
and FSI obtained.
soil can be obtained.

Figure 7. The outcomes for7.the

Figure Theperformance of the
outcomes for the fuzzy output.
performance of the fuzzy output.

The resulting FISThe resulting

model showsFIS three-dimensional
model shows three-dimensional surfaces.
surfaces. For eachFor each possible
possible com- combi-
nation of the two input variables, the control surface document displays the FIS output
bination of the two input variables, the control surface document displays the FIS output
value. The influence of specific processing parameters, such as CSI, PSI, and FSI, in relation
value. The influence of specific processing parameters, such as CSI, PSI, and FSI, in rela-
to the final crop suitability index (FCSI) for wheat cultivation can be identified from the 3D
tion to the final crop suitability
charts shown inindex
Figure (FCSI)
8. for wheat cultivation can be identified from
the 3D charts shown inFor Figure 8. analysis, the three indicators—chemical, physical, and fertility—have
dispersion
a clear effect on the final crop suitability index for wheat crops. Therefore, the three-
dimensional figure was drawn between the physical and chemical in Figure 8a to show
the most suitable places without explaining the effect of fertility, as well as between both
fertility and physical in Figure 8b to show the most suitable places with an explanation
of the effect of chemical properties. Figure 8c shows the suitability of soil when taking
fertility properties and chemical properties into account, with an explanation of the physical
properties effect. These graphs show the variance in crop suitability for growing the wheat
crop depending on the CSI, PSI, and FSI.
Agronomy 2023,
Agronomy 2023, 13,
13, 1281
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14
14of
of 23

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 8. Rule surface of FCSI for (a) PSI and CSI; (b) FSI and PSI; and (c) FSI and CSI.
Figure 8. Rule surface of FCSI for (a) PSI and CSI; (b) FSI and PSI; and (c) FSI and CSI.

For dispersion
The descriptiveanalysis,
analysisthe three indicators—chemical,
defines the most suitable places physical, and fertility—have
for wheat cultivation in
a clear to
addition effect on the them
determining final oncrop suitability
the basis of soil index
chemical,forphysical,
wheat crops. Therefore,
and fertility the
properties,
three-dimensional figure was drawn between the physical and chemical
which focus on the suitability of the soil for growing the crop. With regard to performance, in Figure 8a to
show the most suitable places without explaining the effect of fertility, as well
soil fertility clearly affects the suitability of the soil, as 50% of the respondents affirmed that as between
bothhigher
the fertility
theand physical
suitability of in
theFigure 8bhigher
soil, the to showthethesoilmost suitable places with an expla-
fertility.
nation of the effect of chemical properties. Figure 8c shows the suitability of soil when
3.2. Chemical
taking Suitability
fertility properties Index
and (CSI)
chemical properties into account, with an explanation of
the physical propertiesfactors
The surrounding effect.that
These graphs
affect show thebalance
the chemical variance in crop
in the suitability
soil, which for
is later
growing the
reflected wheat
in the crop
soil’s depending
fertile on the soil
state, include CSI,salinity,
PSI, andtemperature,
FSI. evapotranspiration,
The descriptive
soil moisture, and otheranalysis defines
factors. Thesethefactors
most suitable
all alter places for wheat
the chemical cultivation
properties in
of the
addition
soil to determining
[97–100]. The chemical them
indexonspatial
the basis of soil chemical,
distribution map (Figure physical, and fertility
9) demonstrates theprop-
wide
erties, of
range which focus
chemical on the
quality, suitability
from of thesuitability
low chemical soil for growing
(CSI 3) tothe crop.
high With suitability
chemical regard to
performance,
(CSI soil fertility
1). The following clearly affects
list includes thechemical
the area’s suitability of the
index: Thesoil, as 50%
chemical of the re-
suitability of
areas of 238.61
spondents affirmed km2 that
is high, 515.46the
the higher 2 is moderate, and 4.09 km2 is low, as shown in
Kmsuitability of the soil, the higher the soil fertility.
Table 3. In some areas of the research area’s north-east, the CSI 3 class is distinguished by
 tinguished by high ECe, ESP, and pH values, which may be promoting chemical degra-
dation [101]. These findings are consistent with those of [28] investigations into Egypt’s
north Nile Delta.

Table 3. Areas and classes of CSI.

Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 15 of 23
Classes Area (Km2) Area (%)
High chemical suitability (CSI 1) 238.61 31.47
Moderate chemical suitability (CSI 2) 515.46
high ECe, ESP, and pH values, which may be promoting chemical degradation 67.99[101]. These
Low
findings are consistent with those of [28] investigations into Egypt’s north0.54
chemical suitability (CSI 3) 4.09 Nile Delta.

Figure
Figure 9.
9. The
The study
study area’s
area’s spatial
spatial distribution of CSI.
distribution of CSI.

3.3. Physical Suitability Index (PSI)

Table 3. Areas and classes of CSI.
According to the concept of soil conservation against potential degradation, the
Classes attributes of the soil depend onArea 2) Area (%)additions, land
physical soil(km
tillage conditions, organic
use,
Highfertilization, and irrigation
chemical suitability (CSI 1) [97,100,102–104].
238.61 Data from Table31.47
4 and Figure 10 show
Moderate
that PSI in chemical suitability
the research (CSI 2) from 515.46
area ranges high physical index (PSI 67.99
1) to unsuitable (PSI 4).
Lowtochemical
Due deep soilsuitability
profiles,(CSI
flat3)surfaces, medium
4.09 textures, and low0.54
gravel content, the soil
physical index rating indicates that 61% of the study area has high physical suitability
3.3. Physical
soil, while the Suitability
remainingIndex (PSI)
2.02 and 36.6% of all agricultural areas are, respectively, clas-
sifiedAccording
as having tomoderate
the concept of soilsuitability
physical (PSIagainst
conservation 2) and very low (PSI
potential 4) classes.the phys-
degradation,
ical attributes of the soil depend on soil tillage conditions, organic additions, land use,
fertilization, and irrigation [97,100,102–104]. Data from Table 4 and Figure 10 show that PSI
in the research area ranges from high physical index (PSI 1) to unsuitable (PSI 4). Due to
deep soil profiles, flat surfaces, medium textures, and low gravel content, the soil physical
index rating indicates that 61% of the study area has high physical suitability soil, while
the remaining 2.02 and 36.6% of all agricultural areas are, respectively, classified as having
moderate physical suitability (PSI 2) and very low (PSI 4) classes.

Table 4. Areas and classes of PSI.

Classes Area (km2 ) Area (%)

High physical suitability (PSI 1) 465.34 61.38
Moderate physical suitability (PSI 2) 15.34 2.02
Very low physical suitability (PSI 4) 277.48 36.60
 Table 4. Areas and classes of PSI.

Classes Area (Km2) Area (%)

High physical suitability (PSI 1) 465.34 61.38
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 Moderate physical suitability (PSI 2) 15.34 2.02 16 of 23

Very low physical suitability (PSI 4) 277.48 36.60

Figure
Figure 10.
10. The
The study
study area’s
area’s spatial
spatial distribution of PSI.
distribution of PSI.

3.4. Fertility Suitability Index (FSI)

Numerous research
researchdomains,
domains,from fromthethesustainability
sustainabilityofofsoil management
soil management to to
thethe
idea of
idea
precision
of precisionfarming,
farming,havehave
considered
considered soil fertility mapping
soil fertility a crucial
mapping concern
a crucial [80]. According
concern [80]. Ac-
to the FSI,
cording the FSI,
to the study thearea
studyfellarea
intofell
three
intoclasses: high (FSI
three classes: high1), low
(FSI 1),(FSI
low 3), and
(FSI 3), very
and verylow
(FSI 4), with FSI 1 being the largest at 456.34 km 2 (Figure 11 and Table 5). Given that land
low (FSI 4), with FSI 1 being the largest at 456.34 km (Figure 11 and Table 5). Given that
2

degradation
land factors
degradation are active
factors in some
are active locations,
in some which
locations, decrease
which nutrient
decrease availability
nutrient availabilityon
the one hand and increase carbon release to the atmosphere on the other,
on the one hand and increase carbon release to the atmosphere on the other, the low fer- the low fertility
situation
tility may be
situation mayproduced by agricultural
be produced practicespractices
by agricultural that havethat
had have
varioushadeffects thateffects
various lower
soil fertility [97–100].
that lower soil fertility [97–100].
3.5. Land Suitability Based on FIS
Table 5. Areas and classes of FSI.
The most important soil quality indicators are soil physical, chemical, and biological
Classes
quality measurements [27]. The highest possible Areavalue
(Km2)for these variables
Area (%)boosts agri-
High fertility
cultural outputsuitability (FSI 1)
and extends the sustainability of 465.34
management systems [105]. 61.38 The study
Low fertility
region suitability
is divided (FSI 3)
into four classes based on Figure160.72
12 and Table 6, the 21.20
land suitability
Very
indexlow fertility
(LSI). Over 241.3 2
suitability (FSI 4) of the total research
km (31.83%) 132.10 area are in the first
17.42
class, which is
distinguished by its high suitability for wheat cultivation. With 224 km2 (29.55%) of the
overall research area, the second class is distinguished by moderate suitability. The third
suitability class of soil (low) takes up 252.73 km2 (33.33%) of the entire study area, while
the unsuitable class, which takes up 40 km2 (5.29%) of the entire study area, is the lowest
representative class. Low levels of OM%, CEC, N, P, and K had a detrimental impact on
the suitability of the land in addition to its physical characteristics. For example, coarse
texture affected the organization of the particles and pores, which had an impact on root
growth, the rate of plant emergence, and the agricultural practices of water infiltration [78].
Agronomy 2023,
Agronomy 2023, 13,
13, 1281
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1717of
of 23
23

Agronomy 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23

Figure
Figure 11.
11. The
The study
study area’s
area’s spatial
spatial distribution of FSI.
distribution of FSI.

3.5. Land Suitability Based on FIS

The most important soil quality indicators are soil physical, chemical, and biological
quality measurements [27]. The highest possible value for these variables boosts agri-
cultural output and extends the sustainability of management systems [105]. The study
region is divided into four classes based on Figure 12 and Table 6, the land suitability
index (LSI). Over 241.3 km2 (31.83%) of the total research area are in the first class, which
is distinguished by its high suitability for wheat cultivation. With 224 km2 (29.55%) of the
overall research area, the second class is distinguished by moderate suitability. The third
suitability class of soil (low) takes up 252.73 km2 (33.33%) of the entire study area, while
the unsuitable class, which takes up 40 km2 (5.29%) of the entire study area, is the lowest
representative class. Low levels of OM%, CEC, N, P, and K had a detrimental impact on
the suitability of the land in addition to its physical characteristics. For example, coarse
texture affected the organization of the particles and pores, which had an impact on root
growth, the rate of plant emergence, and the agricultural practices of water infiltration
[78].

Table 6. Areas of final crop suitability index (FCSI).

Class Area (Km2) Area (%)

High Suitable (FCSI 1) 241.30 31.83
Moderate Suitable (FCSI 2) 224.04 29.55
Low Suitable (FCSI 3) 252.73 33.33
Unsuitable (FCSI 4) 40.09 5.29

Figure 12.
Figure 12. Map
Map of
of the
the final
final crop
crop suitability
suitability index
index (FCSI).
(FCSI).

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the suitability of wheat crops was evaluated using fuzzy inference, one
of the most useful AI techniques and a widespread one in this field. A fuzzy system also
has the potential to represent and control uncertain or incomplete agricultural
knowledge. The fuzzy inference system used in this research is of the Mamdani type. The
most suitable lands for wheat cultivation were classified in this study based on the soil’s
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 18 of 23

Table 5. Areas and classes of FSI.

Classes Area (km2 ) Area (%)

High fertility suitability (FSI 1) 465.34 61.38
Low fertility suitability (FSI 3) 160.72 21.20
Very low fertility suitability (FSI 4) 132.10 17.42

Table 6. Areas of final crop suitability index (FCSI).

Class Area (km2 ) Area (%)

High Suitable (FCSI 1) 241.30 31.83
Moderate Suitable (FCSI 2) 224.04 29.55
Low Suitable (FCSI 3) 252.73 33.33
Unsuitable (FCSI 4) 40.09 5.29

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the suitability of wheat crops was evaluated using fuzzy inference, one of
the most useful AI techniques and a widespread one in this field. A fuzzy system also has
the potential to represent and control uncertain or incomplete agricultural knowledge. The
fuzzy inference system used in this research is of the Mamdani type. The most suitable lands
for wheat cultivation were classified in this study based on the soil’s chemical, physical,
and fertility properties. The accuracy of the results of the FIS program depends primarily
on the selection of the appropriate membership, where sigmoidal, Gaussian, and zmf were
selected to express the different scores of the inputs corresponding to their ability to describe
this problem, and secondly, on the number of IF-THEN rules, which depend mainly on
the expertise of experts in the field. The results proved the accuracy, effectiveness, and
speed of the proposed program, which integrates FIS and GIS to determine the suitability
of the soil for the cultivation of wheat compared to traditional methods. In addition to
the physical qualities of the land, low levels of OM%, N, P, and K had a negative effect on
wheat’s suitability for cultivation.
The proposed crop suitability evaluation program, with its accurate results in this
study, will help:
1. Decision-makers in obtaining useful information about the primary main limiting
factors as noticed from the observed crop suitability;
2. Determining the necessary improvements that will be required to achieve agricul-
tural sustainability;
3. Integration of the use of FIS with GIS for mapping soil capacity and crop suitability is
critical for optimal land use and food security in arid regions such as Egypt;
4. Generalization of the proposed technique for other crops.
In conclusion, it is very important to assess land suitability periodically to try to
maintain a high crop yield for the purpose of reducing the gap between production and
consumption, and it is suggested that field work and approaches to crop suitability calcula-
tion be increased in future studies. As a whole, the proposed crop suitability assessment
program is reapplied whenever the soil’s physical, chemical, and fertility characteristics are
available and influence other study areas.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy13051281/s1, Figure S1: Spatial distribution of some
chemical, physical and fertility soil properties (a) electric conductivity (EC: dS m−1 ), (b) soil reaction
(pH), (c) exchangeable sodium percent (ESP: %), (d) calcium carbonate percentage (CaCO3 : g Kg−1 ),
(e) depth (cm), (f) water holding capacity (WHC: %), (g) hydraulic conductivity (HC: cm h−1 ), (h)
available N (AN: mg Kg−1 ), (i) available P (AP: mg Kg−1 ), (j) available K (AK: mg Kg−1 ), (k) Zinc (Zn:
mg Kg−1 ), and (l) organic matter (OM: g Kg−1 ); Table S1: Factor score of soil suitability parameters
for wheat crop in the study area; Table S2: CSI range of study area; Table S3. PSI range of the study
area; Table S4. FSI range of the study area; Table S5. FCSI range of the study area.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 19 of 23

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.A.E.B. and M.S.S.; methodology, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A.

and M.S.S.; software, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A. and M.S.S.; validation, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A. and M.S.S., formal
analysis, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A. and M.S.S.; investigation, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A. and M.S.S.; resources,
R.A.E.B., E.S.M. and M.S.S.; data curation, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A. and M.S.S.; writing—original draft
preparation, R.A.E.B., H.M.E.A. and M.S.S.; writing—review and editing, A.A.E.B., M.M.I. and N.Y.R.;
supervision, A.A.E.B., M.M.I. and M.S.S.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The soil and plant water analysis laboratory team, the Faculty of Agriculture at
Tanta University, and this publication has been supported by the RUDN University Scientific Projects
Grant System, project number <202724-2-000>.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Bakr, N.; Muñoz-Rojas, M.; Pereira, P.; Zhang, Z.; Cerdà, A.; Jordán, A.; Mansour, H.; De la Rosa, D.; Jones,
L. Assessment of soil suitability for improvement of soil factors and agricultural management. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1588.
[CrossRef]
2. Hanh, H.Q.; Azadi, H.; Dogot, T.; Ton, V.D.; Lebailly, P. Dynamics of agrarian systems and land use change in North Vietnam.
Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 799–810. [CrossRef]
3. Santana-Cordero, A.M.; Ariza, E.; Romagosa, F. Studying the historical evolution of ecosystem services to inform management
policies for developed shorelines. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 64, 18–29. [CrossRef]
4. Ramamurthy, V.; Reddy, G.O.; Kumar, N. Assessment of land suitability for maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid ecosystem of
southern India using integrated AHP and GIS approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 179, 105806. [CrossRef]
5. Ali, M.G.; Ahmed, M.; Ibrahim, M.M.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Ali, E.F.; Shokr, M.S.; Aldosari, A.A.; Majrashi, A.; Kheir, A.M.
Optimizing sowing window, cultivar choice, and plant density to boost maize yield under RCP8. 5 climate scenario of CMIP5.
Int. J. Biometeorol. 2022, 66, 971–985. [CrossRef]
6. Dengiz, O. Land suitability assessment for rice cultivation based on GIS modeling. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2013, 37, 326–334. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, J.; Su, Y.; Wu, J.; Liang, H. GIS based land suitability assessment for tobacco production using AHP and fuzzy set in
Shandong province of China. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 114, 202–211. [CrossRef]
8. Velmurugan, A.; Swarnam, T.; Ambast, S.; Kumar, N. Managing waterlogging and soil salinity with a permanent raised bed and
furrow system in coastal lowlands of humid tropics. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 168, 56–67. [CrossRef]
9. Adeyolanu, O.; Are, K.; Adelana, A.; Denton, O.; Oluwatosin, G. Characterization, suitability evaluation and soil quality
assessment of three soils of sedimentary formation for sustainable crop production. J. Agric. Ecol. Res. Int. 2017, 11, 1–10.
[CrossRef]
10. Rossiter, D. Land Evaluation: Towards a Revised Framework; Land and Water Discussion Paper 6; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007; 107p, ISSN
1729-0554. Available online: www.fao.org/nr/lman/docs/lman_070601_en.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2009).
11. Canton, H. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations—FAO. In The Europa Directory of International Organizations
2021; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 297–305.
12. Sharma, I.; Tyagi, B.; Singh, G.; Venkatesh, K.; Gupta, O. Enhancing wheat production-A global perspective. Indian J. Agric. Sci.
2015, 85, 3–13.
13. Temirbekova, S.K.; Kulikov, I.M.; Afanasyeva, Y.V.; Beloshapkina, O.O.; Kalashnikova, E.A.; Kirakosyan, R.N.; Dokukin, P.A.;
Kucher, D.E.; Latati, M.; Rebouh, N.Y. The evaluation of winter wheat adaptation to climate change in the central non-black
region of Russia: Study of the gene pool resistance of wheat from the NI Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) world collection
to abiotic stress factors. Plants 2021, 10, 2337. [CrossRef]
14. Rebouh, N.Y.; Aliat, T.; Polityko, P.M.; Kherchouche, D.; Boulelouah, N.; Temirbekova, S.K.; Afanasyeva, Y.V.; Kucher, D.E.;
Plushikov, V.G.; Parakhina, E.A. Environmentally Friendly Wheat Farming: Biological and Economic Efficiency of Three
Treatments to Control Fungal Diseases in Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Field Conditions. Plants 2022, 11, 1566.
[CrossRef]
15. Bagheri Bodaghabadi, M.; Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Khakili, P.; Masihabadi, M.; Gandomkar, A. Assessment of the FAO
traditional land evaluation methods, A case study: Iranian Land Classification method. Soil Use Manag. 2015, 31, 384–396.
[CrossRef]
16. El Baroudy, A. Mapping and evaluating land suitability using a GIS-based model. Catena 2016, 140, 96–104. [CrossRef]
17. Mohammed, S.; Alsafadi, K.; Ali, H.; Mousavi, S.M.N.; Kiwan, S.; Hennawi, S.; Harsanyie, E.; Pham, Q.B.; Linh, N.T.T.; Ali, R.
Assessment of land suitability potentials for winter wheat cultivation by using a multi criteria decision Support-Geographic
information system (MCDS-GIS) approach in Al-Yarmouk Basin (Syria). Geocarto Int. 2022, 37, 1645–1663. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 20 of 23

18. Boulelouah, N.; Berbache, M.R.; Bedjaoui, H.; Selama, N.; Rebouh, N.Y. Influence of Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate on Yield, Grain
Quality and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf) under Algerian Semiarid Conditions. Agriculture
2022, 12, 1937. [CrossRef]
19. Pereira, P.; Brevik, E.; Trevisani, S. Mapping the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610, 17–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Smetanova, A.; Verstraeten, G.; Notebaert, B.; Dotterweich, M.; Létal, A. Landform transformation and long-term sediment
budget for a Chernozem-dominated lowland agricultural catchment. Catena 2017, 157, 24–34. [CrossRef]
21. Sharma, K.; Sharma, P.; Sawhney, J. Soil suitability for rice in different agroclimatic zones of Punjab. Agropedology 1994, 4, 91–98.
22. Elaalem, M. A comparison of parametric and fuzzy multi-criteria methods for evaluating land suitability for olive in Jeffara Plain
of Libya. Apcbee Procedia 2013, 5, 405–409. [CrossRef]
23. Valdivia-Cea, W.; Holzapfel, E.; Rivera, D.; Paredes, J. Assessment of methods to determine soil characteristics for management
and design of irrigation systems. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 17, 735–750. [CrossRef]
24. Hoseini, Y. Use fuzzy interface systems to optimize land suitability evaluation for surface and trickle irrigation. Inf. Process. Agric.
2019, 6, 11–19. [CrossRef]
25. Abuzaid, A.S.; Abdellatif, A.D.; Fadl, M.E. Modeling soil quality in Dakahlia Governorate, Egypt using GIS techniques. Egypt. J.
Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2021, 24, 255–264. [CrossRef]
26. Shokr, M.S.; Abdellatif, M.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Elnashar, A.; Ali, E.F.; Belal, A.A.; Attia, W.; Ahmed, M.; Aldosari, A.A.; Szantoi,
Z. Development of a spatial model for soil quality assessment under arid and semi-arid conditions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2893.
[CrossRef]
27. Abdellatif, M.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Arshad, M.; Mahmoud, E.K.; Saleh, A.M.; Moghanm, F.S.; Shaltout, K.H.; Eid, E.M.; Shokr,
M.S. A GIS-based approach for the quantitative assessment of soil quality and sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13,
13438. [CrossRef]
28. Baroudy, A.A.E.; Ali, A.M.; Mohamed, E.S.; Moghanm, F.S.; Shokr, M.S.; Savin, I.; Poddubsky, A.; Ding, Z.; Kheir, A.M.; Aldosari,
A.A. Modeling land suitability for rice crop using remote sensing and soil quality indicators: The case study of the nile delta.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9653. [CrossRef]
29. Wolfgang, E. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017.
30. Kilic, O.M.; Ersayin, K.; Gunal, H.; Khalofah, A.; Alsubeie, M.S. Combination of fuzzy-AHP and GIS techniques in land suitability
assessment for wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivation. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 2634–2644. [CrossRef]
31. Perveen, M.F.; Nagasawa, R.; Cherif Ahmed, A.; Uddin, M.I.; Kimura, R. Integrating biophysical and socio-economic data using
GIS for land evaluation of wheat cultivation: A case study in north-west Bangladesh. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2008, 6, 432–437.
32. Liu, Y.; Jiao, L.; Liu, Y.; He, J. A self-adapting fuzzy inference system for the evaluation of agricultural land. Environ. Model. Softw.
2013, 40, 226–234. [CrossRef]
33. Reshmidevi, T.V.; Eldho, T.I.; Jana, R. A GIS-integrated fuzzy rule-based inference system for land suitability evaluation in
agricultural watersheds. Agric. Syst. 2009, 101, 101–109. [CrossRef]
34. Akbari, M.; Neamatollahi, E.; Neamatollahi, P. Evaluating land suitability for spatial planning in arid regions of eastern Iran
using fuzzy logic and multi-criteria analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 98, 587–598. [CrossRef]
35. Nabati, J.; Nezami, A.; Neamatollahi, E.; Akbari, M. GIS-based agro-ecological zoning for crop suitability using fuzzy inference
system in semi-arid regions. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106646. [CrossRef]
36. Neamatollahi, E.; Vafabakhshi, J.; Jahansuz, M.; Sharifzadeh, F. Agricultural optimal cropping pattern determination based on
fuzzy system. Fuzzy Inf. Eng. 2017, 9, 479–491. [CrossRef]
37. Ayu Purnamasari, R.; Noguchi, R.; Ahamed, T. Land suitability assessments for yield prediction of cassava using geospatial fuzzy
expert systems and remote sensing. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 166, 105018. [CrossRef]
38. Khater, A.; Kitamura, Y.; Shimizu, K.; Abou El Hassan, W.; Fujimaki, H. Quantitative analysis of reusing agricultural water to
compensate for water supply deficiencies in the Nile Delta irrigation network. Paddy Water Environ. 2015, 13, 367–378. [CrossRef]
39. Climatological Normal for Egypt. The Normal for Beheira Governorate from 1960–2011; Ministry of Civil Aviation, Meteorological
Authority: Cairo, Egypt, 2011.
40. El Behairy, R. Using New Techniques for Studying Land Resources in Some Areas of North West Nile Delta, Egypt; Faculty of Agriculture,
Tanta University Cairo: Tanta, Egypt, 2021.
41. El Behairy, R.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Mohamed, E.S.; Kucher, D.E.; Shokr, M.S. Assessment of soil capability
and crop suitability using integrated multivariate and GIS approaches toward agricultural sustainability. Land 2022, 11, 1027.
[CrossRef]
42. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guidelines for Soil Profile Description, 3rd ed.; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006.
43. United States Department of Agriculture; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy; United
States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
44. Klute, A. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1-Physical and Mineralogical Methods; American Society of Agronomy, Inc.; Soil Science
Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1986.
45. Rhoades, J. Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods; Soil
Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; Volume 5, pp. 417–435.
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 21 of 23

46. Thomas, G. Soil pH and soil acidity. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Soil Science Society of
America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; pp. 475–490.
47. Sumner, M.E.; Miller, W.P. Cation exchange capacity and exchange coefficients. In Methods Soil Anal. Part 3 Chem. Methods; Soil
Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; Volume 5, pp. 1201–1229.
48. Lavkulich, L.M. Methods Manual: Pedology Laboratory; Department of Soil Science, University of British Columbia: Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 1981.
49. Page, A.; Miller, R.; Keeney, D. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed.; American Society of
Agronomy, Inc.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; p. 1159.
50. Nusret, D.; Dug, S. Applying the inverse distance weighting and kriging methods of the spatial interpolation on the mapping the
annual precipitation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Environmental Modelling
and Software, Leipzig, Germany, 19 July 2012.
51. El Behairy, R.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Mohamed, E.S.; Rebouh, N.Y.; Shokr, M.S. Combination of GIS and Multivariate
Analysis to Assess the Soil Heavy Metal Contamination in Some Arid Zones. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2871. [CrossRef]
52. Imperato, M.; Adamo, P.; Naimo, D.; Arienzo, M.; Stanzione, D.; Violante, P. Spatial distribution of heavy metals in urban soils of
Naples city (Italy). Environ. Pollut. 2003, 124, 247–256. [CrossRef]
53. Weisz, R.; Fleischer, S.; Smilowitz, Z. Map generation in high-value horticultural integrated pest management: Appropriate
interpolation methods for site-specific pest management of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J. Econ. Entomol.
1995, 88, 1650–1657. [CrossRef]
54. Shokr, M.S.; Abdellatif, M.A.; El Behairy, R.A.; Abdelhameed, H.H.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Mohamed, E.S.; Rebouh, N.Y.; Ding, Z.;
Abuzaid, A.S. Assessment of Potential Heavy Metal Contamination Hazards Based on GIS and Multivariate Analysis in Some
Mediterranean Zones. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3220. [CrossRef]
55. Gong, G.; Mattevada, S.; O’Bryant, S.E. Comparison of the accuracy of kriging and IDW interpolations in estimating groundwater
arsenic concentrations in Texas. Environ. Res. 2014, 130, 59–69. [CrossRef]
56. Panhalkar, S.; Jarag, A.P. Assessment of spatial interpolation techniques for river bathymetry generation of Panchganga River
basin using geoinformatic techniques. Asian J. Geoinform. 2016, 15, 10–15.
57. El-Zeiny, A.M.; Elbeih, S.F. GIS-based evaluation of groundwater quality and suitability in Dakhla Oases, Egypt. Earth Syst.
Environ. 2019, 3, 507–523. [CrossRef]
58. Paul, R.; Brindha, K.; Gowrisankar, G.; Tan, M.L.; Singh, M.K. Identification of hydrogeochemical processes controlling ground-
water quality in Tripura, Northeast India using evaluation indices, GIS, and multivariate statistical methods. Environ. Earth Sci.
2019, 78, 470. [CrossRef]
59. Zeraatpisheh, M.; Ayoubi, S.; Sulieman, M.; Rodrigo-Comino, J. Determining the spatial distribution of soil properties using the
environmental covariates and multivariate statistical analysis: A case study in semi-arid regions of Iran. J. Arid. Land 2019, 11,
551–566. [CrossRef]
60. Khouni, I.; Louhichi, G.; Ghrabi, A. Use of GIS based Inverse Distance Weighted interpolation to assess surface water quality:
Case of Wadi El Bey, Tunisia. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101892. [CrossRef]
61. Sys, C.; Van Ranst, E.; Debaveye, J.; Beernaert, F. Land Evaluation. Part III: Crop Requirements; Agricultural Publications n◦ 7;
GADC: Brussels, Belgium, 1993; 191p.
62. UN Food; Agriculture Organization. A framework for Land Evaluation. Soils Bull. 1976, 32, 1–77.
63. Nabiollahi, K.; Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, R.; Kerry, R.; Moradian, S. Assessment of soil quality indices for salt-affected agricultural
land in Kurdistan Province, Iran. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 83, 482–494. [CrossRef]
64. Vema, V.; Sudheer, K.; Chaubey, I. Fuzzy inference system for site suitability evaluation of water harvesting structures in rainfed
regions. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 218, 82–93. [CrossRef]
65. Ross, T. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications; McGraw-Hill, Inc.: Singapore, 2004.
66. Zadeh, L. Zadeh, fuzzy sets. Inform. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
67. Zadeh, L.A.; Aliev, R.A. Fuzzy Logic Theory and Applications: Part I and Part II; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2018.
68. Adriaenssens, V.; De Baets, B.; Goethals, P.L.; De Pauw, N. Fuzzy rule-based models for decision support in ecosystem manage-
ment. Sci. Total Environ. 2004, 319, 1–12. [CrossRef]
69. Dai, C.; Cai, Y.; Ren, W.; Xie, Y.; Guo, H. Identification of optimal placements of best management practices through an
interval-fuzzy possibilistic programming model. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 165, 108–121. [CrossRef]
70. Li, M.; Guo, P. A coupled random fuzzy two-stage programming model for crop area optimization—A case study of the middle
Heihe River basin, China. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 155, 53–66. [CrossRef]
71. Nayak, P.; Sudheer, K.; Ramasastri, K. Fuzzy computing based rainfall–runoff model for real time flood forecasting. Hydrol.
Process. Int. J. 2005, 19, 955–968. [CrossRef]
72. Ammar, A.; Riksen, M.; Ouessar, M.; Ritsema, C. Identification of suitable sites for rainwater harvesting structures in arid and
semi-arid regions: A review. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2016, 4, 108–120. [CrossRef]
73. Kadam, A.K.; Kale, S.S.; Pande, N.N.; Pawar, N.; Sankhua, R. Identifying potential rainwater harvesting sites of a semi-arid,
basaltic region of Western India, using SCS-CN method. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 2537–2554. [CrossRef]
74. Ramakrishnan, D.; Bandyopadhyay, A.; Kusuma, K. SCS-CN and GIS-based approach for identifying potential water harvesting
sites in the Kali Watershed, Mahi River Basin, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 118, 355–368. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 22 of 23

75. Durga Rao, K.; Bhaumik, M. Spatial expert support system in selecting suitable sites for water harvesting structures—A case
study of song watershed, Uttaranchal, India. Geocarto Int. 2003, 18, 43–50. [CrossRef]
76. Tsiko, R.G.; Haile, T.S. Integrating geographical information systems, fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process in modelling
optimum sites for locating water reservoirs. A case study of the Debub District in Eritrea. Water 2011, 3, 254–290. [CrossRef]
77. Sicat, R.S.; Carranza, E.J.M.; Nidumolu, U.B. Fuzzy modeling of farmers’ knowledge for land suitability classification. Agric. Syst.
2005, 83, 49–75. [CrossRef]
78. Semih, Ç.; Barik, K. Hydraulic conductivity values of soils in different soil processing conditions. Alinteri J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 35,
132–138.
79. Nachshon, U. Cropland soil salinization and associated hydrology: Trends, processes and examples. Water 2018, 10, 1030.
80. Mohamed, E.S.; Baroudy, A.A.E.; El-Beshbeshy, T.; Emam, M.; Belal, A.; Elfadaly, A.; Aldosari, A.A.; Ali, A.M.; Lasaponara, R.
Vis-nir spectroscopy and satellite landsat-8 oli data to map soil nutrients in arid conditions: A case study of the northwest coast
of egypt. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3716. [CrossRef]
81. Abdel-Fattah, M.K.; Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Aldosari, A.A.; Elrys, A.S.; Mohamed, E.S. Multivariate analysis for assessing irrigation
water quality: A case study of the Bahr Mouise Canal, Eastern Nile Delta. Water 2020, 12, 2537. [CrossRef]
82. Mohamed, E.; Schütt, B.; Belal, A. Assessment of environmental hazards in the north western coast-Egypt using RS and GIS.
Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2013, 16, 219–229. [CrossRef]
83. Yanni, Y.; ABD El-Fatiah, F.K. Towards integrated biofertilization management with free living and associative dinitrogen fixers
for enhancing rice performance in the Nile delta. Symbiosis 1999, 27, 319–331.
84. Hammam, A.; Mohamed, E. Mapping soil salinity in the East Nile Delta using several methodological approaches of salinity
assessment. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2020, 23, 125–131. [CrossRef]
85. Zalacáin, D.; Martínez-Pérez, S.; Bienes, R.; García-Díaz, A.; Sastre-Merlín, A. Salt accumulation in soils and plants under
reclaimed water irrigation in urban parks of Madrid (Spain). Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 468–476. [CrossRef]
86. El Behairy, R.A.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Kheir, A.M.; Shokr, M.S. Modelling and assessment of irrigation water quality
index using GIS in semi-arid region for sustainable agriculture. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 352. [CrossRef]
87. Ali, R.; Moghanm, F. Variation of soil properties over the landforms around Idku lake, Egypt. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci.
2013, 16, 91–101. [CrossRef]
88. Baruah, T.C.; Barthakur, H.P. A Text Book of Soil Analysis; Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1997.
89. Neina, D. The role of soil pH in plant nutrition and soil remediation. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2019, 2019, 5794869. [CrossRef]
90. Brady, N.; Well, R. The Nature and Properties of Soils; Prentice Hill: Upper Sadle River, NJ, USA, 1999.
91. Abdelsamie, E.A.; Abdellatif, M.A.; Hassan, F.O.; El Baroudy, A.A.; Mohamed, E.S.; Kucher, D.E.; Shokr, M.S. Integration of
RUSLE Model, Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Assessing Soil Erosion Hazards in Arid Zones. Agriculture 2022, 13, 35.
[CrossRef]
92. Von Wandruszka, R. Phosphorus retention in calcareous soils and the effect of organic matter on its mobility. Geochem. Trans.
2006, 7, 6. [CrossRef]
93. Abrol, I.; Yadav, J.S.P.; Massoud, F. Salt-Affected Soils and Their Management; Food & Agriculture Organisation: Rome, Italy, 1988.
94. Abdel-Fattah, M.K.; Mohamed, E.S.; Wagdi, E.M.; Shahin, S.A.; Aldosari, A.A.; Lasaponara, R.; Alnaimy, M.A. Quantitative
evaluation of soil quality using Principal Component Analysis: The case study of El-Fayoum depression Egypt. Sustainability
2021, 13, 1824. [CrossRef]
95. Alam, M.; Mishra, A.; Singh, K.; Singh, S.K.; David, A. Response of sulphur and FYM on soil physico-chemical properties and
growth, yield and quality of mustard (Brassica nigra L.). J. Agric. Phys. 2014, 14, 156–160.
96. Fabrizio, A.; Tambone, F.; Genevini, P. Effect of compost application rate on carbon degradation and retention in soils. Waste
Manag. 2009, 29, 174–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Mohamed, E.S.; Abu-hashim, M.; AbdelRahman, M.A.; Schütt, B.; Lasaponara, R. Evaluating the effects of human activity
over the last decades on the soil organic carbon pool using satellite imagery and GIS techniques in the Nile Delta Area, Egypt.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2644. [CrossRef]
98. Hassan, A.; Belal, A.; Hassan, M.; Farag, F.; Mohamed, E. Potential of thermal remote sensing techniques in monitoring
waterlogged area based on surface soil moisture retrieval. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2019, 155, 64–74. [CrossRef]
99. Abd-Elmabod, S.K.; Mansour, H.; Hussein, A.; Mohamed, E.; Zhang, Z.; Anaya-Romero, M.; Jordán, A. Influence of irrigation
water quantity on the land capability classification. Plant Arch. 2019, 2, 2253–2561.
100. Mohamed, E.; Ali, A.; El Shirbeny, M.; Abd El Razek, A.A.; Savin, I.Y. Near infrared spectroscopy techniques for soil contamination
assessment in the Nile Delta. Eurasian Soil Sci. 2016, 49, 632–639. [CrossRef]
101. Lal, R. Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food Secur. 2009, 1, 45–57. [CrossRef]
102. de Souza Oliveira Filho, J.; Vieira, J.N.; da Silva, E.M.R.; de Oliveira, J.G.B.; Pereira, M.G.; Brasileiro, F.G. Assessing the effects of
17 years of grazing exclusion in degraded semi-arid soils: Evaluation of soil fertility, nutrients pools and stoichiometry. J. Arid.
Environ. 2019, 166, 1–10. [CrossRef]
103. El Nahry, A.; Mohamed, E. Potentiality of land and water resources in African Sahara: A case study of south Egypt. Environ.
Earth Sci. 2011, 63, 1263–1275. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2023, 13, 1281 23 of 23

104. Gu, Z.; Xie, Y.; Gao, Y.; Ren, X.; Cheng, C.; Wang, S. Quantitative assessment of soil productivity and predicted impacts of water
erosion in the black soil region of northeastern China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637, 706–716. [CrossRef]
105. Martinez-Salgado, M.; Gutiérrez-Romero, V.; Jannsens, M.; Ortega-Blu, R. Biological soil quality indicators: A review. Curr. Res.
Technol. Educ. Top. Appl. Microbiol. Microb. Biotechnol. 2010, 1, 319–328.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.