Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Apollo: Adaptive Polar Lattice-Based Local Obstacle Avoidance and Motion Planning for Automated Vehicles
Next Article in Special Issue
Development and Analysis of a CNN- and Transfer-Learning-Based Classification Model for Automated Dairy Cow Feeding Behavior Recognition from Accelerometer Data
Previous Article in Journal
Crowd-Aware Mobile Robot Navigation Based on Improved Decentralized Structured RNN via Deep Reinforcement Learning
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 23
Issue 4
10.3390/s23041811
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Improved CatBoost-Based Classification Model for Ecological Suitability of Blueberries

by
Wenfeng Chang
,
Xiao Wang
*,
Jing Yang
and
Tao Qin
Department of Electrical Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2023, 23(4), 1811; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041811
Submission received: 22 November 2022 / Revised: 30 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 January 2023 / Published: 6 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Machine Learning and Sensors Technology in Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Calculating the proximity of the selected sample K; (<b>b</b>) Synthesizing new samples.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Classification rules for minority class samples.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Flow chart of CatBoost algorithm.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Overview map of the study area.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Overall frame diagram.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Sampling ratio selection.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Curve comparison of ROC.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Standard deviations of different models in each evaluation index.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Fitness curve of each optimization algorithm.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Evaluation comparison of different models.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>(<b>a</b>) Feature importance using SSA-CatBoost; (<b>b</b>) feature importance using WOA-CatBoost; (<b>c</b>) feature importance using PSO-CatBoost.</p> "> Figure 11 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Feature importance using SSA-CatBoost; (<b>b</b>) feature importance using WOA-CatBoost; (<b>c</b>) feature importance using PSO-CatBoost.</p> "> Figure 12
<p>Comparison of models based on inputs with different IG indices.</p> "> Figure 13
<p>Comparison of models based on inputs from different environmental factor datasets.</p> "> Figure 14
<p>Ecological suitability evaluation map of blueberry in Majiang County with different models.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Selecting the best planting area for blueberries is an essential issue in agriculture. To better improve the effectiveness of blueberry cultivation, a machine learning-based classification model for blueberry ecological suitability was proposed for the first time and its validation was conducted by using multi-source environmental features data in this paper. The sparrow search algorithm (SSA) was adopted to optimize the CatBoost model and classify the ecological suitability of blueberries based on the selection of data features. Firstly, the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm was used to balance the number of positive and negative samples. The Variance Inflation Factor and information gain methods were applied to filter out the factors affecting the growth of blueberries. Subsequently, the processed data were fed into the CatBoost for training, and the parameters of the CatBoost were optimized to obtain the optimal model using SSA. Finally, the SSA-CatBoost model was adopted to classify the ecological suitability of blueberries and output the suitability types. Taking a study on a blueberry plantation in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China as an example, the findings demonstrate that the AUC value of the SSA-CatBoost-based blueberry ecological suitability model is 0.921, which is 2.68% higher than that of the CatBoost (AUC = 0.897) and is significantly higher than Logistic Regression (AUC = 0.855), Support Vector Machine (AUC = 0.864), and Random Forest (AUC = 0.875). Furthermore, the ecological suitability of blueberries in Majiang County is mapped according to the classification results of different models. When comparing the actual blueberry cultivation situation in Majiang County, the classification results of the SSA-CatBoost model proposed in this paper matches best with the real blueberry cultivation situation in Majiang County, which is of a high reference value for the selection of blueberry cultivation sites.

1. Introduction

Blueberry belongs to the Vaccinium genus in the Rhododendron family and is also known as the “Queen of Fruits” because of its high nutritional value. Blueberry is famous in the market and the economic benefits brought by the blueberry industry appeal to the growing cultivation of blueberries in more and more countries [1,2,3]. In 2020, China’s blueberry planting area reached 66,400 hm2, surpassing the United States and ranking first in the world. Relying on its unique ecological and resource advantages, Majiang County in Guizhou Province, China, has planted 4700 hm2 of blueberries, of which 973.33 hm2 are organically certified, making it the most widely planted area with the best quality of fresh fruits in China and the development of the blueberry industry has contributed to the development of the local agricultural economy [4,5,6]. However, the quality and yield of blueberries are easily affected by ecological environments such as geography, meteorology, and soil. If it is planted in undesirable areas, hazards will occur frequently when growing, and when harvested, the yield of blueberry is low, with poor quality, low return on production investment and even resulting in losses [7]. Therefore, it is of practical significance to use modern electronic information technology to classify the ecological suitability of blueberries and reasonably select the planting areas of blueberries to further improve the yield and quality of blueberries and enhance its economic benefits.
A large number of researchers have studied the suitability of blueberries and the selection of their planting areas. Mo et al. [8] analyzed the influence of different meteorological indicators on blueberries in different phenological periods by selecting 14 various experimental observation sites for blueberry sampling and observation and using SPSS for correlation analysis, but the environmental factors were single, and the research analysis was not specific. Zhang et al. [9] established a multiple regression model for each meteorological and geographical factor by combining digital elevation data to classify the ecological suitability areas for blueberry cultivation in Guizhou Province, China, without combining soil data, which resulted in simple models and a low classification accuracy. Xiao et al. [10] took Highbush blueberry as the research object, identified the climate suitability characterization index, adopted the expert scoring method to establish the weight of each index, calculated the blueberry climate suitability indices, and divided the climate suitability areas for blueberry cultivation in Fujian Province, China based on GIS technology. This method only ascertained the influence of climate factors on blueberry, and the classification process had strong subjectivity. Qin et al. [11] utilized judgment matrix, linear weighting, and hierarchical cluster analysis to sketch potentially suitable areas for blueberry growth in Shaanxi Province, China, and the method also had the drawback of being highly subjective. Vera et al. [12] identified a territorial farm unit for setting up and managing blueberry crops on a farm in southern Chile, explored farm-level characteristics and classified ecological suitability and blueberry locations in the region based on their characteristics, but their applicability was weak. Cui et al. [13] studied blueberry suitability based on 783 blueberry geographical distribution records and 21 environmental variables and used a maximum entropy model and defined the potential distribution areas of blueberry globally and in China. However, due to the high dimensionality of the features, the training time of the model was long, the classification model was simple, and the classification accuracy was poor.
The ecological conditions suitable for the cultivation and growth of blueberry crops are multi-dimensional, specific, and comprehensively constrained. Existing research on the classification assessment of the environmental suitability of blueberry crops suffers from the following problems:
  • The classification model created a dataset with features containing only a single dimension and a sample of largely unbalanced data, so it fails to reflect multi-dimensionality.
  • Existing studies have used machine learning or artificial intelligence approaches to create a universal model for blueberry suitability classification, but the specificity of the model has led to more significant differences in the accuracy of blueberry suitability classification when the model is applied under different conditions.
  • Some factors in the development of blueberry crops can lead to changes in other elements under combined constraints. Current studies failed to consider this issue, resulting in simplistic model structures, long training time, and strong subjectivity.
With the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning technology has rapidly progressed and is applied in an increasing number of fields [14]. Many scholars have employed machine-learning methods in agriculture [15]. In smart agriculture, machine learning is mainly used to predict the yield of crops or identify crop diseases [16,17]. Still, there are still few applications in crop suitability classification [18,19], especially in the ecological suitability of blueberries. Therefore, this paper proposed a CatBoost-based classification method for the ecological suitability of blueberries. The core ideas of the method include the following:
  • It analyzed the applicability of different machine learning algorithms to classify blueberry ecological suitability. It surmounted the drawbacks of traditional machine learning models with simple structure and strong subjectivity. Additionally, the most suitable model for blueberry ecological suitability classification was identified.
  • Considering the constraints of comprehensive environmental factors on blueberry growth, the influence of some feature data on blueberry ecological suitability classification results were compared, which further confirms the applicability of the model.
  • The influence of different optimization algorithms (particle swarm optimization (PSO), whale optimization algorithm (WOA), and sparrow search algorithm (SSA)) on the parameters of classification models were explored to resolve the challenge of the long model training time and to improve the accuracy of classification results.
This study is the first to apply machine learning and multi-source environmental information fusion methods to crop planting site selection. Taking the blueberry growing area in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China as an example, blueberry ecological suitability data were collected, and the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm was adopted to balance the number of positive and negative samples. Factors influencing blueberry growth were filtered out using variance inflation factors and information gain methods, with all features applied as inputs to each machine learning-based classification model. To further reduce the training time and improve the model’s performance, the paper employed various optimization algorithms to conduct the hyperparametric optimization of CatBoost. Based on the classification results of the other algorithms, the ArcMap 10.8 software was used to create a map of the ecological suitability of blueberries in Majiang County. The results were compared and validated with the actual blueberry planting situation in Majiang County.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Borderline-SMOTE Algorithms

In the general classification model dataset, there is a problem of imbalance in the number of sample labels. Models constructed from unbalanced data will have prediction results that are more biased towards brands with multi-category samples, which will lead to under-fitting or poor model results [20]. To balance the difference in the number of samples between categories and improve the efficiency of the classification model, the SMOTE algorithm was adopted to address the unbalanced data. The implementation process is shown in Figure 1.
Firstly, a sample x i was randomly selected from a minority class of samples. Secondly, N samples x ˜ were randomly chosen from the K nearest neighbors of x i by sampling multiplicity N. Finally, new samples were synthesized in order randomly between x ˜ and x i , and the synthesis formula is as follows:
x n e w = x i + r a n d ( 0 , 1 ) × ( x ˜ − x i )
where x n e w is the “synthetic” sample, x ˜ refers to the minority sample, x i denotes the chosen K-neighborhood sample, and r a n d ( 0 , 1 ) means producing any number between 0 and 1.
SMOTE treats all minority class samples equally and fails to consider the class information of the nearest neighbor samples, and there is sample overlap, leading to poor classification results. To solve the sample overlap problem brought about by the SMOTE algorithm sampling, Borderline-SMOTE [21,22] further improves this problem, and the elementary concept is as follows.
(1)
According to the Euclidean distance, the minority category samples are divided into three categories: safe, danger, and noise; safe represents the nearest neighbors more than the ordinary for the minority category; danger refers to the nearest neighbors more than half for the majority category samples; noise is the nearest neighbors all for the majority category samples, in turn, as marked by A, B, and C in Figure 2.
(2)
A sampling ratio was set according to the imbalance rate, a sampling multiple was determined, and for each sample of a danger minority class, a number of samples were randomly drawn from its nearest neighbor samples.
(3)
For each randomly selected nearest neighbor sample, a synthetic sample is obtained by the synthetic formula.
Sensors 23 01811 g002 550
Figure 2. Classification rules for minority class samples.
Figure 2. Classification rules for minority class samples.
Sensors 23 01811 g002

2.2. CatBoost Algorithm

CatBoost is derived from two words: “Categorical” and “Boosting”. It is an open-source machine learning algorithm developed by Yandex and widely used in R and python [23]. CatBoost is a GBDT (Gradient-Boosting Decision Tree) framework that is based on symmetric decision trees as primary learners with fewer parameters and supports class variables and high accuracy for the efficient and reasonable processing of class-type features. In addition, it also solves the problem of gradient bias and prediction shift, thus reducing the occurrence of overfitting [23,24]. In the decision tree, the label means will also be the criterion for node splitting, also known as greedy target variable statistics, and the formula is expressed as:
x ^ k i = ∑ j = 1 p − 1 [ x j , k = x i , k ] ⋅ Y i ∑ j = 1 n [ x j , k = x i , k ]
This approach has the obvious drawback that features usually contain more information than labels. If the features are forced to be represented by the average of the labels, conditional bias can occur when the data structure and distribution of the training and test datasets do not match. A standard way of improving Greedy TS (Target-based Statistics) is to add a priori distribution terms to reduce the effect of noise and low-frequency category-type data on the data distribution, and the formula is expressed as follows:
x ^ k i = ∑ j = 1 p − 1 [ x δ j , k = x δ p , k ] ⋅ Y δ j + a ⋅ p ∑ j = 1 p − 1 [ x δ j , k = x δ p , k ] + a
where p is the added prior term and a typically refers to the weight coefficient greater than 0. For classification problems, the prior term is the prior probability of positive examples. At the same time, the algorithm will automatically combine categorical features into new features to further improve the expressiveness of the model. Given the above advantages of the CatBoost algorithm, the blueberry ecological suitability dataset itself is mostly characterized by categories, and the application of this algorithm can learn more information, and to the maximum extent, so as to further improve the model expression [25]. Figure 3 shows the Flow chart of the CatBoost algorithm.

2.3. Sparrow Search Algorithm

The sparrow search algorithm (SSA) [26,27] modeled the behavior of sparrow populations for predation and the warning of natural enemies, dividing the population into discoverers, followers, and scouts, with scouts subordinated to discoverers and followers. Discoverers have a high energy reserve in the population and are responsible for searching for food and guiding the movement of species in the population, usually making up 10–20% of the population, with the rest being followers. Followers forage in the direction guided by the discoverer, while constantly monitoring the discoverers and competing for food for predation rates. A random selection of 10–20% of individuals throughout the population act as scouts to warn of enemies.
The formula for updating the position of discoverers is as follows:
X i , j t + 1 = { X i , j t · e x p ( − i α · i t e r m a x )               R 2 < S T X i , j t + Q · L                                           R 2 ≥ S T
where X i , j t + 1 denotes the position of the i th sparrow in the j th dimension at the current t th iteration. The i t e r m a x represents the maximum number of iterations, a random number within α ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) , and R 2 ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] ,   S T ∈ [ 0.5 , 1 ] represent the warning value and safety value, respectively. Q is the migration control coefficient, a random number obeying a standard normal distribution. L refers to a 1 × d matrix with all matrix elements being 1. R 2 < S T means there are no natural enemies around and the discoverer conducts a global search; R 2 ≥ S T means the warning value is reached, and the discoverer leads the population to escape from natural enemies.
The formula for updating the position of the followers can be seen as below:
X i , j t + 1 = { Q · e x p ( X w o r s t t − X i , j t i 2 )                                                 i > N 2 X p t + 1 + | X i , j t − X p t + 1 | · A + · L                     o t h e r
where X w o r s t denotes the current global worst position, X p t + 1 refers to the optimal position of the t+1th iteration discoverer, A is a 1 × d matrix with all matrix elements being 1 or −1, and A + = A T ( A A T ) − 1 . When i > N 2 indicates that this part of the followers is poorly positioned, in other words, low in adaptability and in hunger, they need to go to other places to forage for food.
The scout’s position update formula is as follows:
X i , j t + 1 = { X b e s t t + β · | X i , j t − X b e s t t |                                 f i > f g X i , j t + k · ( | X i , j t − X w o r s t t | ( f i − f w ) + ε ) · A + · L             f i = f g
where X b e s t t denotes the optimal global position, β is the step control coefficient and is a normally distributed random number with mean 0 and variance 1. k ∈ [ − 1 , 1 ] is a random number within k that denotes the orientation of the sparrow movement. ε is a tiny constant number that prevents the denominator from being zero. f i refers to the current adaptation value of the sparrow, f g and f w are the current global optimal and worst adaptation values, respectively. When f i > f g , it means that the sparrow is at the edge of the population and vulnerable to attack by natural predators; f i = f g indicates that the sparrow in the center of the population senses the danger of being attacked by natural predators and needs to move closer to other sparrows.

3. Study Area and Data

3.1. Study Area

The study area is Majiang County (107°18′–107°53′ E, 26°17′–26°37′ N), located in the South East of the Guizhou Province, China. Majiang County has cultivated high-quality organic blueberry varieties based on its natural environment. There are 12 blueberry-growing sites in the county, each of which has a wealth of data on the ecological suitability of blueberries. An overview of the study area is shown in Figure 4.

3.2. Data Source

Geographic, meteorological, and soil factors are the most important features affecting blueberry suitability [7,11]. The data for this study consisted mainly of geographic, meteorological, and soil data. Geographic data were obtained from ASTER GDEM data of the Geospatial Data Cloud, including elevation, slope, slope aspect, and NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index). Meteorological data were sourced from the Guizhou Meteorological Bureau, including monthly average temperature, monthly precipitation, illumination intensity, and ≥10 °C cumulative temperature (March–September), in 2018. Soil data were collected from the Chinese Soil Database (Soil Science Database), including soil pH and soil organic carbon content. The primary data sources are shown in Table 1.

4. Modeling Process

4.1. Overall Framework

In this study, the CatBoost model was used to classify the ecological suitability of blueberries. It consists of three parts: data processing, optimize the CatBoost, and suitability classification. Firstly, the collected sample data was processed, including pre-processing, feature selection, and the processing of imbalanced data. Secondly, the parameters of the model were optimized using SSA to obtain the best parameters, so that the classification performance of the CatBoost model could be improved. Finally, the optimized model was used to classify the ecological suitability of blueberries and the model performance was evaluated. The overall frame diagram is shown in Figure 5.

4.2. Data Pre-Processing and Feature Selection

4.2.1. Data Pre-Processing

The ecological suitability data of blueberries were obtained from 12 blueberry planting bases in LongBengShang, in Majiang County. Selected representative data are shown in Table 2.
Among the ecological suitability feature data, there will be unreasonable data such as duplicate values, abnormal values, and missing values; at the same time, there will be problems such as the non-uniform size of different feature data, which will have an enormous impact on the prediction accuracy of the model. In this paper, the approaches for cleaning data are as follows.
  • Removal of duplicate data.
  • Filling of missing values, adopting the mean for continuous features and the plural for categorical features.
  • Data Bucketing, bucketing, and label encoding for continuous features according to the data distribution by quantile, and direct label coding of categorical features. The specific coding method can be seen in Table 3.
Table
Table 3. Coding of suitability characteristics.
Table 3. Coding of suitability characteristics.
NumberFeaturesCoded Instructions
1Elevation (m)➀ <593; ➁ 593–816; ➂ 817–974; ➃ 975–1130; ➄ 1131–1328; ➅ 1329–1811; ➆ >1812
2Slope (°)➀ <10; ➁ 11–25; ➂ 25–35; ➃ 35–50; ➄ >50
3Slope aspect➀ Flat; ➁ North; ➂ North-east; ➃ East; ➄ Southeast;
➅ South; ➆ South-west; ➇ West; ➈ North-west
4NDVI➀ <3.5; ➁ 3.5–5.5; ➂ 5.5–9; ➃ >9
5Monthly precipitation➀ <50; ➁ 50–100; ➂ 100–170; ➃ 170–260; ➄ 260–300; ➅ >300
6Monthly average temperature (°C)➀ <0; ➁ 0–8; ➂ 8–15; ➃ 15–24; ➄ 24–30; ➅ >30
7 ≥ 10 °C cumulative temperature (d·°C)➀ <3000; ➁ 3000–4200; ➂ 4200–5500; ➃ >5500
8Illumination Intensity (Lux)➀ <1600; ➁ 1600–3200; ➂ 3200–4500; ➃ 4500–7000; ➄ 7000–10,000; ➅ >10,000
9Soil pH➀ <3.5; ➁ 3.5–4.5; ➂ 4.5–5.5; ➃ 5.5–7.1; ➄ >7.1
10Soil organic carbon content (g/kg)➀ <2; ➁ 2–4; ➂ 4–6; ➃ 6–8; ➄ >8
According to the coding rules of feature data in Table 3, the coding of each type of feature data in the sample data is shown in Table 4, where one denotes suitable ecological suitability of blueberry and zero indicates unsuitable.

4.2.2. Feature Selection

The data were converted into features that could better indicate the potential problem of improving machine learning capabilities. In this paper, a filtered approach was adopted to screen blueberries for features, namely two statistical tests of the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and information gain (IG) [28].
VIF can identify and quantify multicollinearity problems. Multicollinearity occurs when there is a high degree of linear correlation between features of the input dataset, which may lead to incorrect modeling through fault analysis [29]. Based on the non-independence between elements, multicollinearity analysis assesses the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions used for the modeling rationale. VIF is calculated as follows:
VIF = 1 1 − R 2
where R 2 represents the correlation between features and the larger the R 2 , the larger the VIF, meaning that there is a strong correlation between features. It is generally accepted that the closer the VIF is to one, the weaker the multicollinearity between features; VIF > five indicates strong multicollinearity.
IG is a measure of the information a feature can bring to the classified system [30], and the more information it brings, the more influential the feature is. The VIF and IG indices of ecological suitability features of blueberries are shown in Table 5 below.
In this study, the VIFs for the suitability features of blueberry were all less than five, and the IGs were all greater than zero, indicating weak multicollinearity among the features. Soil organic carbon content, elevation, Soil pH, ≥ 10 °C cumulative temperature, illumination intensity, and monthly precipitation contributed highly to the model, with each IG index being 0.271, 0.266, 0.198, 0.193, 0.136, and 0.128, respectively. It can be concluded that the selection of these ten-features data as inputs to the model training set allows for more adequate model training.

4.3. Imbalanced Data Processing

This paper collected sample data on the ecological suitability of blueberries from 12 planting bases in Majiang County, with a total of 918 cases. Among them, 632 cases were positive samples (samples with good suitability) and 286 cases were negative samples (samples with non-good suitability), which resulted in an imbalance in the proportion of samples. The classification results of the model constructed from imbalanced data would be more biased towards the labels of multi-category samples, which would lead to poor model fitting or poor results [31,32]. The random generation of negative samples was performed by the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm [33], and the distribution of the samples was balanced.
The experimental environment was Jupyter Notebook, and the package mainly includes python 3.8, Numpy, Pandas, SciKit-Learn, Imblearn, and other libraries. The sample of ecological suitability of the original blueberry was nine hundred eighteen cases with ten features. Bootstrap and Borderline-SMOTE methods were performed on the cleaned original data to obtain the required balanced dataset.
To determine the sampling ratio used by the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm in the dataset [34], the Random Forest algorithm was used to test the sampled dataset. The Random Forest algorithm had better robustness and higher accuracy and is suitable as a model for testing. The AUC was selected as the evaluation index of the model, and the sampling ratios were chosen as 3:4, 1:1, 4:3, 5:6, and 6:5; the Random Forest model was adopted to construct the blueberry ecological suitability dataset and compared in turn, as shown in Figure 6.
Based on the effects achieved, the model was best assessed by oversampling the negative samples, keeping the ratio of samples roughly at 4:3, and the data set situation is shown in Table 6.

5. Results

5.1. Experimental Environment and Evaluation Metrics

The research experiment environment was Jupiter notebook, and the package mainly includes python 3.8, NumPy, pandas, SciKit-Learn, imblearn, and so on.
The classified problems must be evaluated in model evaluation by adopting different metrics to accomplish the iterative model training process. In this study, the precision, recall, comprehensive evaluation index (F1) [35], and area under-the-receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used as evaluation metrics and calculated as follows [36]:
Precision = TP TP + FP
Recall = TP TP + FN
F 1 - score = 2 × P × R P + R
AUC is the most critical metric for evaluating the model, which is the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The prediction results of the model were sorted, and the samples were predicted as positive cases in order, and the True Positive Rate (TPR) and False Positive Rate (FPR) were calculated each time as the horizontal and vertical axes, respectively, and the formula is defined as follows:
TPR = TP TP + FN
FPR = FP TP + FP
The value of AUC is a vital evaluation index of the model, which is generally between 0.5 and 1, with larger values implying better generalization ability and classification performance [37].

5.2. Model Comparison

For the processed data, the 918 samples data were divided into training and testing sets in the ratio of 8:2, i.e., 80% of the data were used for the training of the model and 20% for the testing of the model.
Four different classification models were built using Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF) [38,39,40], and CatBoost; the models were parameterized using empirical settings, as shown in Table 7. To ensure the reliability of the experimental results and to avoid the chance of single experimental results, several experiments were conducted on different models. The comprehensive comparison of each model evaluation index is shown in Table 8, Figure 7 and Figure 8. The comparison of the training time of the models is shown in Table 9.
As shown by Figure 8 and Table 8, the proposed model scored the highest AUC value of 0.897, which was 4.91%, 3.82%, and 2.51% higher than LR (0.855), SVM (0.864), and RF (0.875), respectively. Besides, the CatBoost model also performed well in terms of the precision, recall, and F1-score. In terms of precision, the CatBoost model outperform the LR, SVM, and RF models by 16.01%, 0.91%, and 4.45%, respectively. Additionally, its recall was 2.70%, 6.20%, and 3.68% higher than that of the LR, SVM, and RF models, respectively. In terms of F1, the CatBoost model beats the LR, SVM, and RF models by 9.30%, 3.64%, and 2.32%, respectively. Therefore, the CatBoost model has the best classification performance.
As shown in Table 9, the training time of the LR and RF models was shorter, and the training time of the CatBoost model was 21 s, which was longer than that of the LR and RF models, while the training time of the SVM model was the longest. After analysis, the reasons for the above observations are as follows. The LR and RF models have lower complexity, so their training time is shorter; the SVM model has a higher kernel function complexity, so its training time is the longest; the CatBoost can learn the category features better due to prior classification of the category-based features of the dataset, and requires less training time, so the speed of classification prediction is faster.

5.3. Model Optimization

CatBoost was trained via the gradient boosting method. In the corresponding iteration, the basis for generating a new learner is the regularized objective function, too large or too small a regularization parameter L2_leaf_reg can lead to the over- or under-fitting of the model. For the learning rate, a small value will consequently cause the gradient to fall too slowly, while too large a value may miss the optimal value and generate oscillations. For the iterations, too small a parameter can lead to underfitting, resulting in inadequate model resolution, while too large a parameter can lead to overfitting, resulting in a decrease in the generalization ability of the model. In addition, the choice of depth is also important, as a wrong choice can affect the learning ability and classification capability of the model [41]. Therefore, in this study, an optimization algorithm was chosen to optimize the above four parameters to improve the performance of the classification model.
As the selection of machine learning parameters is a non-linear optimization problem, traditional optimization algorithms have unavoidable drawbacks. The best combination of parameters cannot be obtained quickly, and they are even more complicated when used in reality. Therefore, swarm intelligence optimization algorithms were employed to select the parameters of the models, providing better solutions even in the face of difficult problems [42]. Common swarm intelligence optimization algorithms are PSO, WOA, and SSA, and have been widely used by researchers for machine learning [43,44,45], as well as having advantages in hyperparameter search for CatBoost, converge quickly, and improve CatBoost’s performance [46,47,48]. Therefore, in this study, PSO, WOA, and SSA were adopted to optimize the four hyperparameters of the CatBoost model, and the results were compared. The AUC of the validation set was taken as the fitness value to create the fitness function curve. Figure 9 shows the fitness curves of the corresponding optimization algorithms.
As seen in Figure 9, the SSA was the first to achieve the optimal result; the number of iterations to attain the optimal fitness was 13, and the optimal fitness value was 0.917. The optimal fitness value was 0.889 for the WOA, and the number of iterations to attain optimal fitness was 19. The final fitness value for PSO is the smallest at 0.857. The number of iterations to achieve optimal fitness was 21, which was the worst optimization. The best combination of parameters achieved by different optimization algorithms is shown in Table 10.
CatBoost and CatBoost optimized via three algorithms were used to classify the ecological suitability of blueberries. A comparison of the assessment results is shown in Figure 10 and the training time comparison is shown in Table 11.
The figures demonstrate that the optimized CatBoost model performs better than the CatBoost model, except for the PSO-CatBoost model, in which the SSA-CatBoost model achieves the best performance in all aspects, with an AUC value of 0.921, and it has the best generalization ability. Regarding training time, the optimized CatBoost model takes less time to train than the unoptimized model, with the SSA-CatBoost model taking the fastest time, whose training time was 7 s.
In summary, compared with other optimization algorithms, SSA has the best optimization effect and the SSA-CatBoost model is more suitable for the ecological suitability classification of blueberries.

5.4. Feature Importance Analysis

The feature importance of the SSA-CatBoost, WOA-CatBoost, and PSO-CatBoost was calculated, and the results are shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that the contribution of the elevation, cumulative temperature, soil organic carbon content, and soil pH obtained high scores in different models with mean values of 0.2167, 0.2133, 0.1733, and 0.17, respectively. The sum of the contributions accounted for 77.33% of the total sum of all the features, which indicated that these four features had a higher effect on the ecological suitability of blueberries and were significant factors affecting the growth of blueberries. Conversely, the slope, slope aspect, NDVI, and illumination intensity had low contributions with mean values of 0.01, 0.0334, 0.0267, 0.0133, respectively, with the sum of contributions accounting for 8.34% of the total sum of all the features.

5.5. Analysis of the Effect of Different Inputs on the Model

The performance of the classification model was strongly correlated with the sample feature data, and the effects of the different feature inputs on the performance of the classification model were discussed.
The datasets were divided according to the different IG values. The table reveals that the IG values of the ten selected features are all greater than zero. Each feature affects the expressiveness of the blueberry ecological model. The sample data were then divided into three categories according to the different IG values of the features, IG > 0.01 (all features), IG > 0.1 (features: elevation, monthly precipitation, ≥10 °C cumulative temperature, illumination intensity, soil pH, soil organic carbon content) and IG > 0.15 (features: elevation, ≥10 °C cumulative temperature, soil pH, soil organic carbon content) which were tested using the SSA-CatBoost classification model and the model evaluations based on the different datasets are shown in Figure 12.
As can be seen from Figure 12, the model based on a dataset of IG > 0.01 had the highest AUC value, which was higher than IG > 0.1 and IG > 0.15, indicating that when each feature contributes to the model, the higher the input feature dimension, the more adequately trained the model is, the more robust the model is and the better generalization performance it has. Using the feature dataset of IG > 0.15 (four features: elevation, soil organic carbon content, soil pH, ≥10 °C cumulative temperature) as the model input, the model had comparatively better classification ability, exhibiting good performance on accuracy, recall, and so on. This suggests that the classification ability of this SSA-CatBoost model is closely related to the input of features with an extensive IG index.
The datasets were divided according to different environmental factors. The growth of blueberries is primarily governed by geography, meteorology, and soil. Therefore, the sample data were sorted into three other datasets: geographical (elevation, slope, slope aspect, NDVI), meteorological (monthly precipitation, average monthly temperature, ≥10 °C cumulative temperature, illumination intensity) and soil (Soil pH, soil organic carbon content), and single and multiple datasets were used as different data inputs, and tested using the SSA-CatBoost classification model. The model evaluation on the different data sets is shown in Figure 13.
As shown in Figure 13, comparing the performance of the model when only a single class of feature set was available as input, soil features had the most remarkable effects on the performance of the model, and the SSA-CatBoost model performed well in all aspects, indicating a high degree of influence of soil environmental factors on blueberry growth, followed by meteorological features and geographical features.
When datasets with multiple environmental features (geo-meteorological, geo-soil, or meteorological-soil) were used as model inputs, the model outperformed when datasets with a single feature were taken as the inputs. In particular, the model performed very well when the meteorological-soil feature was inputted into the model. The multi-type feature set provides more complete and representative information about the blueberry growing environment than the single-type feature set.

5.6. Mapping the Ecological Suitability of Blueberries

The machine learning model was employed to classify the ecological suitability of blueberries across the county of Majiang. The classification probability of each unit (30 m × 30 m) was saved as an ArcGIS attribute table and presented in a visual form, which would be more intuitive and practical for direct judgment based on the ecological suitability map of blueberries.
In the machine learning chosen for this paper, the classification results had a natural probability meaning, except for the SVM, where a probability value of zero meant unsuitable for blueberry growth and a probability value of one indicated suitable for blueberry growth, with increasing levels of ecological suitability for blueberry from zero to one. The SVM model cannot directly give the probability of classification results. However, the model prediction via five-fold cross-validation also fulfils the requirement that the results have a natural possibility meaning.
The ecological suitability of blueberries in Majiang County was classified into five classes: [0–0.20) less suitability, [0.2–0.40) low suitability, [0.40–0.60) moderate suitability, [0.60–0.80) high suitability, and [0.80–1] extreme suitability. The map of the ecological suitability evaluation of blueberries in Majiang County with different models is shown in Figure 14.
Most blueberry planting bases in Majiang County are located in the southeastern region. Market surveys have shown that the blueberries in this area have better quality and a higher yield. As shown in Figure 8, the suitability classification results of the integrated learning model were more compatible with the practical growing condition of blueberries than those of the single model. The classification results of the SSA-CatBoost model revealed that the extreme suitable and higher suitable areas for blueberry growth were mainly located in Xuanwei Town and Longshan Town in the southeastern part of the county, and the classification results matched the actual growing area the best compared with the classification results of other models. It can be seen that the classification model of blueberry ecological suitability constructed through the SSA-CatBoost model is effective and reliable and has significant reference value for the selection of blueberry planting areas.

6. Discussion

6.1. Main Findings

In this study, four machine learning (LR, SVM, RF, and CatBoost) were applied to build an ecological suitability classification model for blueberries. We gathered data on multiple sources of environmental features affecting the blueberry’s growth, balanced positive and negative samples of blueberries by the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm, and filtered features via VIF and IG. The processed data were then treated as input to the models for training. Ultimately, it was found that the performance ranking of the four machine learning models was CatBoost > RF > SVM > LR. Among the four machine learning models, CatBoost had the best performance metric among the four machine learning models, with an AUC of 0.897. In addition, we also conducted the hyperparametric search for CatBoost using SSA and found that the SSA-CatBoost model had a superior performance. Therefore, the SSA-CatBoost can be applied as the best model in the machine learning-based blueberry ecological suitability classification model.

6.2. Model Performance

Comparing the characteristics of the LR, SVM, RF, and CatBoost classification models, the ensemble learning classification models outperformed the single machine learning models. Among them, CatBoost outperformed all evaluation metrics. After optimizing the CatBoost hyperparameters with different optimization algorithms, the performance of the model was further improved while reducing the training time, and the AUC ranking of each model was SSA-CatBoost (0.921) > WOA-CatBoost (0.903) > PSO-CatBoost (0.891).

6.3. Main Features

In this study, machine learning technology was used to rank the importance of environmental features affecting blueberry growth, and a comprehensive analysis was made from the feature importance scores of each model. Elevation, ≥10 °C cumulative temperature, soil organic carbon content, and soil pH had high contribution values to the models, indicating that they had an increased influence on the ecological suitability of blueberries and were the most important factors affecting blueberry growth. On the contrary, slope, slope aspect, NDVI, and illumination intensity had lower contribution values to the model, indicating that they have less effect on the ecological suitability of blueberries. In Majiang County, blueberry cultivation bases are mainly located in the southeastern part of the county, where the altitude is low, the temperature is suitable all year round, and the soil pH is stable between 4.5 and 5.5, which is suitable for blueberry growth. Conversely, the northwestern part of the county has high altitudes and cold temperatures, which is not suitable for the development of blueberries.

6.4. Model Inputs

This study examined the variation in performance and the applicability of the model among different datasets taken as inputs. When datasets with different dimensions or datasets with various environmental features were adopted as model inputs, the performance and classification results of the model were significantly affected. For the model of blueberry ecological suitability proposed in this paper, the higher the feature dimension of the dataset, the better the model can be trained and the better the classification performance; when datasets with different environmental factors were used as model inputs, the influence of soil and meteorological factors on the classification results was more obvious, which indirectly indicates that soil and meteorological factors have a more substantial effect on the growth of blueberry. Therefore, the choice of the dataset is crucial to the performance of the model and the classification results. If sample data from other crops meet the requirements of this suitability classification method, the method can be extended to the suitability classification of other crops.

6.5. Model Advantages

CatBoost is the core of the model proposed in this paper, and as a representative of the Boosting family of algorithms, it has demonstrated its superiority in many cases. Qin et al. [49] built a prediction model for diabetes using LR, SVM, RF, XGBoost, and CatBoost, in which the AUC score of CatBoost was higher than the other models by 0.83. Zhang et al. [50] used machine learning to build a model for identifying depression in middle-aged and elderly people, and again, CatBoost performed better than LR, SVM, RF, and Back Propagation (BP). The AUC of CatBoost was higher than that of LR, SVM, RF, and the Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in building a landslide susceptibility prediction model by Wang et al. [51]. The model developed with CatBoost could better solve the gradient bias and prediction bias problems, thus reducing the occurrence of overfitting and improving the accuracy and generalization ability of the model. Based on the problem of unbalanced blueberry suitability sample data, this study proposed the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm to balance the positive and negative samples of blueberries to prevent the model from causing incorrect classification results under the condition of unbalanced data set classes.

7. Conclusions

Although machine learning technology has been increasingly used in smart agriculture, there is a lack of research on the suitability classification of crops in the case of multi-source environmental characteristics. In this study, machine learning techniques are applied to the ecological suitability classification of blueberries for the first time, and the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed method. We used 918 cases of sample data from the blueberry plantation in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China, the Borderline-SMOTE algorithm to balance the number of positive and negative samples, followed by the use of the Variance Inflation Factor and information gain methods to screen out the characteristic factors affecting blueberry growth. The processed data were then fed into each machine learning model for training. After model training, the AUC was applied to evaluate the model; finally, the performance ranking of the four machine learning models was evaluated as CatBoost > RF > SVM > LR. In addition, using the optimization algorithm to optimize the parameters of CatBoost, we found that SSA-CatBoost performed the best, with an AUC of 0.921. Our comprehensive experimental results showed that the proposed model could better classify the ecological suitability of blueberries.
Notably, there are certain requirements on data quality when using machine learning to solve practical problems. In the future, our research will be more inclined to feature data, and we will collect more feature data that affect blueberry growth. The influence of different features on model performance and classification results will also be included in subsequent studies for further optimization of the model to obtain better model classification performance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/s23041811/s1, Supplementary Material: The ecological suitability data of Blueberry in Majiang County, Guizhou Province, China.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Y. and W.C.; methodology, X.W. and W.C.; software, X.W. and W.C.; validation, T.Q. and W.C.; formal analysis, W.C.; investigation, J.Y. and X.W.; data curation, W.C.; writing—original draft preparation, W.C. and T.Q.; writing—review and editing, W.C. and T.Q.; visualization, W.C. and J.Y.; supervision, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 61861007 and 61640014; in part by the Guizhou Province Science Technology Support Plan under grant [2022]017 and [2019]2152; in part by the Guizhou Education Department Innovation Group Project under grant KY [2021]012; in part by the Guizhou Province Science and Technology Planning Project ZK [2021]303; in part by Scientific Research Fund for Talent Introduction of Guizhou University under grant [2014]08.

Data Availability Statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Romo, M.; Dote, P.; Garrido, H.; Araneda, F.; GilJ, M. Blueberry consumption and healthy lifestyles in an emerging market. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 17, 4. [Google Scholar]
  2. Strik, B. Organic Blueberry Production Systems—Advances in Research and Industry. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Vaccinium and Other Superfruits, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 17–22 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kim, J.; Yun, H. Current status and prospects of blueberry genomics research. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 2015, 42, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Guo, X.; Shi, G.Q.; Wu, Q.C. The current situation of the whole industry chain development of blueberry in Guizhou Province and suggestions for countermeasures. China Fruits 2022, 09, 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  5. Li, Y.D.; Pei, J.B.; Chen, L. 2020 Annual report on China’s blueberry industry. J. Jilin Agric. Univ. 2021, 43, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ma, L.J.; Du, E.W.; Hu, X.L. Ideas and measures for the construction of organic agriculture wisdom system in Majiang County. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2018, 46, 139–142. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhang, L. Study on climate quality evaluation criteria for blueberries. Stand. Sci. 2022, 04, 103–108. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mo, J.G.; Yu, F.; Zhang, S.H. Research on the effect of meteorological conditions on blueberry quality. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2016, 32, 170–175. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhang, S.; Gu, X.P.; Mo, J.G. GIS-based ecological suitability zoning of blueberries in Guizhou. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2014, 42, 255–257. [Google Scholar]
  10. Xiao, X.Z.; Liu, J.M.; Sun, C.F. Climate suitability zoning for blueberry cultivation in Fujian Province. Chin. J. Agrometeorol. 2020, 41, 520–528. [Google Scholar]
  11. Qin, G.W.; Lin, H.H.; Zhang, J. GIS-based potential suitable areas for blueberry cultivation in Shaanxi Province. J. China Agric. Univ. 2019, 24, 53–63. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vera, L.; Montalba, R.; Vieli, L.; Jorquera, E.; Gonzalez, I. Methodology for determining the suitability of land for the cultivation of highbush blueberry: A case study on a farm in southern Chile. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2015, 42, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cui, J.L.; Wei, H.Y.; Sang, M.J. Prediction of potential distribution area of blueberry based on maximum entropy model. Shandong Agric. Sci. 2015, 47, 36–41+45. [Google Scholar]
  14. Condran, S.; Bewong, M.; Islam, M.Z.; Maphosa, L.; Zheng, L.h. Machine Learning in Precision Agriculture: A Survey on Trends, Applications and Evaluations Over Two Decades. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 73786–73803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shaikh, T.A.; Rasool, T.; Lone, F.R. Towards leveraging the role of machine learning and artificial intelligence in precision agriculture and smart farming. Comput. Electron. Agr. 2022, 198, 107119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rashid, M.; Bari, B.S.; Yusup, Y.; Kamaruddin, M.A.; Khan, N. A Comprehensive Review of Crop Yield Prediction Using Machine Learning Approaches with Special Emphasis on Palm Oil Yield Prediction. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 63406–63439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhai, Z.Y.; Cao, Y.F.; Xu, H.L. A review of key technologies for crop pest and disease identification. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. 2021, 52, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  18. Taghizadeh, R.; Nabiollahi, K.; Rasoli, L.; Kerry, R.; Scholten, T. Land Suitability Assessment and Agricultural Production Sustainability Using Machine Learning Models. Agronomy 2020, 10, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Poongodi, S.; Babu, M.R. Analysis of crop suitability using clustering technique in Coimbatore region of Tamil Nadu. Concurr. Comput.-Pract. Exp. 2021, 31, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rivera, W.A.; Xanthopoulos, P. A priori synthetic over-sampling methods for increasing classification sensitivity in imbalanced data sets. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 66, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gao, Q.J.; Jin, X.; Xia, E.H.; Wu, X.W. Identification of Orphan Genes in Unbalanced Datasets Based on Ensemble Learning. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, T.J.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, S.P. Improvement of P300-Based Brain-Computer Interfaces for Home Appliances Control by Data Balancing Techniques. Sensors 2020, 20, 5576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hancock, J.T.; Khoshgoftaar, T.M. CatBoost for big data: An interdisciplinary review. J. Big Data 2020, 7, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhang, H.; Chen, L.; Wei, Z.Q. Abnormal Traffic Detection Technology Based on Data Augmentation and Model Update. Netinfo Secur. 2020, 20, 66–74. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bentejac, C.; Csorgo, A.; Martinez, M.G. A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 54, 1937–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, G.J.; Wang, X.H.; Wang, Z.X.; Ma, C.R.; Song, Z.X. A VMD-CISSA-LSSVM Based Electricity Load Forecasting Model. Mathematics 2022, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yan, S.Q.; Yang, P.; Zhu, D.L.; Zheng, W.X.L.; Wu, F.X.; Yang, P.; Zhu, D.; Zheng, W.; Wu, F. Improved Sparrow Search Algorithm Based on Iterative Local Search. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 2021, 6860503. [Google Scholar]
  28. Luo, X.; Lin, F.K.; Zhu, S.; Yu, M.L. Mine landslide susceptibility assessment using IVM, ANN and SVM models considering the contribution of affecting factors. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bancha, A.; Chen, Y.; Chen, V.C.P.; Kim, S.B. Data mining for state space orthogonalization in adaptive dynamic programming. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 76, 46–58. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wu, G.; Xu, J. Optimized Approach of Feature Selection based on Information Gain. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Science and Mechanical Automation, Hangzhou, China, 23–25 October 2015. [Google Scholar]
  31. Xiao, L.X.; Wen, C.; Yan, F.S. Over-sampling algorithm for imbalanced data classification. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 2019, 30, 1182–1191. [Google Scholar]
  32. Douzas, G.; Douzas, G.; Fonseca, J.; Khudinyan, M. Imbalanced Learning in Land Cover Classification: Improving Minority Classes’ Prediction Accuracy Using the Geometric SMOTE Algorithm. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, K.; Ren, B.Y.; Guan, T.; Wang, J.J. A hybrid cluster-borderline SMOTE method for imbalanced data of rock groutability classification. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 81, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sun, Y.; Que, H.K.; Cai, Q.Q.; Zhao, J.M. Borderline SMOTE Algorithm and Feature Selection-Based Network Anomalies Detection Strategy. Energies 2022, 15, 4751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dev, V.A.; Eden, M.R. Gradient boosted decision trees for lithology classification. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 2019, 47, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rodrigo, Z.V.; Christopher, T.R.; Jim, H.; Stuart, J.C. Machine Learning to Predict Outcomes and Cost by Phase of Care After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2022, 114, 711–719. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin, R.T.; Chan, K.C.G.; Shi, H.L. A unified Bayesian framework for exact inference of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 2021, 30, 2269–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barah, M.; Mehrotra, S. Predicting Kidney Discard Using Machine Learning. Transplantation 2021, 105, 2057–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Bao, F.; Bambil, D. Applicability of computer vision in seed identification: Deep learning, random forest, and support vector machine classification algorithms. Acta Bot. Bras. 2021, 35, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Koklu, M.; Sarigil, S.; Ozbek, O. The use of machine learning methods in classification of pumpkin seeds (Cucurbita pepo L.). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2021, 38, 2713–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, M.; Chen, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, F. Fault Diagnosis of Oil-Immersed Power Transformer Based on Difference-Mutation Brain Storm Optimized Catboost Model. IEEE Access 2022, 9, 168767–168782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cai, Y.Y.; Amit, S. Swarm Intelligence Optimization: An Exploration and Application of Machine Learning Technology. J. Intell. Syst. 2021, 30, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Qiu, Y.G.; Zhou, J.; Khandelwal, M.; Yang, H.T. Performance evaluation of hybrid WOA-XGBoost, GWO-XGBoost and BO-XGBoost models to predict blast-induced ground vibration. Eng. Comput. 2021, 38, 4145–4162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nguyen, H.; Moayedi, H.; Foong, L.K. Optimizing ANN models with PSO for predicting short building seismic response. Eng. Comput. 2020, 36, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gao, B.W.; Shen, W.; Guan, H.; Zheng, L.T. Research on Multistrategy Improved Evolutionary Sparrow Search Algorithm and its Application. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 62520–62534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yuan, J.; Zeng, X.; Wu, H.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, J. Analytical determination of interwell connectivity based on interwell influence. Tsinghua Sci. Technol. 2021, 26, 813–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Majhi, S.K. Fuzzy clustering algorithm based on modified whale optimization algorithm for automobile insurance fraud detection. Evol. Intell. 2019, 14, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, M.; Chen, W.; Yin, J.; Feng, T. Health Factor Extraction of Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on Discrete Wavelet Transform and SOH Prediction Based on CatBoost. Energies 2022, 15, 5331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Qin, Y.; Wu, J.; Xiao, W.; Wang, K.; Huang, A.; Liu, B.; Yu, J.; Li, C.; Yu, F.; Ren, Z. Machine Learning Models for Data-Driven Prediction of Diabetes by Lifestyle Type. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, C.Y.; Chen, X.F.; Wang, S.; Hu, J.J.; Wang, C.P.; Liu, X. Using CatBoost algorithm to identify middle-aged and elderly depression, national health and nutrition examination survey 2011–2018. Psychiatry Res. 2021, 306, 114261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Wang, B.W.; Lin, Q.G.; Jiang, T.; Yin, H.X.; Zhou, J.; Sun, J.H.; Wang, D.F. Evaluation of linear, nonlinear and ensemble machine learning models for landslide susceptibility assessment in southwest China. Geocarto Int. 2022, 10, 4016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensors 23 01811 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Calculating the proximity of the selected sample K; (b) Synthesizing new samples.
Figure 1. (a) Calculating the proximity of the selected sample K; (b) Synthesizing new samples.
Sensors 23 01811 g001
Sensors 23 01811 g003 550
Figure 3. Flow chart of CatBoost algorithm.
Figure 3. Flow chart of CatBoost algorithm.
Sensors 23 01811 g003
Sensors 23 01811 g004 550
Figure 4. Overview map of the study area.
Figure 4. Overview map of the study area.
Sensors 23 01811 g004
Sensors 23 01811 g005 550
Figure 5. Overall frame diagram.
Figure 5. Overall frame diagram.
Sensors 23 01811 g005
Sensors 23 01811 g006 550
Figure 6. Sampling ratio selection.
Figure 6. Sampling ratio selection.
Sensors 23 01811 g006
Sensors 23 01811 g007 550
Figure 7. Curve comparison of ROC.
Figure 7. Curve comparison of ROC.
Sensors 23 01811 g007
Sensors 23 01811 g008 550
Figure 8. Standard deviations of different models in each evaluation index.
Figure 8. Standard deviations of different models in each evaluation index.
Sensors 23 01811 g008
Sensors 23 01811 g009 550
Figure 9. Fitness curve of each optimization algorithm.
Figure 9. Fitness curve of each optimization algorithm.
Sensors 23 01811 g009
Sensors 23 01811 g010 550
Figure 10. Evaluation comparison of different models.
Figure 10. Evaluation comparison of different models.
Sensors 23 01811 g010
Sensors 23 01811 g011a 550Sensors 23 01811 g011b 550
Figure 11. (a) Feature importance using SSA-CatBoost; (b) feature importance using WOA-CatBoost; (c) feature importance using PSO-CatBoost.
Figure 11. (a) Feature importance using SSA-CatBoost; (b) feature importance using WOA-CatBoost; (c) feature importance using PSO-CatBoost.
Sensors 23 01811 g011aSensors 23 01811 g011b
Sensors 23 01811 g012 550
Figure 12. Comparison of models based on inputs with different IG indices.
Figure 12. Comparison of models based on inputs with different IG indices.
Sensors 23 01811 g012
Sensors 23 01811 g013 550
Figure 13. Comparison of models based on inputs from different environmental factor datasets.
Figure 13. Comparison of models based on inputs from different environmental factor datasets.
Sensors 23 01811 g013
Sensors 23 01811 g014 550
Figure 14. Ecological suitability evaluation map of blueberry in Majiang County with different models.
Figure 14. Ecological suitability evaluation map of blueberry in Majiang County with different models.
Sensors 23 01811 g014
Table
Table 1. Data sources.
Table 1. Data sources.
Data TypeData SourceYears
Geographic dataGeospatial data (http://www.gscloud.cn, accessed on 3 May 2022)2021
Meteorological dataMeteorological Bureau of Guizhou Province (http://gz.cma.gov.cn, accessed on 3 May 2022)2018
Soil dataSoil Science Database (http://vdb3.soil.csdb.cn, accessed on 3 May 2022)2018
Table
Table 2. Partial sample data.
Table 2. Partial sample data.
NumberElevation
(m)		Slope
(°)		Slope AspectNDVIMonthly Average Temperature
(°C)		 ≥ 10 °C Cumulative Temperature
(d·°C)		Illumination Intensity
(Lux)		Soil pHSoil Organic Carbon Content
(g/kg)		Quality of Blueberries
175627North-east3.720.7366649134.85.1High
2135018West10.110.3543111,2546.81.7Low
368917Flat2.713.9387579644.63.6High
490118Flat4.114.3423365824.62.0High
5146525North11.011.7298189746.93.8Low
6122715North6.110.1551375125.73.6Low
712289Flat2.911.9419212,6415.74.1Low
810907South-east5.412.1311233475.61.7Low
971711East7.321.4375179944.33.9High
1068926Flat3.411.2298359714.75.8High
11121027North8.512.8246911,3425.25.1Low
126311North-east5.124.1489160344.26.7High
Table
Table 4. Sample data table.
Table 4. Sample data table.
NumberElevationSlopeSlope AspectNDVIMonthly Average Temperature ≥ 10 °C Cumulative Temperature Illumination IntensitySoil pHSoil Organic Carbon ContentEcological Suitability
12332424331
25284336410
31111325321
43112334311
56224215420
65223345420
75111216430
84252323410
92243425221
101111314331
114423216330
122232434241
Table
Table 5. VIF and IG for the features of ecological suitability.
Table 5. VIF and IG for the features of ecological suitability.
NumberFeatureVIFIG
1Elevation1.9480.266
2Slope1.6200.032
3Slope aspect1.0310.027
4NDVI1.7180.076
5Monthly precipitation1.2560.128
6Monthly average temperature1.1340.093
7 ≥ 10 °C cumulative temperature1.5370.193
8Illumination intensity1.3710.136
9Soil pH2.1090.198
10Soil organic carbon content1.4410.271
Table
Table 6. Comparison of sample data sets.
Table 6. Comparison of sample data sets.
DataNumber of SamplesPositive Samples
(Well-Suited)		Negative Samples
(Non-Well-Suited)		Number of Features
Before processing91863228610
After processing110663247410
Table
Table 7. Main parameters of different models.
Table 7. Main parameters of different models.
ModelMain Parameters
LRpenality=l2, C=2, l1_ratio=0.3, max_iter=100, solver=‘lbfgs’, class_weight=None, random_state=None
SVMC=8, gamma=0.3, kernel=’rbf’, probability=False, gamma=’Scale’, max_iter=1000, degree=3
RFn_estimators=80, max_depth=3, min_samples_split=2, min_samples_leaf=5, mini_impurity_decrease=0.4, criterion=‘gini’, boostrap=Ture, oob_score=False, max_leaf_node=None
CatBoostloss_function=’Logloss’, eval_metric=’AUC’, task_type=’CPU’, learning_rate=0.1, iterations=10, depth=6, l2_leaf_reg=10, boosting_type=‘Ordered’, random_seed=‘123’,
Table
Table 8. Experimental results of different models.
Table 8. Experimental results of different models.
ModelEvaluation Index
PrecisionRecallF1-ScoreAUC
LR0.7680.8510.8070.855
SVM0.8830.8230.8510.864
RF0.8530.8430.8620.875
CatBoost0.8910.8740.8820.897
Table
Table 9. The training time of different models.
Table 9. The training time of different models.
ModelTraining Time/s
LR17
SVM39
RF17
CatBoost21
Table
Table 10. Optimal parameters of CatBoost for different optimization algorithms.
Table 10. Optimal parameters of CatBoost for different optimization algorithms.
Optimization AlgorithmOptimal Parameters for CatBoost
PSOloss_function=’Logloss’, eval_metric=’AUC’, task_type=’CPU’, boosting_type=‘Ordered’, random_seed=‘123’,
learning_rate=0.03, iterations=100, depth=6, l2_leaf_reg=20
WOAloss_function=’Logloss’, eval_metric=’AUC’, task_type=’CPU’, boosting_type=‘Ordered’, random_seed=‘123’,
learning_rate=0.2, iterations=60, depth=8, l2_leaf_reg=27
SSAloss_function=’Logloss’, eval_metric=’AUC’, task_type=’CPU’, boosting_type=‘Ordered’, random_seed=‘123’,
learning_rate=0.1, iterations=50, depth=8, l2_leaf_reg=18
Table
Table 11. The training time of different optimized models.
Table 11. The training time of different optimized models.
ModelTraining Time/s
CatBoost21
PSO-CatBoost18
WOA-CatBoost11
SSA-CatBoost7
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chang, W.; Wang, X.; Yang, J.; Qin, T. An Improved CatBoost-Based Classification Model for Ecological Suitability of Blueberries. Sensors 2023, 23, 1811. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041811

AMA Style

Chang W, Wang X, Yang J, Qin T. An Improved CatBoost-Based Classification Model for Ecological Suitability of Blueberries. Sensors. 2023; 23(4):1811. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041811

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chang, Wenfeng, Xiao Wang, Jing Yang, and Tao Qin. 2023. "An Improved CatBoost-Based Classification Model for Ecological Suitability of Blueberries" Sensors 23, no. 4: 1811. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041811

APA Style

Chang, W., Wang, X., Yang, J., & Qin, T. (2023). An Improved CatBoost-Based Classification Model for Ecological Suitability of Blueberries. Sensors, 23(4), 1811. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23041811

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop