Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning-Based Models in Estimating Soil Moisture Distribution Dimensions under Drip Irrigation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant professor, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 PhD Student, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Ke.C., Islamic Azad University of Kerman, Kerman

Abstract

In recent years, machine learning models have been increasingly recognized as effective alternatives to analytical, numerical, and empirical models for estimating the dimensions of soil moisture distribution patterns, without requiring constraints such as boundary condition specification or recalibration. Therefore, in the present study, the performance of five machine learning models (CatBoost, XGBoost, RF, SVR, Elnet) was evaluated for estimating infiltration depth and surface width of the wetting bulb in two soil textures (Loamy Sand, Sandy Clay) under surface drip irrigation system. Eight input variables including sand percentage, silt percentage, clay percentage, water salinity, cumulative time, cumulative water volume, bulk density and saturated hydraulic conductivity were used as model inputs. A standard shuffled cross-validation approach was applied and model performance was assessed using statistical indices including R², RMSE, and MAE. The results indicated that the most accurate estimates of infiltration depth (R² = 0.94, RMSE = 0.27 cm, MAE = 0.10 cm) and surface width (R² = 0.98, RMSE = 1.58 cm, MAE = 0.91 cm) were obtained for the Sandy Clay soil using the CatBoost model. The weakest performance was observed for the Elnet model. Specifically, the lowest accuracy for estimating infiltration depth and surface width using this model was obtained in Loamy Sand (R² = 0.16, RMSE = 6.16 cm, MAE = 3.22 cm) and Sandy Clay (R² = 0.76, RMSE = 6.09 cm, MAE = 4.67 cm), respectively. Overall, the findings confirm the strong capability of tree-based machine learning models which are able to capture complex and nonlinear relationships among variables in estimating the dimensions of wetting bulb, particularly in soils with higher clay content.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Introduction

The increasing strain on water resources, resulting from climate change and rising demand for food production, has posed significant challenges to the transition toward sustainable agriculture. Consequently, the use of traditional irrigation methods such as surface irrigation—which are often associated with low efficiency and substantial water loss—is no longer justifiable. This has led to a growing interest among farmers in pressurized irrigation systems, such as drip irrigation, due to its precise control over applied water volume and improved water use efficiency. However, the performance of drip irrigation systems is substantially enhanced when accurate information regarding the dimensions of the soil moisture distribution pattern is available. Numerous analytical, numerical, and empirical models have been developed to estimate the infiltration depth and surface wetted width of the moisture distribution pattern. Nevertheless, these models

have certain limitations, including the requirement for a wide range of input variables, the definition of complex boundary conditions, or the need for recalibration. With the emergence and advancement of machine learning models, robust algorithms have been introduced that can provide accurate estimations of the moisture distribution pattern dimensions without the aforementioned constraints. Therefore, the present study evaluates the accuracy of five machine learning models for estimating the infiltration depth and surface wetted width of the soil moisture distribution pattern over time under saline water application in surface drip irrigation. As the first step, a laboratory setup was constructed to record the aforementioned characteristics.

Method

a) Construction of the Laboratory Setup

To investigate the soil moisture distribution pattern, a physical model was constructed in the Irrigation Laboratory of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. The setup consisted of several components including a water supply source, a soil reservoir, and a surface drip irrigation system. The physical model comprised three separate compartments, with dimensions of 0.8 × 0.8 × 1 m. A transparent Plexiglas sheet was installed on the front side of each compartment, gridded into 5 × 5 cm squares to facilitate visual observation and measurement. Each compartment was filled layer by layer with soil samples passed through a 2 mm sieve, and each layer was compacted using 15 blows of a 5 kg weight. A surface drip emitter with 4 L/h discharge rate was placed on the soil surface near the transparent Plexiglas wall so that the infiltration depth and surface wetted width could be clearly observed and measured. Five salinity treatments with electrical conductivities (EC) of 1.5, 3, 6, 9, and 12 dS. m⁻¹ were applied to examine the moisture distribution pattern. The infiltration depth and surface wetted width were recorded at 10 time intervals of 30 minutes, with three replications. The collected data from two soil textures were used to simulate the dimensions of the moisture distribution pattern and to evaluate the accuracy of selected machine learning models.

b) Machine Learning Models

RF: Random Forest is a supervised ensemble learning model that consists of a large number of decision trees. The model is developed using the bagging technique combined with random feature selection at each splitting node. This process generates multiple independent decision trees, and the final output is determined by majority voting in classification problems or by averaging the predictions in regression tasks.

XGBoost: eXtreme Gradient Boosting is an efficient and scalable implementation of the Gradient Boosting framework based on decision trees. The algorithm builds trees in a sequential (additive) manner, where each successive tree is trained to correct the residual errors of the preceding ones. With using advanced regularization, gradient-based optimization and parallel processing, XGBoost delivers high accuracy and strong generalization performance.

CatBoost: Categorical Boosting is a gradient boosting algorithm built on decision trees that is specifically engineered for the direct handling of categorical features without requiring preprocessing. The algorithm utilizes Ordered Boosting and Ordered Target Statistics to minimize target leakage, control overfitting, and deliver superior performance in both accuracy and training speed.

SVR: Support Vector Regression (SVR) is a supervised learning algorithm developed for regression problems. It aims to find a function that deviates from the actual observed values by no more than a specified margin , while maintaining the flattest possible function. For nonlinear relationships, SVR employs kernel functions (such as the Radial Basis Function - RBF kernel) to implicitly map the input data into a higher-dimensional feature space. This transformation allows the algorithm to perform linear regression in the new space, which corresponds to nonlinear regression in the original input space.

Elnet: Elastic Net is a regularized linear regression model that integrates the L1 (Lasso) and L2 (Ridge) penalties. The model minimizes an objective function consisting of the residual sum of squares augmented by a convex combination of L1 and L2 regularization terms. This hybrid regularization enables both automatic feature selection (sparsity) and the handling of multicollinearity through the grouping effect, making Elastic Net highly effective for high-dimensional data and datasets with strongly correlated predictors.

c) Implementation and Evaluation of the Models

The implementation of the aforementioned machine learning models was carried out in Python 3.13. The input variables included sand percentage, silt percentage, irrigation water salinity, cumulative time, cumulative water volume, bulk density, and saturated hydraulic conductivity. These inputs were used to predict the surface wetted width (width) and the infiltration depth (depth) of the soil moisture distribution pattern.

The dataset was normalized using the min-max normalization method. To improve model generalization and prevent data leakage, shuffled stratified k-fold cross-validation was employed. The performance of the models was evaluated using the statistical indices coefficient of determination (R²), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and Mean Absolute Error (MAE).

Results

The analysis of the obtained results confirms the acceptable accuracy of the tree-based models in estimating the depth and surface width of the soil moisture distribution pattern in both soil textures. The most accurate estimation of depth was achieved by the CatBoost model in sandy clay soil (R² = 0.94, RMSE = 0.27 cm, MAE = 0.10 cm) and in loamy sand soil (R² = 0.92, RMSE = 1.62 cm, MAE = 0.77 cm). The weakest performance in estimating depth in both soil textures was observed with the Elnet model. Similarly, the most accurate estimation of surface width was obtained by the CatBoost model in sandy clay (R² = 0.98, RMSE = 1.58 cm, MAE = 0.91 cm) and in loamy sand (R² = 0.97, RMSE = 1.76 cm, MAE = 1.06 cm). The weakest results for width prediction in both textures were also recorded by the Elnet model.

Conclusions

In the present study, the performance of five machine learning models including CatBoost, XGBoost, RF, SVR and Elnet was evaluated for estimating the infiltration depth and surface width of the soil moisture distribution pattern in two different soil textures under surface drip irrigation. The results indicated that in both soil textures, tree-based models exhibited higher accuracy compared to the other models in estimating the aforementioned variables. Among them, CatBoost provided the most accurate estimates of both infiltration depth and surface width across both soil textures, often showing close agreement with the results obtained from the XGBoost model. This finding suggests that these models are more capable of capturing complex and hidden patterns among the variables.

In contrast, the presence of nonlinear relationships between input and target variables in simulating soil moisture distribution patterns, along with significant interactions among variables such as water volume, irrigation duration and soil properties led to weaker performance in models such as Elnet regression, particularly in soils with high sand content.

Furthermore, comparison of the results revealed that in soils with higher clay content, water movement in both vertical (depth) and horizontal (surface width) directions is more regulated and system variations occur in a smoother and more continuous manner. Consequently, the relationships among variables are more structured, resulting in more stable model performance for both target variables.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Authorship contribution

Conceptualization, Golestani Kermani S.; methodology, Golestani Kermani S. and Saeidi Abbasabad M.; software, Golestani Kermani S.; validation, Golestani Kermani S.; writing—original draft preparation, Golestani Kermani S. and Saeidi Abbasabad M; writing—review and editing, Golestani Kermani S and Saeidi Abbasabad M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used chatgpt in order to translate extended abstract to English. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Data availability statement

Data available on request from the authors.

 

Ethical considerations

The authors avoided data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and any form of misconduct.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. 

Alahmad, T., Neményi, M., Széles, A., Ali, NA., Hijazi, O., & Nyéki, A. (2025). Spatiotemporal prediction of soil moisture content at various depths in three soil types using machine learning algorithms. Frontiers in Soil Science, 5, 1612908. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2025.1612908.
Al-Ogaidi, AAM., Wayayok, A., Kamal, MR., & Abdullah, AF. (2015). A modified empirical model for estimating the wetted zone dimensions under drip irrigation. Journal Teknologi, 76, 69–73.
Al-Ogaidi, AAM., Wayayok, A., Rowshon, MK., & Abdullah, AF. (2016). Wetting patterns estimation under drip irrigation systems using an enhanced empirical model. Agricultural Water Management, 176, 203–213.
Amin, MSM., & Ekhmaj, AIM. (2006). DIPAC-Drip irrigation water distribution pattern calculator. 7th International micro irrigation congress, 10–16 September, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Arbat, G., Puig-Bargués, J., Duran-Ros, M., Barragán, J., & Ramírez de Cartagena, F. (2013). Drip-Irriwater: computer software to simulate soil wetting patterns under surface drip irrigation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 98, 183–192.
Bentéjac, C., Csörgő, A., & Martínez‑Muñoz, G. (2021). A comparative analysis of gradient boosting algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review, 54, 1937–1967.
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794.
Cook, FJ., Thorburn, PJ., Fitch, P., & Bristow, KL. (2003). WetUp: a software tool to display approximate wetting patterns from drippers. Irrigation Science, 22, 129-134.
Cristóbal-Muñoz, I., Prado-Hernández, JV., Martínez-Ruiz, A., Pascual-Ramírez, F., Cristóbal-Acevedo, D., & Cristóbal-Muñoz, D. (2022). An improved empirical model for estimating the geometry of the soil wetting front with surface drip irrigation.  Water, 14(11), 1827. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111827.
Delgado, JA., Short, NM., Roberts, DP., & Vandenberg, B. (2019). Big data analysis for sustainable agriculture on a geospatial cloud framework. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, Article 469303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00054
Dhaliwal, JK., Panday, D., Saha, D., Lee, J., Jagadamma, S., Schaeffer, S., & Mengistu, A. (2022). Predicting and interpreting cotton yield and its determinants under long-term conservation management practices using machine learning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 199, doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107107.
Elmaloglou, S., Soulis, KX., & Dercas, N. (2013). Simulation of soil water dynamics under surface drip irrigation from equidistant line sources. Water Resource Management, 27, 4131-4148.
Hammami, M., & Zayani, K. (2016). An analytical approach to predict the moistened bulb volume beneath a surface point source. Agricultural Water Management, 166, 123-129.
Hanson, B.R. Gratten, S.R. & Fulton, A. (2006). Agricultural salinity and drainage. Regents of the University of California, Oakland, 180.
Hong, H., Pourghasemi, HR., & Pourtaghi, ZS. (2016). Landslide susceptibility assessment in lianhua county (China): a comparison between a random forest data mining technique and bivariate and multivariate statistical models, Geomorphology, 259, 105–118.
Kandelous, M., Liaghat, A., & Abbasi, F. (2008). Estimation of soil moisture pattern in subsurface drip irrigation using dimensional analysis methods. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 39(2), 371-378. (In Persian). 
Kandelous, MM., & Šimůnek, J. (2010). Comparison of numerical, analytical, and empirical models to estimate wetting patterns for surface and subsurface drip irrigation. Irrigation Science, 28, 435–444.
Karimi, B., Mohammadi, P., Sanikhani, H., Salih, SQ., & Yaseen, ZM. (2020). Modeling wetted areas of moisture bulb for drip irrigation systems: An enhanced empirical model and artificial neural network. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 178, 105767.
Kheimi, M., Alotaibi, F., & Alqahtani, A. (2025). Conventional and advanced ai-based models in soil moisture prediction. Journal of Hydrology, (In press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.XXXXXX.
Kisi, O., Khosravinia, P., Heddam, S., Karimi, B., & Karimi, N. (2021). Modeling wetting front redistribution of drip irrigation systems using a new machine learning method: adaptive neuro-fuzzy system improved by hybrid particle swarm optimization-gravity search algorithm. Agricultural Water Management, 256. 107067.
Kusumavathi, K., Konatala, R., Lai, P., Sarkar, S., Banerjee, H., Bandopadhyay, P., Sethi, D., & Upendar, K. (2025). Artificial intelligence for fostering sustainable agriculture. Gurrent Plant Biology, 42, 100476.
Malek, K., & Peters, RT. (2011). Wetting pattern models for drip irrigation, new empirical models. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 137, 530-536.
Mirzaeitalarposhti, R., Shafizadeh-Moghadam, H., & Demyan, MS. (2022). Digital soil texture mapping and spatial transferability of machine learning models using sentinel-1, sentinel-2, and terrain-derived covariates. Remote Sensing, 14(23), 5909. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14235909.
Moncef, H., & Khemaies, Z. (2016). An analytical approach to predict the moistened bulb volume beneath a surface point source. Agricultural Water Management, 166, 123–129.
Nikbakht, J., & Abdollahi Siahkalroudi, M. (2014). Effect of magnetization of irrigation water on the properties of soil wetting pattern in surface drip irrigation. Water and Soil Science, 24(4), 139-152. (In Persian).
Nogueira, LSR., De Carvalho, MAS., Santos, BDO., Yonaba, R., Bamal, A., Uddin, MG., Bodini, M., & Goliatt, L. (2026). A comparative study of ensemble and non-ensemble machine learning methods for predicting river pollution index. Ecological Informatics, 81, 103617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103617.
Priyanka, P., Kumar, P., & Panda, S. (2024). Can machine learning models predict soil moisture evaporation rates? an investigation via novel feature selection techniques and model comparisons. Frontiers in Earth Science, 12, 1344690. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2024.1344690.
Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, AV., & Gulin, A. (2018). Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Montréal, 3-8 December, 6639-6649.
Rajhi, M., Deak, T., & Dobos, E. (2026). Non-invasive soil texture prediction psing machine learning and multi-source environmental data. Soil Systems, 10(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems10010008
Saeidi Abbasabad, M., Golestani Kermani, S., Mohayeji Nasrabadi, M., & Zounemat-Kermani, M. (2024). Effect of magnetic fields on saline water distribution pattern under time in drip irrigation. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 1(18), 185-204. (In Persian).
Samadianfard, S., Sadraddini, AA., Nazemi, AH., Provenzano, G., & Kisi, O. (2012). Estimation soil wetting pattern for drip irrigation using genetic programming. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(4), 1155-1166.
Segovia, JA., Toaquiza, JF., Llanos, JR., & Rivas, DR. (2023). Meteorological variables forecasting system using machine learning and open‑source software. Electronics, 12(4), 1007.
Seifu Majdar, R., Rahnamaei, A., & Babazadeh, V. (2025). Hybrid machine learning in hydrological runoff forecasting: an exploration of extreme gradient-boosting and categorical gradient boosting optimization in the russian river basin. Advances in Engineering and Intelligence Systems, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.22034/aeis.2025.509199.1293.
Sejna, M., Simunek, J., & Van Genuchten, MT. (2014). The HYDRUS software package for simulating two and three dimensional movement of water, heat and multiple solutes in variably – saturated porous media, version 2-04. (PC Progress, Prague, Czech Republic).
Shiri, J., Karimi, B., Karimi, N., Kazemi, MH., & Karimi, S. (2020). Simulating wetting front dimensions of drip irrigation systems: multi criteria assessment of soft computing models. Journal of Hydrology, 585, 124792.
Sishodia, RP., Ray, RL., & Singh, SK. (2020). Applications of remote sensing in precision agriculture: a review. Remote Sensing, 12(19), 1–31.
Smola, AJ., & Schölkopf, B. (2004). A tutorial on support vector regression. Statistics and Computing, 14(3), 199–222.
Taheri, M., Bigdeli, M., Imanian, H., & Mohammadiam, A. (2025). An overview of machine-learning methods for soil moisture estimation. Water, 17(11), 1638. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17111638
Vanwinckelen, G., & Blockeel, H. (2012). On estimating model accuracy with repeated cross-validation. Proceedings of the 21st Belgian-Dutch conference on machine learning, 39-44.
Vapnik, V. (1984). Estimation of dependences based on empirical data. Springer-Verlag, 400 p. https://books.google.nl/books?id=wxFS0AEACAAJ
Vapnik, V., & Chervonenkis, A. (1974). Theory of pattern recognition. Nauka, Moscow. 353 p.
Wang, X., Liu, T., Zheng, X., Peng, H., Xin, J., & Zhang, B. (2018). Short‑term prediction of groundwater level using improved random forest regression with a combination of random features. Applied Water Science, 8(5), 1–12.
Zhang, X., Sun, X., & Lin, Z. (2025). Improving soil moisture prediction using gaussian process regression. Smart Agricultural Technology, 11, 100905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2025.100905.
Zhu, Z., Waseem Rasheed, M., Safdar, M., Yao, B., Tumaerbai, H., Sarwar, A., & Zhu, L. (2024). Intermittent drip irrigation soil wet front prediction model and effective water storage analysis. Sustainability, 16, 9553. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16219553
Zou, H., & Hastie, T. (2005). Regularization and variable selection via the Elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 67 (2), 301-320.