Soil Quality Prediction for Determining Soil Fertility in Bhimtal Block of Uttarakhand (India) Using Machine Learning

Main Article Content

Janmejay Pant
Pushpa Pant
R. P. Pant
Ashutosh Bhatt
Durgesh Pant
Amit Juyal


Agriculture plays a vital role in the Indian economy. The growth of agriculture sector is based on the type of gift we have got from the nature. It varies state to state, district to district, taluka to taluka, block to block and even village to village. This study is confined to Bhimtal block of Nainital district. The main purpose of agriculture is growing crops and raising livestock. In order to grow the crops several types of agri-inputs are required, among them fertile lands have the great significance in crop cultivation. As far as fertile land is concerned it solely depends on the quality of the soil in terms of producing the nutrients for the crops. The available nutrients present in soil can be evaluated and measured by soil testing tools. The appropriate quantity of soil nutrients supplied to the soil can also be determined by this tool. The quantity of supplied nutrients is based on soil fertility and crop needs. In this study we have classified different soil features such as OC (Organic Carbon), P (Phosphorus), K (Potassium), Mn (Magnesium) and B (Boron). In order to make meaningful inferences and estimates, machine learning techniques especially ANN network with two activation functions relu and tanh are used in this study. For categorizations and predictions we have used village wise soil test report values. This kind of practice will not only help stakeholders to mitigate the expenditure of continuously supplying fertilizers to soil but it would also be cost effective, less time consuming and more profitable for stakeholders. In this regard data was complied, classified, tabulated, presented, analyzed and it can be seen that relu activation function has ensured higher accuracy over tanh activation function. It is expedient and necessary to mention here that out of the five classified soil nutrient parameters relu activation function has shown better performance in respect of four classified soil nutrient parameters while tanh gave better performance in only one classified soil nutrient parameter.

Article Details


  1. National Research Council. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1989.
  2. P. Gruhn, F. Goletti, Yudelman M Integrated nutrient management, soil fertility, and sustainable agriculture: current issues and future challenges. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C. 2000.
  3. A. Mucherino, P. Papajorgji, P.M. Pardalos, A survey of data mining techniques applied to agriculture. Oper. Res. 9 (2009), 121-140.
  4. K. Lamorski, Y. Pachepsky, C. Slawin ´ski, R.T. Walczak, Using support vector machines to develop pedotransfer functions for water retention of soils in Poland. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 72 (2008), 1243-1247.
  5. M. Kovacevic, B. Bajat , B. Gajic, Soil type classification and estimation of soil properties using support vector machines, Geoderma. 154 (2009), 340-347.
  6. Y. Liu, H. Wang, H. Zhang, and K. Liber, A comprehensive support vector machine-based classification model for soil quality assessment, Soil Tillage Res. 155 (2016), 19-26.
  7. Y. Huang, Y. Lan, S.J. Thomson, A. Fang, W.C. Hoffmann, R.E. Lacey, Development of soft computing and applications in agricultural and biological engineering, Comput. Electron. Agric. 71 (2010), 107-127.
  8. W. Wu, A.D. Li, X.H. He, et al. A comparison of support vector machines, artificial neural network and classification tree for identifying soil texture classes in southwest China. Comput. Electron. Agric. 144 (2018), 86-93
  9. H. Li, W. Leng, Y. Zhou, F. Chen, Z. Xiu, D. Yang, Evaluation Models for Soil Nutrient Based on Support Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Networks, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014), 478569.
  10. M.H. Yang, D.Y. Xu, S.C. Chen, et al. Evaluation of machine learning approaches to predict soil organic matter and pH using Vis-NIR spectra. Sensors. 19(2) (2019), 263.
  11. M. Hosseini, S. Rajabi Agereh, Y. Khaledian, et al. Comparison of multiple statistical techniques to predict soil phosphorus. Appl. Soil Ecol. 114 (2017), 123-131.
  12. K. Liakos, P. Busato, D. Moshou, S. Pearson, D. Bochtis, Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Review, Sensors. 18 (2018), 2674.
  13. J.R. Romero, P.F. Roncallo, P.C. Akkiraju, et al. Using classification algorithms for predicting durum wheat yield in the province of Buenos Aires. Comput. Electron. Agric. 96 (2013), 173-179.
  14. M. Sirsat, E. Cernadas, M. Fern ´andez-Delgado, M. Khan, Classification of agricultural soil parameters in India, Comput. Electron. Agric. 135 (2017), 269-279.
  15. M.S. Sirsat, E. Cernadas, M. Fern ´andez-Delgado, S. Barro, Automatic prediction of village-wise soil fertility for several nutrients in India using a wide range of regression methods, Comput. Electron. Agric. 154 (2018), 120-133.
  16. M.S. Suchithra, M.L. Pai, Improving the prediction accuracy of soil nutrient classification by optimizing extreme learning machine parameters, Inform. Proc. Agric. 7 (2020), 72-82.
  17. X.E. Pantazi, D. Moshou, T. Alexandridis, R.L. Whetton, A.M. Mouazen, Wheat yield prediction using machine learning and advanced sensing techniques. Comput. Electron. Agric. 121 (2016), 57-65.
  18. J. Pant, P. Pant, A. Bhatt, H. Pant, N. Pandey, Feature Selection towards Soil Classification in the context of Fertility classes using Machine Learning, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8 (12) (2019), 4000-4004.
  19. C. Ritz, E. Putku, A. Astover, A practical two-step approach for mixed model-based kriging, with an application to the prediction of soil organic carbon concentration. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66 (2015), 548-554.
  20. H.-Y. Jia, J. Chen, H.-L. Yu, D.-Y. Liu, Soil fertility grading with Bayesian Network transfer learning, in: 2010 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, IEEE, Qingdao, China, 2010: pp. 1159-1163.
  21. D. Elavarasan, D.R. Vincent, V. Sharma, A.Y. Zomaya, K. Srinivasan, Forecasting yield by integrating agrarian factors and machine learning models: A survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 155 (2018), 257-282.
  22. T. Kim, Pattern Recognition Using Artificial Neural Network: A Review, in: S.K. Bandyopadhyay, W. Adi, T. Kim, Y. Xiao (Eds.), Information Security and Assurance, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010: pp. 138-148.
  23. Integrated Nutrient Management Division. Methods manual: soil testing in India. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, pp 89-96. (2011).
  24. B. Rammoorthy, J. Bajaj. Available N, P and K status of Indian soils. Fertilizer News 14 (1969), 24-26.
  25. O.P. Tiwari, Y.S. Rana, R. Krishan, C.M. Sharma, B.S. Bhandari, Regeneration dynamics, population structure, and forest composition in some ridge forests of the Western Himalaya, India, Forest Sci. Technol. 14 (2018), 66-75.
  26. K. Gariya, G.K. Dwivedi, V. Kumar, S.K. Tewari, Socio-economic Characteristics of Homegardens in Bhimtal block of Nainital District, Uttarakhand, India, Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 9 (6) (2016), 1001-1013.
  27. J. Sharma, S. Gairola, R.D. Gaur, et al. Plants used for treatment of dysentery and diarrhoea by the Bhoxa community of district Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. J Ethnopharmacol. 150 (2013), 969-1006.
  28. P. Arunachalam, P. Kannan, G. Prabukumar, M. Govindaraj, Zinc deficiency in Indian soils with special focus to enrich Zinc in peanut. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8 (2013), 6681-6688.
  29. M. Sokolova, N. Japkowicz, S. Szpakowicz. Beyond accuracy, F-score and ROC: a family of discriminant measures for performance evaluation. In: Australian conference on artificial intelligence, vol 4304. LNCS, Germany, pp 1015-1021. (2006).