ارزیابی تطبیقی الگوریتم‌های یادگیری ماشین و یادگیری عمیق در استخراج لندفرم‌های مناطق بیابانی، مطالعه موردی: جنوب خاوری گرمسار

نوع مقاله : مقاله کامل

نویسندگان

گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشکده جغرافیا، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران

10.22059/jphgr.2026.406619.1007910

چکیده

نقشه‌های ژئومورفولوژی ابزارهای اساسی در تحلیل فرآیندهای ژئومورفولوژیکی، هیدرولوژیکی و مدیریت منابع طبیعی به شمار می‌آیند. روش‌های سنتی تهیه این نقشه‌ها که بر مشاهدات میدانی و تفسیر بصری تصاویر هوایی متکی هستند، به دلیل زمان‌بر بودن و هزینه‌های بالا با محدودیت روبه‌رو می‌شوند. در این پژوهش، برای تهیه نقشه ژئومورفولوژی دقیق در جنوب خاوری گرمسار، از دو رویکرد یادگیری ماشین (جنگل تصادفی) و یادگیری عمیق (U-Net) استفاده شد. داده‌های ورودی شامل تصاویر سنتینل-2 آ سال 2024، مدل رقومی ارتفاع 10 متری و شاخص‌های مورفومتری همچون رطوبت توپوگرافی، انحنای کلی، زبری و شاخص رطوبت نرمال‌شده بود. نتایج نشان داد الگوریتم جنگل تصادفی در تفکیک لندفرم‌هایی با ویژگی‌های مورفومتریک بارز، به‌ویژه مخروط‌افکنه‌های جوان و قدیمی، عملکرد قابل‌توجهی دارد. در مقابل، U-Net در شناسایی لندفرم‌هایی با بافت پیچیده و مرزهای نامنظم مانند تپه‌ماهورها، دشت‌های رسی، ریگی فعال و غیرفعال، اراضی مرطوب و اراضی شور دقت بالاتری ارائه کرد. الگوریتم U-Net مرز واحدهای کوهستانی و دشتی را نیز با تفکیک‌پذیری بیشتری بازسازی نمود. دقت کلی و ضریب کاپای جنگل تصادفی به ترتیب 89 درصد و 86/0 بود؛ درحالی‌که U-Net دقت کلی 94 درصد و ضریب کاپای 92/0 را نشان داد. به‌طورکلی، نتایج نشان می‌دهد به‌کارگیری تلفیقی الگوریتم‌های یادگیری ماشین و یادگیری عمیق، در ترکیب با داده‌های سنجش‌ازدور و شاخص‌های مورفومتری، قابلیت بالایی در استخراج دقیق لندفرم‌ها به‌ویژه در محیط‌های بیابانی با ناهمگنی فضایی و مرزهای پیچیده دارد. این رویکرد می‌تواند به‌عنوان چارچوبی کارآمد و قابل‌تعمیم برای نقشه‌برداری ژئومورفولوژی، پایش تغییرات محیطی و پشتیبانی از تصمیم‌گیری در مدیریت پایدار سرزمین مورداستفاده قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms in Extracting Landforms of Arid Regions: A case study of Southeastern Garmsar

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fateme Emadoddin
  • Ali َAhmadabadi
  • ezzatolah ghanavati
Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

ABSTRACT
Geomorphological maps are essential tools in analyzing geomorphological, hydrological processes, and natural resource management. Traditional methods for producing these maps, which rely on field observations and visual interpretation of aerial images, face limitations due to being time-consuming and costly. two approaches—machine learning (Random Forest) and deep learning (U-Net)—were used to prepare an accurate geomorphological map of southeastern Garmsar. The input data included Sentinel-2A images from 2024, a 10-meter Digital Elevation Model, and morphometric indices such as Topographic Wetness Index, general curvature, roughness, and normalized moisture index. The results exhibited that the Random Forest algorithm had significant performance in distinguishing landforms with pronounced morphometric features, particularly young and old alluvial fans. In contrast, U-Net provided higher accuracy in identifying landforms with complex textures and irregular boundaries, such as hills, clay plains, wetlands, saline lands, and active and inactive sandy plains. The U-Net algorithm also reconstructed the boundaries between mountainous and plain units with greater delineation. The overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient of Random Forest were 89% and 0.86, respectively; whereas U-Net indicated an overall accuracy of 94% and a Kappa coefficient of 0.92. Overall, the results reveal that the integrated application of machine learning and deep learning algorithms, combined with remote sensing data and morphometric indices, has high capability in precise extraction of landforms, especially in arid environments with spatial heterogeneity and complex boundaries. This approach can serve as an efficient and generalizable framework for geomorphological mapping, environmental change monitoring, and supporting decision-making in sustainable land management.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Geomorphological maps, providing spatially classified landform and surface process information, are fundamental tools for environmental analysis and spatial planning (Bishop et al., 2012; Paron & Claessens, 2011). Traditional map production is time-consuming, costly, and heavily dependent on expert interpretation, limiting reproducibility and generalization (Lark et al., 2014; Randle et al., 2018). Advances in high-resolution remote sensing, digital elevation models, and computational tools have enabled semi-automated and automated approaches, allowing detailed mapping of both natural and anthropogenic landforms (Evans, 2012; Giaccone et al., 2022). Machine learning algorithms, particularly Random Forest, have been widely applied for landform classification due to their ability to integrate diverse topographic and environmental variables, even with limited training data (Rodriguez-Galiano et al., 2012; Veronesi & Hurni, 2014). Meanwhile, deep learning, - especially convolutional networks like U-Net - allows direct extraction of spatial and textural patterns from imagery (Zhao et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025). This study aims to map arid landforms in southeastern Garmsar by combining Sentinel-2A imagery with morphometric and spectral indices and comparing the performance of Random Forest and U-Net in detecting complex boundaries and heterogeneous landforms in desert environments.
 
Methodology
This study employed Sentinel-2A imagery from 2024 (13 spectral bands at 10–60 m resolution), combined with morphometric indices including total curvature, the Topographic Wetness Index (TWI), terrain roughness (Gourabi, 2023), and the Normalized Difference Moisture Index (NDMI). Two classification approaches were applied to generate the geomorphological map: the Random Forest algorithm and the U-Net deep learning architecture.
Random Forest, a supervised and non-parametric ensemble model, constructs multiple bootstrap-sampled decision trees using both dependent variables (geomorphological classes) and independent variables such as slope and curvature. The algorithm reduces tree-to-tree correlation through random feature selection and aggregates predictions through majority voting.
U-Net, originally designed for biomedical image segmentation, is a fully convolutional neural network with symmetric downsampling and upsampling paths. Its encoder–decoder structure enables pixel-level classification and the precise extraction of complex landform boundaries, making it highly suitable for heterogeneous desert landscapes.
To build the training dataset, field surveys were conducted and GPS-based samples were cross-checked with existing geomorphological information. After integrating all datasets, both models were trained and implemented in Python.
Finally, an independent set of field validation samples was collected to evaluate model performance utilizing Overall Accuracy and the Kappa coefficient.
 
Results and Discussion
Landform classification was conducted using Sentinel-2A reflectance data, normalized moisture index, and morphometric indices from the digital elevation model. Both U-Net and Random Forest successfully identified five major units: mountains, hills, alluvial plains, playas, and anthropogenic areas. U-Net recognized 16 primary landforms, while Random Forest identified 17, including slopes, erosion-affected hills, gypsum and salt outcrops, hogbacks, old and young alluvial fans, active and inactive sand flats, riverine deposits, clay plains, wetlands, saline lands, and agricultural areas.
Random Forest delineated old (126 km², 36%) and new (54.8 km², 2.7%) alluvial fans more accurately, whereas U-Net combined them into a single class (274.4 km², 13.7%). Conversely, U-Net provided finer boundaries for erosion-affected hills and alluvial fans (349.6 km², 17.5%) and better spatial continuity between agricultural and saline lands, likely due to its deep network structure. Random Forest misclassified some areas as wetlands. Both algorithms detected active and inactive sand flats, but Random Forest produced contiguous patches, while U-Net captured scattered patterns that matched field observations.
Floodplains, clay plains, and riverine deposits were better delineated by U-Net, particularly for the Ab Dolati River course. The differences reflect algorithmic approaches: Random Forest is pixel-based, while U-Net integrates spatial, textural, and neighborhood patterns. Validation with 100 ground control points showed higher overall accuracy for U-Net (90%, Kappa 0.87) than Random Forest (88%, Kappa 0.85), with class-specific accuracies highlighting variations in landform recognition.
The study’s outputs, in order to assess the capability of modern methods in landform mapping, were compared with the classical 1:500,000 geomorphological map of Iran, which provides only general units due to its small scale. Using 10 m resolution Sentinel-2A imagery combined with morphometric indices (curvature, terrain roughness, topographic wetness), both Random Forest and U-Net enabled more detailed landform delineation. Random Forest performed well for landforms with distinct morphometric differences, while U-Net better captured complex boundaries and spatial heterogeneity. The results highlight that integrating remote sensing with morphometric indices and machine learning or deep learning allows higher-resolution, more precise geomorphological mapping than traditional methods.
 
Conclusion
Producing geomorphological maps is a complex process that depends on the type of input data and the classification methods employed. The present study aimed to evaluate the combined application of machine learning and deep learning approaches for landform identification using Sentinel-2A imagery, morphometric indices (including topographic wetness index, general curvature, and terrain roughness), and normalized moisture in arid environments. Since the input data were identical for both algorithms, differences in the resulting maps can be mainly attributed to the nature of the algorithms and their classification mechanisms. The results should not be interpreted as evidence of the absolute or generalizable superiority of one algorithm over the other. Algorithm performance depends on landform type, spectral overlap, boundary complexity, and the spatial scale of patterns. Although overall accuracy and Kappa indices provide a general assessment, class-level accuracy metrics demonstrate that the comparative advantage of each method differs among geomorphological units, precluding the assumption of consistent performance across classes. Random Forest exhibited weaker performance in detecting linear human-made features such as roads, requiring manual correction and pixel adjustments, which may introduce human bias. In contrast, U-Net extracted these features with higher accuracy without extensive intervention. Despite resampling all datasets to a 10 m resolution, intrinsic mismatches between spectral and morphometric data remain, as each pixel represents different information, and small landforms or complex boundaries may be smoothed or homogenized. This limitation reduces the generalizability of the results to other regions and scales. Overall, the findings indicate that the targeted application of machine learning and deep learning algorithms - tailored to landform type and study scale - can serve as an effective tool for producing accurate geomorphological maps for land-use planning, water resource management, erosion control, and environmental hazard assessment in arid areas. Developing hybrid, multi-scale approaches leveraging the strengths of each algorithm represents a promising direction for forthcoming studies.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Random Forest
  • Garmsar
  • Morphometry
  • Geomorphological map
  • U-Net
  1. احمدآبادی، علی؛ کرم، امیر؛ صفاری، امیر و یزدان پناه، مهدی. (1399). برآورد جابجایی مسطحاتی و ارتفاعی تپه‌های ماسه‌ای ریگ اردستان با استفاده از تداخل سنجی راداری و شاخص‌های طیفی. پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمّی، 8(4)، 1-17 doi:  10.22034/gmpj.2020.106407.
  2. بابلی، حمید و نگهبان، سعید. (1400). بررسی ویژگی‌های فرمی سطح زمین بر اساس شاخص‌های مورفومتری و با استفاده از GIS مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبخیز فهلیان. جغرافیا، 19(68)، 117-102 doi: 20.1001.1.27172996.1400.19.1.7.9.
  3. پاکنژاد، فریبا؛ احمدآبادی، علی؛ قنواتی، عزت اله و زحمتکش، حسن. (1402). پهنه‌بندی مناطق مستعد دارای جریان‌های واریزه‌ای با استفاده از الگوریتم‌های یادگیری ماشین (مطالعه موردی: حوضه تنگراه استان گلستان). پژوهش‌های فرسایش محیطی، ۱۳ (۱)، 28-1.
  4. حجاریان، احمد. (1403). کاربرد الگوریتم‌های طبقه‌بندی در پهنه‌بندی خطر فرسایش بادی استان اصفهان. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای طبیعی، 56(3)، 75-59. doi: 10.22059/jphgr.2024.382042.1007839.
  5. ذاکری‌نژاد، رضا؛ جعفری، غلامحسن و رضاپوریان قهفرخی، الهه. (1404). ارزیابی روند بیابان‌زایی با استفاده از شاخص‌های پوشش گیاهی و تغییرات آلبدو در دوره زمانی 2000-2023، مطالعه موردی: حوضه آبریز مند در جنوب غرب ایران. پژوهش‌های جغرافیای طبیعی، 57(2)، 76-57. doi:  10.22059/jphgr.2025.391710.1007876
  6. سازمان جغرافیایی نیروهای مسلح. (1397). نقشه ژئومورفولوژی ایران در مقیاس 1:500000، شیت تهران.
  7. شایان، سیاوش؛ احمدآبادی، علی؛ یمانی، مجتبی؛ فرج‌زاده اصل، منوچهر و کبیر، احسان‌الله. (1390). ارزیابی کارایی شاخص‌های ژئومورفومتریک به روش وود در طبقه‌بندی لندفرم‌های مناطق خشک (مطالعه موردی: منطقه مرنجاب). برنامه‌ریزی و آمایش فضا، 16(1)، 105-120.
  8. جلالی، سعیده؛ صمدی، میثم؛ صمدی قشلاقچائی، محمود و کرنژادی، آیندینگ. (1395). بررسی شاخص‌های مورفومتری در حوضه آبخیز چهل چای استان گلستان با استفاده از GIS. مهندسی نقشه‌برداری و اطلاعات مکانی، 67-74.
  9. قنواتی، عزت اله و بهشتی جاوید، ابراهیم. (1392). روش‌ها و تکنیک‌های جدید ترسیم نقشه‌های ژئومورفولوژی. تهران: انتشارات جهاد دانشگاهی واحد خوارزمی.
  10. گورابی، ابوالقاسم (1402). ژئومورفومتری کاربردی داده‌ها، روش‌ها و تکنیک‌ها. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
  11. گورابی، ابوالقاسم. (1404). ویژگی‌های ژئومورفومتریک تلماسه‌ها در ریگ یلان، دشت لوت: فرآیندهای بادی و تحلیل مکانی. پژوهش‌های ژئومورفولوژی کمّی، 14(2).
  12. محمدزاده، کیوان؛ حسینی، سید احمد؛ صمدی، مهدی؛ لعلی نیت، ایلیا و رحیمی، مسعود. (1400). شناسایی نیمه خودکار لندفرم ها با استفاده از پردازش فازی شیءگرای تصاویر ماهواره ای - مطالعه موردی:شهرستان ماکو. اطلاعات جغرافیایی سپهر، 30(118)، 91-77.  doi: 20.1001.1.25883860.1400.30.118.5.4
  13. مقصودی، مهران؛ نگهبان، سعید و باقری سید شکری، سجاد. (1393). تحلیل مورفومتری پیکان‌های ماسه‌ای حاصل از گونه خارشتر (Alhagi maurorum) در غرب دشت لوت (شرق شهداد). کاوش‌های جغرافیایی مناطق بیابانی، 2(3)، 20-1.
  14. یمانی، مجتبی. (1396). نقشه‌های ژئومورفولوژی روش‌ها و تکنیک‌ها. چاپ چهارم تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
  15. Ahmadabadi,A., Karam,A., Saffari,A. & yazdan panah, M. (2020). Estimate of Flatness movement and Elevation movement of aeolians in Ardestan erg by Radar Interferometry and Spectral Indicators. Quantitative Geomorphological Research8 (4), 1-17. doi: 10.22034/gmpj.2020.106407. [In Persian]
  16. Baboli, hamid. & Negahban, Saeid. (2021). Investigation of Shape Properties of earth's surface Based on Morphometric indices Using GIS (Case Study: Fahliyan Basisn). GEOGRAPHY, 19 (68), 102-117. doi: 20.1001.1.27172996.1400.19.1.7.9 [In Persian]
  17. Breiman, L. & Cutler, A. (2011). Manual–setting up, using, and understanding random forests V4. 0. 2003. URL. https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/%7Ebreiman/Using_random_forests_v4.0.pdf
  18. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R.A., & Stone C.J. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. New York. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139470
  19. Clark, A., Moorman, B., Whalen, D. & Vieira, G. (2022). Multiscale Object-Based Classification and Feature Extraction along Arctic Coasts. Remote Sensing, 14 (13), 2982. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14132982.
  20. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
  21. De Matos-Machado, R., Toumazet, J.-P., Bergès, J.-C., Amat, J.-P., Arnaud-Fassetta, G., Bétard, F., Bilodeau, C., P. Hupy, J. & Jacquemot, S. (2019). War landform mapping and classification on the Verdun battlefield (France) using airborne LiDAR and multivariate analysis. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 44(7), 1430–1448. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4586.
  22. Drăguţ, L., & Blaschke, T. (2006). Automated classification of landform elements using object-based image analysis. Geomorphology, 81 (3–4), 330–344.
  23. Evans, I. S. (2012). Geomorphometry and landform mapping: What is a landform? Geomorphology, 137 (1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.09.029.
  24. Fisher P, Wood J, Cheng T. 2004, Where is Helvellyn? Fuzziness of Multiscal Landscape Morphometry. Transactions of the Institute of British Geograhper, 29, 106-128.
  25. Fraser, S., Soto-Berelov, M., Holden, L., Webb, J. & Jones, S. (2025). Mapping Young Lava Rises (Stony Rises) Across an Entire Basalt Flow Using Remote Sensing and Machine Learning. Remote Sensing, 17 (12), 2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17122004
  26. Geographical Organization of the Armed Forces. (2018). Geomorphological Map of Iran, 1:500,000, Tehran Sheet. [In Persian]
  27. Giaccone, E., Oriani, F., Tonini, M., Lambiel, C. & Mariéthoz, G. (2022). Using data-driven algorithms for semi-automated geomorphological mapping. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessmen-t, 36, 2115-2131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-021-02062-5
  28. Goorabi, A. (2025). Geomorphometric Characterization of Dunes in the Rig-e-Yalan, Dasht-e-Lut: Aeolian Processes and Spatial Analysis. (e224007). Quantitative Geomorphological Research14 (2), e224007 doi: 10.22034/gmpj.2025.510974.1551. [In Persian]
  29. Grabs, T., Seibert, J., Bishop, K., & Laudon, H. (2009). Modeling spatial patterns of saturated areas: A comparison of the topographic wetness index and a dynamic distributed model. Hydrology, 373 (1-2), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.03.031
  30. Hajarian, A. (2024). The use of classification algorithms in wind erosion risk zoning in Isfahan province. Physical Geography Research56 (3), 59-75. doi: 10.22059/jphgr.2024.382042.1007839. [In Persian]
  31. Harris, J. & Grunsky, E.C. (2015). Predictive lithological mapping of Canada's North using Random Forest classification applied to geophysical and geochemical data. Computer & Geosciences, 80, 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.03.013.
  32. Jalali, S., Samadi, M., Samadi Gheshlaghchaee, M. & Aiding Kornejadi, (2016). Investigation of Morphometric Indexes with GIS in Chel-Chay Watershed, Golestan Province, Geospatial Engineering Journal, 7(4), 67. [In Persian]
  33. Lark, R.M., Thorpe, S., Kessler, H. & Mathers, S.J. (2014) Interpretative modelling of a geological cross section from boreholes: Sources of uncertainty and their quantification. Solid Earth, 5(2), 1189–1203. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-5-1189-2014
  34. Li, Yifan., Tian, Fuyou., Zhang, Niao., Zeng,Hongwei., Ahmed, Shukri., Qin, Xinli., Liu, Yanxu., Wang, Lizhe., Fan, Runyu. & Wu, Bingfang. (2025). A 10-meter global terrace mapping using sentinel-2 imagery and topographic features with deep learning methods and cloud computing platform support. Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2025.104528
  35. Maghsoudi, M., Negahban, S. & Bagheri Seyed Shokri, S. (2014). Analysis of the morphometric characteristics of arrow sand dunes of Alhaji Maurorum in the west of Lut desert.  Geographical Research on Desert Areas2 (3), 1-20. [In Persian]
  36. Mohammadzdeh, K., Hosseini, S. A., Samadi, M., Laaliniyat, I. & Rahimi, M. (2021). Semi-automated identification of landforms using fuzzy object-based satellite image analysis - Case study: Maku County. SEPEHR, 30 (118), 77-91. doi: 10.22131/sepehr.2021.246108 [In Persian]
  37. Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B., Ladson, A.R. (1991). Digital terrain modeling: a review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological Processes 5 (1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360050103
  38. Paknejad, F., Ahmadabadi, A., Qanavati, E. & zahmatkesh, H. (2023). Zoning of Susceptible Areas with Debris Flows Using Machine Learning Algorithms (Case study of Tangarah Basin -Golestan Province). Environmental Erosion Research, 13 (1), 1-28. [In Persian]
  39. Randle, C.H., Bond, C.E., Lark, R.M. & Monaghan, A.A. (2018) Can uncertainty in geological cross-section interpretations be quantified and predicted?. Geosphere, 14(3), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01510.1
  40. Regmi, N.R., Webb, N.D.S., Walter, J.I., Heo, J., & Hayman, N.W. (2024). Mapping landforms of a hilly landscape using machine learning and high-resolution LiDAR topographic data. Applied Computing and Geoscience, 24, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acags.2024.100203
  41. Riley, S. J., S. D. DeGloria, and R. Elliot. 1999. A terrain ruggedness index that quantifies topographic heterogeneity. Sciences, 5, 1–4.
  42. Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., Ghimire, B., Rogan, J., Chica-Olmo, M. & Rigol-Sanchez, J. P. (2012). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of a Random Forest Classifier for Land-cover Classification. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 67, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2011.11.002
  43. Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015). U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, 234–241.
  44. Schmidt, J., Evans, I. S. & Brinkmann, J, 2003. Comparison of Polynomial models for land surface curvature calculation. Geographical Information Science, 17 (8), 797-814.
  45. Shayan, S., Ahmadabadi, A., Yamani, M. Farajzadeh Asl, M., & Kabir, A.A. (2012). Efficiency assessment of Wood's method indices in classification of dry landforms (Case study: Maranjab region).  Spatial Planning and Geomatics16 (1), 105-120. [In Persian]
  46. Shruthi, R.B., Kerle, N., Jetten, V., & Stein, A. (2014). Object-based gully system prediction from medium resolution imagery using Random Forests. Geomorphology, 216, 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.04.006.
  47. Taalab, K., Cheng, T., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Mapping landslide susceptibility and types using Random Forest. Big Earth Data, 2(2), 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964471.2018.1472392
  48. Veronesi, F. & Hurni L. (2014). Random Forest with semantic tie points for classifying landforms and creating rigorous shaded relief representations, Geomorphology, 224, 152-160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.07.020.
  49. Youssef, A.M., Pourghasemi, H.R., Pourtaghi, Z.S., & Al-Katheeri, M.M. (2016). Landslide susceptibility mapping using random forest, boosted regression tree, classification and regression tree, and general linear models and comparison of their performance at Wadi Tayyah Basin, Asir Region, Saudi Arabia. Landslides, 13, 839–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0614-1.
  50. Zakerinejad, R., Jafari, G. H. & Rezapourian Ghahfarokhi, E. (2025). Analysis of Desertification Trends using Vegetation Idices and Albedo Coefficient over 2000-2023: A case study of Mond Basin in Southwest of Iran. Physical Geography Research57 (2), 57-76. doi: 10.22059/jphgr.2025.391710.1007876. [In Persian]
  51. Zhao, P., An, J., Zheng, J., Han, W., Tuerxun, N., Cui, B. & Zhao, X. (2025). Segmentation Performance and Mapping of Dunes in Multi-Source Remote Sensing Images Using Deep Learning. Land14 (4), 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14040713
  52. Zhao, Wf., Xiong, Ly., Ding, H., & Tang, G.-a. (2017). Automatic recognition of loess landforms using Random Forest method. Mountain Science, 14, 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-016-4320-9.