Dust storms from the Mongolian Plateau threaten air quality, ecosystems, and human health across Northeast Asia. Although satellite-based dust footprints and hotspot-frequency products have advanced dust-source identification, they may not fully distinguish persistent emission-prone areas from transport and deposition regions, and the controls on dust-emission susceptibility remain insufficiently resolved. We developed a process-informed framework that combined multi-year spring (2000−2023) Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Chemistry (WRF-Chem) dust-emission diagnostics with ensemble machine learning to map dust-emission susceptibility. Source labels were defined using a two-out-of-three rule based on mean emission, emission extremes, and modelled emission-occurrence frequency. Twelve physiographic, hydroclimatic, and vegetation predictors were used to train random forest, XGBoost, LightGBM, explainable boosting machine, NGBoost, and a weighted ensemble. Models were evaluated using Spatial+ cross-validation, which constrains geographic proximity and feature similarity, and the ensemble map was spatially compared with Dust Storm Detection Index (DSDI)-derived spring dust-storm footprints for 2000–2021. The ensemble achieved the highest and most stable performance. It revealed a persistent southwest-to-south-central core of high susceptibility, surrounded by less stable transition zones. Wind speed was the strongest positive predictor, whereas soil moisture, normalized difference vegetation index, and precipitation reduced susceptibility; temperature, topography, and soil texture had secondary effects. Recurrent dust-storm footprints showed spatial correspondence with high-susceptibility areas, supporting the map as a long-term potential-source layer rather than an event-scale map of active sources. This transferable framework can provide a process-informed susceptibility layer for dust modelling, early warning, and land-restoration planning when combined with event-day meteorological information.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: