A comparison of empirical and mechanistic models for wheat yield prediction at field level in Moroccan rainfed areas

IF 2.6 Q1 AGRONOMY in silico Plants Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI:10.1093/insilicoplants/diad020
Achraf Mamassi, Marie Lang, Bernard Tychon, Mouanis Lahlou, Joost Wellens, Mohamed El Gharous, Hélène Marrou
{"title":"A comparison of empirical and mechanistic models for wheat yield prediction at field level in Moroccan rainfed areas","authors":"Achraf Mamassi, Marie Lang, Bernard Tychon, Mouanis Lahlou, Joost Wellens, Mohamed El Gharous, Hélène Marrou","doi":"10.1093/insilicoplants/diad020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the context of climate change, in-season and longer-term yield predictions are needed to anticipate local and regional food crises and propose adaptations to farmers’ practices. Mechanistic models and machine learning are two modelling options to consider in this perspective. In this study, regression (MR) and Random Forest (RF) models were calibrated for wheat yield prediction in Morocco, using data collected from 125 farmers’ wheat fields. Additionally , MR and RF models were calibrated both with or without remotely-sensed leaf area index (LAI), while considering all farmers’ fields, or specifically to agroecological zoning in Morocco. The same farmers’ fields were simulated using a mechanistic model (APSIM-wheat). We compared the predictive performances of the empirical models and APSIM-wheat. Results showed that both MR and RF showed rather good predictive quality (NRMSEs below 35%), but were always outperformed by APSIM model. Both RF and MR selected remotely-sensed LAI at heading, climate variables (maximal temperatures at emergence and tillering), and fertilization practices (amount of nitrogen applied at heading) as major yield predictors. Integration of remotely-sensed LAI in the calibration process reduced NRMSE of 4.5% and 1.8 % on average for MR and RF models respectively. Calibration of region specific models did not significantly improve the predictive. These findings lead to the conclusion that mechanistic models are better at capturing the impacts of in-season climate variability and would be preferred to support short term tactical adjustments to farmers’ practices, while machine learning models are easier to use in the perspective of mid-term regional prediction.","PeriodicalId":36138,"journal":{"name":"in silico Plants","volume":"31 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"in silico Plants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/insilicoplants/diad020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In the context of climate change, in-season and longer-term yield predictions are needed to anticipate local and regional food crises and propose adaptations to farmers’ practices. Mechanistic models and machine learning are two modelling options to consider in this perspective. In this study, regression (MR) and Random Forest (RF) models were calibrated for wheat yield prediction in Morocco, using data collected from 125 farmers’ wheat fields. Additionally , MR and RF models were calibrated both with or without remotely-sensed leaf area index (LAI), while considering all farmers’ fields, or specifically to agroecological zoning in Morocco. The same farmers’ fields were simulated using a mechanistic model (APSIM-wheat). We compared the predictive performances of the empirical models and APSIM-wheat. Results showed that both MR and RF showed rather good predictive quality (NRMSEs below 35%), but were always outperformed by APSIM model. Both RF and MR selected remotely-sensed LAI at heading, climate variables (maximal temperatures at emergence and tillering), and fertilization practices (amount of nitrogen applied at heading) as major yield predictors. Integration of remotely-sensed LAI in the calibration process reduced NRMSE of 4.5% and 1.8 % on average for MR and RF models respectively. Calibration of region specific models did not significantly improve the predictive. These findings lead to the conclusion that mechanistic models are better at capturing the impacts of in-season climate variability and would be preferred to support short term tactical adjustments to farmers’ practices, while machine learning models are easier to use in the perspective of mid-term regional prediction.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
摩洛哥旱地小麦产量预测的经验模型与机制模型比较
在气候变化的背景下,需要季节性和长期产量预测来预测当地和区域粮食危机,并提出适应农民做法的建议。从这个角度来看,机械模型和机器学习是两种建模选择。在这项研究中,利用从125个农民的麦田收集的数据,对回归(MR)和随机森林(RF)模型进行了校准,用于摩洛哥的小麦产量预测。此外,MR和RF模型在考虑所有农民的田地或摩洛哥的农业生态区划的同时,在有无遥感叶面积指数(LAI)的情况下进行了校准。采用机械模型(APSIM-wheat)对同一农户的农田进行模拟。比较了实证模型与APSIM-wheat的预测性能。结果表明,MR和RF均具有较好的预测质量(nrmse均在35%以下),但APSIM模型的预测效果优于MR和RF模型。RF和MR均选择抽穗期遥感LAI、气候变量(出苗期和分蘖期最高温度)和施肥措施(抽穗期施氮量)作为主要产量预测因子。在定标过程中整合遥感LAI, MR和RF模型的NRMSE平均分别降低4.5%和1.8%。区域特定模型的校正没有显著提高预测。这些发现得出的结论是,机械模型更善于捕捉季节气候变化的影响,更倾向于支持农民实践的短期战术调整,而机器学习模型更容易用于中期区域预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
in silico Plants
in silico Plants Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agronomy and Crop Science
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
21
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Playing a crop simulation model using symbols and sounds: the ‘mandala’ A Scalable Pipeline to Create Synthetic Datasets from Functional-Structural Plant Models for Deep Learning In a PICKLE: A gold standard entity and relation corpus for the molecular plant sciences A comparison of empirical and mechanistic models for wheat yield prediction at field level in Moroccan rainfed areas Informative community structure revealed using Arabidopsis time series transcriptome data via Partitioned Local Depth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1