Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35217689›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Winter wheat yield prediction using convolutional neural networks from environmental and phenological data.

Amit Kumar Srivastava, Nima Safaei, Saeed Khaki, Gina Lopez, Wenzhi Zeng, Frank Ewert, Thomas Gaiser, Jaber Rahimi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Harnessing artificial intelligence in plant breeding: innovations in digital phenotyping and breeding methodologies.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amit Kumar SrivastavaInstitute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Bonn, 53111, Germany. amit@uni-bonn.de.
Nima Safaei *Department of Business Analytics, Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa, Iowa, USA. nima-safaei@uiowa.edu.
Saeed Khaki *Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Department, Iowa State University, Ames, USA. skhaki@iastate.edu.
Gina LopezInstitute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Bonn, 53111, Germany.
Wenzhi ZengState Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China.
Frank EwertInstitute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Bonn, 53111, Germany.
Thomas GaiserInstitute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn, Bonn, 53111, Germany.
Jaber RahimiKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Karlsruhe, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crop yield forecasting depends on many interactive factors, including crop genotype, weather, soil, and management practices. This study analyzes the performance of machine learning and deep learning methods for winter wheat yield prediction using an extensive dataset of weather, soil, and crop phenology variables in 271 counties across Germany from 1999 to 2019. We proposed a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model, which uses a 1-dimensional convolution operation to capture the time dependencies of environmental variables. We used eight supervised machine learning models as baselines and evaluated their predictive performance using RMSE, MAE, and correlation coefficient metrics to benchmark the yield prediction results. Our findings suggested that nonlinear models such as the proposed CNN, Deep Neural Network (DNN), and XGBoost were more effective in understanding the relationship between the crop yield and input data compared to the linear models. Our proposed CNN model outperformed all other baseline models used for winter wheat yield prediction (7 to 14% lower RMSE, 3 to 15% lower MAE, and 4 to 50% higher correlation coefficient than the best performing baseline across test data). We aggregated soil moisture and meteorological features at the weekly resolution to address the seasonality of the data. We also moved beyond prediction and interpreted the outputs of our proposed CNN model using SHAP and force plots which provided key insights in explaining the yield prediction results (importance of variables by time). We found DUL, wind speed at week ten, and radiation amount at week seven as the most critical features in winter wheat yield prediction.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerTriticumMachine LearningSeasonsSoilSoil

Identifiers

PMID35217689
PMCPMC8881605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.