ArticleScientific reports2025
Simulation and analysis of evapotranspiration from desert grasslands based on a random forest regression model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep learning-driven automatic counting of petal number in cut chrysanthemum inflorescence.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evapotranspiration (ET) is a critical component of the water and energy cycles in desert grassland ecosystems. However, modeling ET in arid grasslands faces significant challenges due to data scarcity, high spatiotemporal heterogeneity, and complex interactions among climatic drivers. To address these challenges, this study developed a Random Forest Regression (RF-R) model integrated with high-resolution PML-V2 ET data and CRU meteorological datasets (2001-2020) to simulate ET in China's desert grasslands. The RF-R model achieved superior performance, with R² values of 0.953 (training) and 0.931 (testing), RMSE of 3.421 and 4.182 mm/month, and an average prediction bias of 11.815%. The comparative analysis between BPNN and SVR models confirms the robustness of RF-R estimates. Key climate factors were identified through multi-scale importance assessments: precipitation and wet-day frequency were the primary drivers, followed by cloud cover and diurnal temperature range. This study provides a reliable framework for ET simulation in data-scarce arid regions and supports targeted water management strategies for desert grassland restoration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.