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.
1 November 2021 in Environmental Modelling & Software
This study assesses the ability of 21 crop models to capture the impact of elevated CO2 concentration ([CO2]) on maize yield and water use as measured in a 2-year Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment experiment conducted at the Thünen Institute in Braunschweig, Germany (Manderscheid et al., 2014). Data for ambient [CO2] and irrigated treatments were provided to the 21 models for calibrating plant traits, including weather, soil and management data as well as yield, grain number, above ground biomass, leaf area index, nitrogen concentration in biomass and grain, water use and soil water content. Models differed in their representation of carbon assimilation and evapotranspiration processes. The models reproduced the absence of yield response to elevated [CO2] under well-watered conditions, as well as the impact of water deficit at ambient [CO2], with 50% of models within a range of +/−1 Mg ha−1 around the mean. The bias of the median of the 21 models was less than 1 Mg ha−1. However under water deficit in one of the two years, the models captured only 30% of the exceptionally high [CO2] enhancement on yield observed. Furthermore the ensemble of models was unable to simulate the very low soil water content at anthesis and the increase of soil water and grain number brought about by the elevated [CO2] under dry conditions. Overall, we found models with explicit stomatal control on transpiration tended to perform better. Our results highlight the need for model improvement with respect to simulating transpirational water use and its impact on water status during the kernel-set phase