» Articles » PMID: 35893626

Prediction of Greenhouse Tomato Crop Evapotranspiration Using XGBoost Machine Learning Model

Overview
Journal Plants (Basel)
Date 2022 Jul 27
PMID 35893626
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Crop evapotranspiration estimation is a key parameter for achieving functional irrigation systems. However, ET is difficult to directly measure, so an ideal solution was to develop a simulation model to obtain ET. There are many ways to calculate ET, most of which use models based on the Penman−Monteith equation, but they are often inaccurate when applied to greenhouse crop evapotranspiration. The use of machine learning models to predict ET has gradually increased, but research into their application for greenhouse crops is relatively rare. We used experimental data for three years (2019−2021) to model the effects on ET of eight meteorological factors (net solar radiation (Rn), mean temperature (Ta), minimum temperature (Tamin), maximum temperature (Tamax), relative humidity (RH), minimum relative humidity (RHmin), maximum relative humidity (RHmax), and wind speed (V)) using a greenhouse drip irrigated tomato crop ET prediction model (XGBR-ET) that was based on XGBoost regression (XGBR). The model was compared with seven other common regression models (linear regression (LR), support vector regression (SVR), K neighbors regression (KNR), random forest regression (RFR), AdaBoost regression (ABR), bagging regression (BR), and gradient boosting regression (GBR)). The results showed that Rn, Ta, and Tamax were positively correlated with ET, and that Tamin, RH, RHmin, RHmax, and V were negatively correlated with ET. Rn had the greatest correlation with ET (r = 0.89), and V had the least correlation with ET (r = 0.43). The eight models were ordered, in terms of prediction accuracy, XGBR-ET > GBR-ET > SVR-ET > ABR-ET > BR-ET > LR-ET > KNR-ET > RFR-ET. The statistical indicators mean square error (0.032), root mean square error (0.163), mean absolute error (0.132), mean absolute percentage error (4.47%), and coefficient of determination (0.981) of XGBR-ET showed that XGBR-ET modeled daily ET for greenhouse tomatoes well. The parameters of the XGBR-ET model were ablated to show that the order of importance of meteorological factors on XGBR-ET was Rn > RH > RHmin> Tamax> RHmax> Tamin> Ta> V. Selecting Rn, RH, RHmin, Tamax, and Tamin as model input variables using XGBR ensured the prediction accuracy of the model (mean square error 0.047). This study has value as a reference for the simplification of the calculation of evapotranspiration for drip irrigated greenhouse tomato crops using a novel application of machine learning as a basis for an effective irrigation program.

Citing Articles

Recent Methods for Evaluating Crop Water Stress Using AI Techniques: A Review.

Cho S, Soleh H, Choi J, Hwang W, Lee H, Cho Y Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(19).

PMID: 39409355 PMC: 11478660. DOI: 10.3390/s24196313.


Integrating IoT for Soil Monitoring and Hybrid Machine Learning in Predicting Tomato Crop Disease in a Typical South India Station.

Babu G, Gokuldhev M, Brahmanandam P Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(19).

PMID: 39409219 PMC: 11479041. DOI: 10.3390/s24196177.


Using Machine Learning Methods Combined with Vegetation Indices and Growth Indicators to Predict Seed Yield of .

Ou C, Jia Z, Sun S, Liu J, Ma W, Wang J Plants (Basel). 2024; 13(6).

PMID: 38592838 PMC: 10974845. DOI: 10.3390/plants13060773.


A Comparative Analysis of XGBoost and Neural Network Models for Predicting Some Tomato Fruit Quality Traits from Environmental and Meteorological Data.

MHamdi O, Takacs S, Palotas G, Ilahy R, Helyes L, Pek Z Plants (Basel). 2024; 13(5).

PMID: 38475592 PMC: 10934895. DOI: 10.3390/plants13050746.


Prediction of water distribution uniformity of sprinkler irrigation system based on machine learning algorithms.

Elhussiny K, Hassan A, Habssa A, Mokhtar A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):20885.

PMID: 38017247 PMC: 10684584. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-47688-3.


References
1.
Dias Junior D, da Cruz L, Diniz J, Franca da Silva G, Braz Junior G, Silva A . Automatic method for classifying COVID-19 patients based on chest X-ray images, using deep features and PSO-optimized XGBoost. Expert Syst Appl. 2021; 183:115452. PMC: 8218245. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115452. View

2.
Li W, Yin Y, Quan X, Zhang H . Gene Expression Value Prediction Based on XGBoost Algorithm. Front Genet. 2019; 10:1077. PMC: 6861218. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01077. View

3.
Hu L, Wang C, Ye Z, Wang S . Estimating gaseous pollutants from bus emissions: A hybrid model based on GRU and XGBoost. Sci Total Environ. 2021; 783:146870. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146870. View

4.
Monteith J . Evaporation and environment. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1965; 19:205-34. View

5.
Gong X, Liu H, Sun J, Ma X, Wang W, Cui Y . [Modeling evapotranspiration of greenhouse tomato under different water conditions based on the dual crop coefficient method]. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2018; 28(4):1255-1264. DOI: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201704.009. View