Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 29 No. 54 (2020)
Continuos Publication

Papers

Comparison Between Machine Learning Models for Yield Forecast in Cocoa Crops in Santander, Colombia

https://doi.org/10.19053/01211129.v29.n54.2020.10853

Published 2020-05-15

Henry Lamos-Díaz, Ph. D.
Universidad Industrial de Santander

David Esteban Puentes-Garzón, M.Sc.
Universidad Industrial de Santander

Diego Alejandro Zarate-Caicedo, Ph. D.
Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria-AGROSAVIA

Abstract

The identification of influencing factors in crop yield (kg·ha-1) provides essential information for decision-making processes related to the prediction and improvement of productivity, which gives farmers the opportunity to increase their income. The current study investigates the application of multiple machine learning algorithms for cocoa yield prediction and influencing factors identification. The Support Vector Machines (SVM) and Ensemble Learning Models (Random Forests, Gradient Boosting) are compared with Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression models. The considered predictors were climate conditions, cocoa variety, fertilization level and sun exposition in an experimental crop located in Rionegro, Santander. Results showed that Gradient Boosting is the best prediction alternative with Coefficient of determination (R2) = 68%, Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = 13.32, and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = 20.41. The crop yield variability is explained mainly by the radiation one month before harvest, the accumulated rainfall on the harvest month, and the temperature one month before harvest. Likewise, the crop yields are evaluated based on the kind of sun exposure, and it was found that radiation one month before harvest is the most influential factor in shade-grown plants. On the other hand, rainfall and soil moisture are determining variables in sun-grown plants, which is associated with the water requirements. These results suggest a differentiated management for crops depending on the kind of sun exposure to avoid compromising productivity, since there is no significant difference in the yield of both agricultural managements.

Keywords

agricultural-yield, agroforestry-system, cocoa, machine-learning, prediction, productivity

PDF PDF (Español) XML

References

  1. D. Jiménez, J. Cock, A. Jarvis, J. Garcia, H. F. Satizábal, P. Van-Damme, A. Peréz-Uribe, and M. Barreto-Sanz, “Interpretation of commercial production information: A case study of lulo (Solanum quitoense), an under-researched Andean fruit,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 104 (3), pp. 258-270, Mar. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.10.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.10.004
  2. J. W. Jones, J. M. Antle, B. Basso, K. J. Boote, R. T. Conant, I. Foster, H. C. J. Godfay, M. Herrero, R. E. Howitt, S. Janssen, B. A. Keating, R. Munoz-Carpena, C. H. Porter, C. Rosenzweig, and T. R. Wheeler, “Brief history of agricultural systems modeling,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 155, pp. 240-254, Jul. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.05.014
  3. I. Diaz, S. M. Mazza, E. F. Combarro, L. I. Gimenez, and J. E. Gaiad, “Machine learning applied to the prediction of citrus production,” Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 15 (2), e0205, Jun. 2017. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017152-9090 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017152-9090
  4. S. T. Drummond, K. A. Sudduth, A. Joshi, S. J. Birrell, and N. R. Kitchen, “Statistical and neural methods for site-specific yield prediction,” Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 46 (1), pp. 5-14, 2003. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.12541 DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.12541
  5. J. L. De Paepe, and R. Alvarez, “Wheat Yield Gap in the Pampas: Modeling the Impact of Environmental Factors,” Agronomy, Soils & Environmental Quality, vol. 108 (4), pp. 1367-1378, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0482 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2015.0482
  6. J. D. R. Soares, M. Pasqual, W. S. Lacerda, S. O. Silva, and S. L. R. Donato, “Comparison of techniques used in the prediction of yield in banana plants,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 167, pp. 84-90, Mar. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.12.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.12.012
  7. A. Shekoofa, Y. Emam, N. Shekoufa, M. Ebrahimi, and E. Ebrahimie, “Determining the Most Important Physiological and Agronomic Traits Contributing to Maize Grain Yield through Machine Learning Algorithms: A New Avenue in Intelligent Agriculture,” PLoS One, vol. 9 (5), e97288, May 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097288 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097288
  8. J. R. Romero, P. F. Roncallo, P. C. Akkiraju, I. Ponzoni, V. C. Echenique, and J. A. Carballido, “Using classification algorithms for predicting durum wheat yield in the province of Buenos Aires,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 96, pp. 173-179, Aug. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.006
  9. X. Huang, G. Huang, C. Yu, S. Ni, and L. Yu, “A multiple crop model ensemble for improving broad-scale yield prediction using Bayesian model averaging,” Field Crops Research, vol. 211, pp. 114-124, Sep. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.06.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.06.011
  10. A. A. V. da Silva, I. A. F. Silva, M. C. M. Teixeira Filho, S. Buzetti, and M. C. M. Teixeira, “Estimate of wheat grain yield as function of nitrogen fertilization using neuro fuzzy modeling,” Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, vol. 18 (2), pp. 180-187, Feb. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662014000200008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662014000200008
  11. I. Lopez, J. Plazas, and J. C. Corrales, “A tool for classification of cacao production in Colombia based on multiple classifier systems,” in 17th International Conference Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2017, Trieste, Italy, Jul. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62395-5_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62395-5_5
  12. E. Somarriba, and J. Beer, “Productivity of Theobroma cacao agroforestry systems with timber or legume service shade trees,” Agroforestry Systems, vol. 81, pp. 109-121, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-010-9364-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-010-9364-1
  13. P. A. Zuidema, P. A. Leffelaar, W. Gerritsma, L. Mommer, and N. P. R. R. Anten, “A physiological production model for cocoa (Theobroma cacao): model presentation, validation and application,” Agricultural Systems, vol. 84 (2), pp. 195-225, May 2005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.06.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.06.015
  14. L. F. García Carrión, Catalogo de cultivares de cacao del Perú, Lima: Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego, 2010.
  15. V. Vapnik, The nature of Statistical Learning Theory, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0
  16. H. Drucker, C. J. C. Burges, L. Kaufman, A. J. Smola, and V. Vapnik, "Support Vector Regression Machines," Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 9, pp. 1-11, 1997.
  17. T. Dietterich, Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning. In: Multiple Classifier Systems, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, 2000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45014-9_1
  18. J. H. Friedman, “Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine,” Annals of Statistics, vol. 29 (5), pp. 1189-1232, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
  19. L. Breiman, “Random forests,” Machine Learning, vol. 45 (1), pp. 5-32, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  20. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, and B. Thirion, “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 12, pp. 2825-2830, 2011.
  21. T. M. Logan, S. McLeod, and S. Guikema, “Predictive models in horticulture: A case study with Royal Gala apples,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 209, pp. 201-213, Sep. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.06.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.06.033
  22. A. Daymond, and P. Hadley, “The effects of temperature and light integral on early vegetative growth and chloroplyll fluorescence of four contrasting genotypes of cacao,” Annals of Applied Biology, vol. 145 (3), pp. 257-262, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00381.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00381.x
  23. Y. Ahenkorah, B. Halm, M. Appiah, and G. Akrofi, “Twenty Years’ Results from a Shade and Fertilizer Trial on Amazon Cocoa (Theobroma cacao) in Ghana,” Experimental Agriculture, vol. 23 (1), pp. 31-39, Jan. 1987. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0014479700003380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700001101
  24. O. Deheuvels, J. Avelino, E. Somarriba, and E. Malezieux, “Vegetation structure and productivity in cocoa-based agroforestry systems in Talamanca, Costa Rica,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 149, pp. 181-188, Mar. 2012. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.003
  25. W. Vanhove, N. Vanhoudt, and P. Van Damme, “Effect of shade tree planting and soil management on rehabilitation success of a 22-year-old degraded cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) plantation,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 219, pp. 14-25, Mar. 2016. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.005
  26. B. Utomo, A. A. Prawoto, S. Bonnet, A. Bangviwat, and S. H. Gheewala, “Environmental performance of cocoa production from monoculture and agroforestry systems in Indonesia,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 134 (Part B), pp. 583-591, Oct. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.102

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)