Site-specific machine learning predictive fertilization models for potato crops in Eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical modeling is commonly used to relate the performance of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to fertilizer requirements. Prescribing optimal nutrient doses is challenging because of the involvement of many variables including weather, soils, land management, genotypes, and severity of pests and diseases. Where sufficient data are available, machine learning algorithms can be used to predict crop performance. The objective of this study was to determine an optimal model predicting nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium requirements for high tuber yield and quality (size and specific gravity) as impacted by weather, soils and land management variables. We exploited a data set of 273 field experiments conducted from 1979 to 2017 in Quebec (Canada). We developed, evaluated and compared predictions from a hierarchical Mitscherlich model, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, neural networks and Gaussian processes. Machine learning models returned R2 values of 0.49-0.59 for tuber marketable yield prediction, which were higher than the Mitscherlich model R2 (0.37). The models were more likely to predict medium-size tubers (R2 = 0.60-0.69) and tuber specific gravity (R2 = 0.58-0.67) than large-size tubers (R2 = 0.55-0.64) and marketable yield. Response surfaces from the Mitscherlich model, neural networks and Gaussian processes returned smooth responses that agreed more with actual evidence than discontinuous curves derived from k-nearest neighbors and random forest models. When conditioned to obtain optimal dosages from dose-response surfaces given constant weather, soil and land management conditions, some disagreements occurred between models. Due to their built-in ability to develop recommendations within a probabilistic risk-assessment framework, Gaussian processes stood out as the most promising algorithm to support decisions that minimize economic or agronomic risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".