How can machine learning help in understanding the impact of climate change on crop yields?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ordinary least squares linear regression (LR) has long been a popular choice among researchers interested in using historical data for estimating crop yield response to climate change. Today, the rapidly growing field of machine learning (ML) offers a wide range of advanced statistical tools that are increasingly being used for more accurate estimates of this relationship. This study compares LR to a popular ML technique called boosted regression trees (BRTs). We find that BRTs provide a significantly better prediction accuracy compared to various LR specifications, including those fitting quadratic and piece-wise linear functions. BRTs are also able to identify break points where the relationship between climate and yield undergoes significant shifts (for example, increasing yields with precipitation followed by a plateauing of the relationship beyond a certain point). Tests we performed with synthetically simulated climate and crop yield data showed that BRTs can automatically account for not only spatial variation in climate–yield relationships, but also interactions between different variables that affect crop yields. We then used both statistical techniques to estimate the influence of historical climate change on rice, wheat, and pearl millet in India. BRTs predicted a considerably smaller negative impact compared to LR. This may be an artifact of BRTs conflating time and climate variables, signaling a potential weakness of models with excessively flexible functional forms for inferring climate impacts on agriculture. Our findings thus suggest caution while interpreting the results from single-model analyses, especially in regions with highly varied climate and agricultural practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".