Generalization Ability of Bagging and Boosting Type Deep Learning Models in Evapotranspiration Estimation
Author:
Kumar Manoranjan1ORCID, Agrawal Yash2, Adamala Sirisha3, Pushpanjali 1, Subbarao A. V. M.1, Singh V. K.1, Srivastava Ankur4ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad 500059, Telangana, India 2. Gramworkx Agrotech Pvt Ltd.—GramworkX, Keonics, Phase 3, 1st Sector, HSR Layout, Bengaluru 560102, Karnataka, India 3. National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP), Nagpur 440033, Maharashtra, India 4. Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
Abstract
The potential of generalized deep learning models developed for crop water estimation was examined in the current study. This study was conducted in a semiarid region of India, i.e., Karnataka, with daily climatic data (maximum and minimum air temperatures, maximum and minimum relative humidity, wind speed, sunshine hours, and rainfall) of 44 years (1976–2020) for twelve locations. The Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Gradient Boosting (GB), and Random Forest (RF) are three ensemble deep learning models that were developed using all of the climatic data from a single location (Bengaluru) from January 1976 to December 2017 and then immediately applied at eleven different locations (Ballari, Chikmaglur, Chitradurga, Devnagiri, Dharwad, Gadag, Haveri, Koppal, Mandya, Shivmoga, and Tumkuru) without the need for any local calibration. For the test period of January 2018–June 2020, the model’s capacity to estimate the numerical values of crop water requirement (Penman-Monteith (P-M) ETo values) was assessed. The developed ensemble deep learning models were evaluated using the performance criteria of mean absolute error (MAE), average absolute relative error (AARE), coefficient of correlation (r), noise to signal ratio (NS), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (ɳ), and weighted standard error of estimate (WSEE). The results indicated that the WSEE values of RF, GB, and XGBoost models for each location were smaller than 1 mm per day, and the model’s effectiveness varied from 96% to 99% across various locations. While all of the deep learning models performed better with respect to the P-M ETo approach, the XGBoost model was able to estimate ETo with greater accuracy than the GB and RF models. The XGBoost model’s strong performance was also indicated by the decreased noise-to-signal ratio. Thus, in this study, a generalized mathematical model for short-term ETo estimates is developed using ensemble deep learning techniques. Because of this type of model’s accuracy in calculating crop water requirements and its ability for generalization, it can be effortlessly integrated with a real-time water management system or an autonomous weather station at the regional level.
Reference54 articles.
1. Smith, M., Allen, R.G., Pereira, L., Camp, C.R., Sadler, E.J., and Yoder, R.E. (1996, January 3–6). Revised FAO methodology for crop water requirements. Proceedings of the International Conference on Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling, San Antonio, TX, USA. 2. Ghiat, I., Mackey, H.R., and Al-Ansari, T. (2021). A review of evapotranspiration measurement models, techniques and methods for open and closed agricultural field applications. Water, 13. 3. Vegetation and hydrology;Penman;Soil Sci.,1963 4. Evaporation and environment;Monteith;Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology,1965 5. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapo-Transpiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements, FAO. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56.
|
|