Cited by 161Climate change impacts on agricultureSmart Agriculture and AIRemote Sensing in Agriculture

Spatio-temporal downscaling of gridded crop model yield estimates based on machine learning

Open access
Folberth, C., Baklanov, A., Balkovič, J., Skalský, R., Khabarov, N., Obersteiner, M.·2019·Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Abstract

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) are essential tools for estimating agricultural crop yields and externalities at large scales, typically at coarse spatial resolutions. Higher resolution estimates are required for robust agricultural assessments at regional and local scales, where the applicability of GGCMs is often limited by low data availability and high computational demand. An approach to bridge this gap is the application of meta-models trained on GGCM output data to covariates of high spatial resolution. In this study, we explore two machine learning approaches – extreme gradient boosting and random forests - to develop meta-models for the prediction of crop model outputs at fine spatial resolutions. Machine learning algorithms are trained on global scale maize simulations of a GGCM and exemplary applied to the extent of Mexico at a finer spatial resolution. Results show very high accuracy with R²>0.96 for predictions of maize yields as well as the hydrologic externalities evapotranspiration and crop available water with also low mean bias in all cases. While limited sets of covariates such as annual climate data alone provide satisfactory results already, a comprehensive set of predictors covering annual, growing season, and monthly climate data is required to obtain high performance in reproducing climate-driven inter-annual crop yield variability. The findings presented herein provide a first proof of concept that machine learning methods are highly suitable for building crop meta-models for spatio-temporal downscaling and indicate potential for further developments towards scalable crop model emulators.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.09.021

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Outputs with high resolution may be aggregated via clustering methods to provide insights, while at coarser resolution, statistical downscaling can help to disaggregate data to an appropriate spatial resolution, as seen in applications such as crop yield, wind speed or surface temperature.

    “Outputs with high resolution may be aggregated via clustering methods to provide insights [183], while at coarser resolution, statistical downscaling can help to disaggregate data to an appropriate spatial resolution, as seen in applications such as crop yield [249], wind speed [479] or surface temperature [481].”

    From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [249]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sharpley, A.N., & Williams, J.R. (1990). EPIC Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model Documentation (US Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1768). Retrieved from http://agrilife.org/epicapex/files/2015/05/EpicModelDocumentation.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Folberth, C., Baklanov, A., Balkovič, J., Skalský, R., Khabarov, N., & Obersteiner, M.
Affiliations
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics (RU)
Corresponding author
Folberth, C.
Venue
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
264
Pages
1-15
ISSN
0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895348292
Cited by
161
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12
FWCI
11.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (submittedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • European Research Council (ERC-2013-SynG-610028 Imbalance-P)
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Remote Sensing in Agriculture
Keywords
gridded crop models, crop yield prediction, meta-model, maize yield, extreme gradient boosting, random forest, evapotranspiration, Mexico

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review