Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evapotranspiration evaluation models based on machine learning algorithms—A comparative study

Open access
Granata, Francesco·2019·Agricultural Water Management

Abstract

Abstract The constant need to increase agricultural production, together with the more and more frequent drought events in many areas of the world, requires a more careful assessment of irrigation needs and, therefore, a more accurate estimation of actual evapotranspiration. In recent years, several water management issues have been addressed by means of models derived from Artificial Intelligence research. When using machine learning based models, the main challenging aspects are represented by the choice of the best possible algorithm, the choice of adequately representative variables and the availability of appropriate data sets. Machine learning algorithms may be a powerful tool for the prediction of actual evapotranspiration, when a time series of few years is available. Starting from the measurements of a sufficient number of climatic parameters it is possible to obtain forecasting models characterized by very high accuracy and precision. Three different evapotranspiration models have been compared in this study. The models differ in the input variables. Four variants of each model were applied, varying the machine learning algorithm: M5P Regression Tree, Bagging, Random Forest and Support Vector Regression. The data refers to an experimental site in Central Florida, characterized by humid subtropical climate. The best outcomes have been provided by Model 1, whose input variables were net solar radiation, sensible-heat flux, moisture content of the soil, wind speed, mean relative humidity and mean temperature. Model 3, built from data only of mean temperature, mean relative humidity and net solar radiation, has provided still satisfactory results. Model 2, which adds the wind speed to the input variables of Model 3, has provided results that are absolutely comparable to those of Model 3 itself.

Overview

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.agwat.2019.03.015

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Granata, F.
Venue
Agricultural Water Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
217
Pages
303-315
ISSN
0378-3774 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2920819147
Cited by
361
References
36
FWCI
13.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evapotranspiration evaluation models based on machine learning algorithms—A comparative study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.015
The paper
Granata, F. (2019). Evapotranspiration evaluation models based on machine learning algorithms—A comparative study. Agricultural Water Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.015

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.