4.6 Article

Crop Type Prediction: A Statistical and Machine Learning Approach

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su15010481

关键词

crop prediction; machine learning; artificial intelligence; statistical analysis; sustainable agriculture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Farmers' ability to forecast crop types accurately plays a critical role in global food production and sustainable smart cities. Timely decisions on imports and exports based on precise predictions are crucial for a country's food security. This study focuses on India, where agriculture is the primary source of revenue, and analyzes statistical features to determine the best crop type in the context of an Indian smart city. Machine learning algorithms such as k-NN, SVM, RF, and GB trees are examined, with GB trees demonstrating the highest accuracy of 99.11% and an F1-score of 99.20%.
Farmers' ability to accurately anticipate crop type is critical to global food production and sustainable smart cities since timely decisions on imports and exports, based on precise forecasts, are crucial to the country's food security. In India, agriculture and allied sectors constitute the country's primary source of revenue. Seventy percent of the country's rural residents are small or marginal agriculture producers. Cereal crops such as rice, wheat, and other pulses make up the bulk of India's food supply. Regarding cultivation, climate and soil conditions play a vital role. Information is of utmost need in predicting which crop is best suited given the soil and climate. This paper provides a statistical look at the features and indicates the best crop type on the given features in an Indian smart city context. Machine learning algorithms like k-NN, SVM, RF, and GB trees are examined for crop-type prediction. Building an accurate crop forecast system required high accuracy, and the GB tree technique provided that. It outperforms all the classification algorithms with an accuracy of 99.11% and an F1-score of 99.20%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据