Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67040
Volume:
10 |
8 |
Aug 2026
Pages:
1-15
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Kings College of Engineering, Punalkulam
Crop yield prediction is central to agricultural planning, food security, and farm-level decision-making, yet conventional approaches still rely heavily on manual field estimation and the subjective experience of farmers or agronomists. Such methods struggle to incorporate real-time environmental variability, are slow to update, and cannot easily reconcile the many interacting factors that govern plant growth, including soil moisture, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and nutrient availability. The proliferation of low-cost Internet of Things (IoT) sensors has made it possible to continuously capture fine-grained soil and atmospheric parameters directly from the field, creating an opportunity to replace episodic manual assessment with data-driven, near-real-time prediction. This paper proposes a machine-learning-based framework for crop yield prediction that ingests multi-parameter sensor data — including soil moisture, soil and air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, soil pH, electrical conductivity, and NPK nutrient levels — and transforms it into yield estimates through a structured pipeline of data acquisition, cleaning, feature engineering, and model training. Six representative learning algorithms are examined and compared conceptually: Linear Regression, Decision Tree Regression, Random Forest Regression, Support Vector Regression, Gradient Boosting/XGBoost, and Artificial Neural Networks, each evaluated for its suitability to the nonlinear, noisy, and heterogeneous nature of agricultural sensor data. Standard regression metrics — Mean Absolute Error, Mean Squared Error, Root Mean Squared Error, and the coefficient of determination (R²) — are described as the basis for model comparison. As no field deployment or labelled dataset was collected for this study, the work is presented as a proposed framework and illustrative experimental design rather than a report of empirical results, and all performance figures shown are clearly marked as illustrative placeholders for the evaluation structure that a full implementation would populate. The discussion highlights the practical significance of the framework for farmers and agricultural planners, including support for irrigation scheduling, fertilizer optimization, and early identification of yield decline, while also outlining the limitations of sensor-based prediction systems, such as calibration drift, missing data, and regional variability, and the future directions needed to move from prototype to field-ready deployment.
KEYWORDS
This paper has proposed a machine-learning-based framework for crop yield prediction driven by multi-parameter agricultural sensor data, addressing the limitations of manual, experience-based yield estimation through continuous, automated environmental monitoring combined with data-driven modelling. The framework specifies a complete pipeline from sensor deployment through preprocessing, feature engineering, model training, and evaluation, and conceptually compares six regression algorithms — Linear Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Regression, Gradient Boosting/XGBoost, and Artificial Neural Networks — for their suitability to this problem. Because no field dataset was collected for this study, the work is presented explicitly as a proposed framework and experimental design rather than a report of measured results, and all illustrative figures and tables are labelled accordingly. If implemented with genuine sensor data, the framework is expected to support practical benefits for farmers and agricultural planners, including more timely irrigation and fertilization decisions and earlier identification of yield risk. Realizing this potential in practice will require addressing the limitations discussed in Section X, particularly sensor reliability, cost, and regional generalization, and pursuing the future directions outlined in Section XI, from edge AI to satellite-data fusion, to move the framework from a conceptual proposal toward a field-validated decision-support tool.
[1] T. van Klompenburg, A. Kassahun, and C. Catal, "Crop yield prediction using machine learning: A systematic literature review," Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 177, p. 105709, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2020.105709. [2] A. Chlingaryan, S. Sukkarieh, and B. Whelan, "Machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: A review," Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 151, pp. 61–69, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2018.05.012. [3] M. Rashid, B. S. Bari, Y. Yusup, M. A. Kamaruddin, and N. Khan, "A comprehensive review of crop yield prediction using machine learning approaches with special emphasis on palm oil yield prediction," IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 63406–63439, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3075159. [4] N. Bali and A. Singla, "Emerging trends in machine learning to predict crop yield and study its influential factors: A survey," Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 95–112, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11831-021-09569-8. [5] L. Breiman, "Random forests," Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5–32, 2001, doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324. [6] J. H. Jeong, J. P. Resop, N. D. Mueller, D. H. Fleisher, K. Yun, E. E. Butler, D. J. Timlin, K.-M. Shim, J. S. Gerber, V. R. Reddy, and S.-H. Kim, "Random forests for global and regional crop yield predictions," PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 6, e0156571, 2016, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156571. [7] "A comparative study of machine learning models in predicting crop yield," Discover Agriculture, vol. 3, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s44279-025-00335-z. [8] P. Nevavuori, N. Narra, and T. Lipping, "Crop yield prediction with deep convolutional neural networks," Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 163, p. 104859, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2019.104859. [9] P. Nevavuori, N. Narra, and T. Lipping, "Crop yield prediction using multitemporal UAV data and spatio-temporal deep learning models," Remote Sensing, vol. 12, no. 23, p. 4000, 2020, doi: 10.3390/rs12234000. [10] J. Shook, T. Gangopadhyay, L. Wu, B. Ganapathysubramanian, S. Sarkar, and A. K. Singh, "Crop yield prediction integrating genotype and weather variables using deep learning," PLoS ONE, vol. 16, no. 6, e0252402, 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252402.
Publication Date
8/31/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
2
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
2
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...