Back

YieldLearn: An interpretable machine-learning pipeline for estimating yield-related traits based on physiological indicators

Zhang, X.; Shaterian, H.; Ashe, P.

2026-09-28 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.09.22.753232 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Efficient yield prediction under field conditions remains a key challenge for crop breeders and agronomists. YieldLearn is an interpretable machine-learning pipeline developed to estimate yield-related traits in durum wheat (Triticum durum) using physiological indicators measured by the Hansatech Instruments Pocket PEA. The workflow integrates fluorescence parameters (Area, Fo, Fm, Fv/Fm, PI Inst.) with field-measured agronomic traits (Booting, Height, Maturity, Lodging, Yield kg/plot, and Adjusted Yield kg/ha). Five supervised learning algorithms multinomial logistic regression, random forest, support vector machine (radial kernel), k-nearest neighbors, and decision tree were evaluated using five-fold cross-validation. Models achieved average classification accuracy around 0.57 with AUC values exceeding 0.58. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) visualizations revealed that high Fv/Fm and PI Inst. values were positively associated with yield potential, whereas elevated Fo indicated stress-induced yield reduction. An interactive Shiny App enables real-time prediction and feature-importance exploration. Given the small sample size (165 plots) and absence of environmental covariates such as temperature or soil moisture, YieldLearn should be regarded as a reproducible exploratory framework rather than a production-ready predictor. Nonetheless, it offers a valuable foundation for guiding experimental design, validating physiological indicators, and supporting the next generation of scalable, interpretable crop-yield models.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.