PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 3, 2026Applied Water Science0 citationsOpen Access

Assessment of machine learning models to forecast water footprints of rice production

AEAhmed ElbeltagiASAman SrivastavaDKDurba Kashyap

Key Points

  • This study aims to evaluate machine learning models for predicting water footprints of rice production in Punjab, India.
  • Evaluated seven machine learning models for accuracy in predictions.
  • Collected data on environmental factors influencing water footprints.
  • Utilized best subset regression and correlation matrix for model input optimization.
  • RT model achieved the best training performance for green water footprint with a correlation coefficient of 0.9991.
  • RF model outperformed in testing for green water footprint with a correlation coefficient of 0.79.
  • RT model maintained best performance in blue water footprint during both training (CC = 0.9991) and testing (CC = 0.9981).

Abstract

Abstract Traditional methods for estimating water footprints for rice production are often time-consuming and resource-intensive, highlighting the need for efficient and accurate predictive models. This study addresses this gap by evaluating the performance of seven machine learning models—Linear Regression (LR), M5P, Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP), Sequential Minimal Optimization – Support Vector Machine (SMO-SVM), Random SubSpace (RSS), Random Forest (RF), and Random Tree (RT)—in predicting the green and blue water footprints of rice in Punjab, India. Best subset regression and correlation matrix indicate that humidity, wind speed, sunshine hours, solar radiation, and total rainfall are optimal inputs for green water footprint prediction, while maximum temperature, humidity, wind speed, sunshine hours, and solar radiation are best for blue water footprint prediction. The RT model outperformed others in that, for green water footprint prediction, it achieved a correlation coefficient (CC) of 0.9991, mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.1314, root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.4553, relative absolute error (RAE) of 0.0477, and root relative squared error (RRSE) of 0.1283 during the training stage. However, during the testing stage, the RF model performed better (CC = 0.79, MAE = 154.2732, RMSE = 192.3973, RAE = 55.5602, and RRSE = 58.6433). For blue water footprint prediction, the RT model remained the best performer in both stages (training: CC = 0.9991; testing: CC = 0.9981, MAE = 0.7920, RMSE = 0.8583, RAE = 0.4440, and RRSE = 0.8290). These results suggest that machine learning can effectively support water management strategies by providing quick and reliable estimates of water footprints, which is crucial for sustainable rice production. By utilizing these models, policymakers can make informed decisions to optimize water usage and ensure sustainable agricultural practices.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Elbeltagi et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a67ec3f353c071a6f0a41bhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-026-02776-3
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Artificial neural network based modeling of heated catalytic converter performance2005 · 64 citations
  2. 2Globalization of Water2007 · 651 citations
  3. 3A hybrid neural network model for typhoon-rainfall forecasting2009 · 102 citations
  4. 4PRINCIPLES OF NEURODYNAMICS. PERCEPTRONS AND THE THEORY OF BRAIN MECHANISMS1961 · 1,594 citations
  5. 5Tourism and water use: Supply, demand, and security. An international review2011 · 738 citations