Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 29 references

California Crop Yield Benchmark: Combining Satellite Image, Climate, Evapotranspiration, and Soil Data Layers for County-Level Yield Forecasting of Over 70 Crops

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single multi-modal network, fed satellite, climate, evapotranspiration, and soil data aligned to crop fields, forecasts county-level yields for over 70 California crops at $R^2$ 0.76 on unseen test years.

desk verdict A genuinely useful California crop benchmark, but the pooled R2 claim as reported is not yet substantiated because it likely reflects crop identity rather than year-to-year forecasting skill. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10228 v1 pith:HHFKXTIS submitted 2025-06-11 cs.CV

Hamid Kamangir , Mona Hajiesmaeeli , Mason Earles This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords cropyieldforecastingmulti-modaldeeplearningVisionTransformercounty-levelbenchmarkdatasetLandsatsatelliteimageryCaliforniaagricultureevapotranspirationsoilproperties
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that one multi-modal deep network, trained on Landsat satellite imagery, daily Daymet climate records, monthly OpenET evapotranspiration, and high-resolution SSURGO soil maps covering every county in California from 2008 to 2022 (except 2012), can forecast county-level yields for more than 70 crops. Crop identity is fed to the model as an input, pixels are sampled inside crop-field masks, and the held-out test years 2021–2022 yield an overall $R^2$ of 0.76. If correct, yield forecasting no longer has to be rebuilt crop by crop, since a single trained model spans grains, fruits, vegetables, forage, and industrial crops across the state. The authors release the dataset and code, so the central claim can be checked and extended directly.

What carries the argument

The central object is a multi-modal Vision Transformer with a stratified feature-extraction pipeline: because each crop field contains different numbers of pixels and the data sources arrive at different resolutions (30 m for imagery, ET, and soil; 1 km for climate), each modality is subsampled by a stratified strategy so that every input becomes a fixed-size embedding of dimension 256. Monthly Landsat ($12\times6$), monthly ET ($12\times1$), daily climate ($365\times8$), static soil ($1\times5$), and a categorical crop identity ($1\times1$) are encoded separately, then fused by an 8-layer, 6-head transformer encoder whose time-series regression head outputs the county-level yield estimate. Feeding crop identity as a constant input is what lets one model span 70 crops, and injecting static soil at every time step is how the model keeps long-term soil influence explicit throughout the growing season.

What would settle it

Compute per-crop $R^2$ on the 2021–2022 test set: if most of the 70 crops sit near or below zero individually while the pooled $R^2$ is 0.76, the headline is an artifact of pooling crops with different yield scales rather than evidence of across-crop generalization. A second check compares prediction errors on county–crop pairs where mapped crop acreage closely matches the reported harvested acreage against pairs where the two diverge sharply; if errors do not grow with that divergence, the field-mask alignment assumption is not doing the load-bearing work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that pixel-level samples of six Landsat reflectance bands (monthly), eight Daymet climate variables (daily), OpenET evapotranspiration (monthly), and five SSURGO soil attributes (static), taken inside crop-field masks of at least 10 hectares, carry enough signal for a single multi-modal Vision Transformer to predict county-level yield across 70 crops with an overall $R^2$ of 0.76 on the 2021–2022 test years. The authors report a training $R^2$ of 0.864 and a validation $R^2$ of 0.667, and their per-crop table shows that grapes, greens, and tomatoes predict tightly while corn, almonds, and walnuts carry test RMSE above 8 ton/ac, which they attribute to higher variability and sparser samples. The stated contribution is a reproducible, public benchmark and framework that moves multi-modal yield forecasting from one or two major crops to the full diversity of a state's agriculture.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method assumes that the crop-field maps used to choose which pixels to read match the actual fields whose harvests the county yield statistics summarize; if the maps mark the wrong fields, miss crop rotations, or use different planting seasons, the learned link from imagery to yield is weakened or shifted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $R^2$ of 0.76 holds, one trained network can replace per-crop forecast models for the benchmark's 70 crops, with the crop name supplied as an input.
  • The released dataset standardizes county-level inputs (monthly Landsat, daily climate, monthly ET, static soil) for 2008–2022 except 2012, letting future models be compared on identical data.
  • The crops that test poorly, which the paper lists as corn, almonds, and walnuts with RMSE above 8 ton/ac, mark where current inputs are insufficient and where the authors say longer time series and crop-specific features are needed.
  • The authors state the framework can be retrained at field level if field-level yield measurements become available, so the same code path serves both county-level and field-level forecasting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A per-crop $R^2$ table for the held-out years would show how much of the pooled 0.76 comes from crops with many county–year samples; the paper's own table shows grapes and greens testing well while corn, almonds, and walnuts test with RMSE above 8 ton/ac, so the headline masks a wide spread.
  • No ablation is reported, so the claim that all four data layers (imagery, climate, ET, soil) are needed is untested; dropping each modality in turn would reveal which layers actually carry the signal and which add little.
  • Because similar satellite, weather, evapotranspiration, crop-mask, and soil products cover other states, retraining the identical pipeline outside California is a direct test of whether the learned relationships are general or state-specific.
  • The validation $R^2$ (0.667) sitting below the test $R^2$ (0.767) is an unusual ordering; checking whether 2021–2022 are calmer climate years or whether per-county composition differs would clarify what the headline number means.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a county-level crop yield benchmark dataset covering over 70 crops in California from 2008 to 2022 (excluding 2012), integrating Landsat satellite imagery, Daymet climate records, OpenET evapotranspiration, and SSURGO soil properties, aligned to USDA NASS county-level yield reports via CDL-derived crop field masks. The authors also propose a multi-modal Vision Transformer architecture that combines these data layers with crop identity as a categorical input, and they report an overall R² of 0.76 on a held-out test set comprising 2021–2022.

Significance. The dataset itself, if released with its documented preprocessing pipeline, would be a valuable community resource: it spans an unusually broad set of crops, covers all California counties, and integrates four complementary data modalities at high spatial resolution. The proposed architecture is a reasonable extension of existing multi-modal ViTs. However, the central performance claim is not substantiated by the evidence presented. The pooled R² conflates between-crop yield-level differences with year-to-year forecasting skill, and the paper provides no baselines, no per-crop or within-crop R², no uncertainty estimates, and no ablations. The current evidence supports the dataset contribution more strongly than the forecasting-performance claim, and the paper needs substantial additional analysis before the model's predictive ability can be assessed.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 6, and Results (Section 4)] The headline R² of 0.76 is pooled across all crops, and crop identity is explicitly provided as a categorical input (Section 3, Figure 6). Because yield levels differ by orders of magnitude across crops (Figure 2), a model that simply predicts the training-period crop-county mean yield for each test sample would already achieve a high pooled R² without forecasting any interannual variation. The paper does not report per-crop R², within-crop temporal R², or any baseline such as a crop-county historical mean, a linear trend, or a lagged-yield predictor. Without such comparisons, the central claim of 'strong predictive performance' is not supported. Please report per-crop and within-crop R² and compare against at least the trivial crop-county mean baseline.
  2. [Table 2] The per-crop test RMSE values are presented without reference to the yield scale or to baseline errors. For example, corn test RMSE is 10.10 ton/ac and almond is 8.41 ton/ac, which appear large relative to typical yields of those crops, yet no per-crop baseline error is given. Additionally, the units are inconsistent with Figure 2 and the abstract's mention of ton/ha. Please report relative errors (e.g., RMSE divided by mean yield) and compare against a per-crop historical mean baseline for the same test years.
  3. [Section 3.1] The paper reports results from a single temporal split (train 2008–2018, validation 2019–2020, test 2021–2022) with no standard deviation or error bars, despite mentioning 5-fold cross-validation. It is therefore impossible to assess whether the difference between validation R² of 0.667 and test R² of 0.767 is meaningful or within noise. Please provide mean and standard deviation across cross-validation folds or random seeds for all reported metrics.
  4. [Sections 2–3] The contribution is framed around integrating four data modalities, but no ablation or comparison against single-modality variants is provided. The paper therefore does not demonstrate the marginal value of evapotranspiration, soil, climate, or satellite data. Please include ablations (e.g., removing each modality in turn) or at least a comparison against a model that uses only a subset of the modalities.
  5. [Section 2.3] The model assumes that CDL-derived field masks (fields at least 10 hectares) and the corresponding pixel-level features are aligned with the fields that contribute to the USDA county-level yield statistics. If CDL crop boundaries, rotations, or planting dates do not match the fields captured in the county yield reports, the learned mapping from pixels to yield will be attenuated or biased. This potential misalignment is not discussed as a limitation; please add a discussion of its likely impact and, if possible, sensitivity analyses using alternative CDL-based masking thresholds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The paper alternates between 'ton/ac' and 'ton/ha' (Table 2 vs. Figure 2) without stating the conversion or the intended unit. Please unify units and specify them consistently in all figures, tables, and text.
  2. [Title and Section 3] The section title 'Multi-Model Vision Transformers' should be 'Multi-Modal Vision Transformers' to match the architecture described.
  3. [Section 3.1 and Figure 6] The architecture description is vague: the stratified sampling strategy, the handling of mismatched pixel counts across modalities (N vs. M), and the mechanism for fusing a 365-step daily climate sequence with a 12-step monthly sequence are not specified. Please clarify these details, as they are essential for reproducibility.
  4. [Section 4] The evaluation metrics R², RMSE, and MAE are not formally defined. Please provide their definitions and specify whether R² is computed on the pooled set of all crop-year-county observations.
  5. [Abstract and Section 1] The paper states 'over 70 crops' and '70 different crops' inconsistently; please report the exact number of crops included in the benchmark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is trained and tested on temporally disjoint years against independent USDA yield labels, and the cited self-work is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical, held-out evaluation result: the model is trained on 2008–2018, validated on 2019–2020, and tested on 2021–2022 (Section 3.1, Experimental Setting), with labels taken from independent USDA county-level yield reports (Section 2.1). No parameter is fitted to the test set, and the reported test R2 = 0.767 is a standard out-of-sample metric rather than a quantity derived from the training fit by construction. The crop identity input (Section 3, item 5) is legitimate categorical information, not a disguised form of the yield target; it may inflate pooled R2 by separating crops of different yield levels, but this is an interpretation and benchmarking concern, not circularity. The paper cites the authors' earlier CMA ViT and vineyard yield work (references [12] and [13]) only as related work in the introduction; the proposed architecture and benchmark are not justified by appealing to those results, and no uniqueness theorem or modeling ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Input features come from external sources (Landsat, Daymet, OpenET, SSURGO, CDL), and the target yield is not used to define the input features. Consequently, no specific reduction of a claimed prediction to its own inputs can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on alignment between CDL field masks and USDA county yields, on the availability of gap-free monthly imagery, on the stationarity of soil inputs, and on the interpretability of pooled R². No new physical entities or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Training hyperparameters (8 transformer layers, 6 attention heads, embedding dimension 256, learning rate 1e-4, weight… = chosen without reported ablation
    Section 3.1 lists these values but provides no sensitivity analysis or ablation, so the reported R² is conditional on an unexamined hyperparameter choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CDL field masks for fields of at least 10 hectares accurately represent the planted areas that contribute to USDA county yield reports.
    Section 2.3 states that fields of at least 10 hectares are extracted from CDL; if these masks are incomplete or misaligned with the fields behind county-level yields, the pixel features will not correspond to the yield labels.
  • domain assumption Monthly cloud-free Landsat composites and OpenET estimates are available and reliable for all counties and months in the included years.
    Section 2.4 and Section 2.5 describe monthly Landsat and OpenET as inputs; the entire time-series encoding depends on having gap-free, cloud-free observations for every month and county.
  • domain assumption Static SSURGO soil properties measured near 2023 are representative of the soil conditions affecting yields from 2008 to 2022.
    Section 2.7 treats soil as a static input derived from SSURGO; any substantial change in soil moisture storage or drainage characteristics over the study period is not modeled.
  • domain assumption Pooled R² computed across 70 crops with heterogeneous yield scales is a meaningful measure of forecasting skill.
    Results in Section 4 report a single pooled R²; because crop types differ greatly in yield magnitude, a model that learns crop identity and county means could achieve high pooled R² without accurately forecasting year-to-year variation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of California Crop Yield Benchmark: Combining Satellite Image, Climate, Evapotranspiration, and Soil Data Layers for County-Level Yield Forecasting of Over 70 Crops." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHFKXTIS

@misc{pith2026250610228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: California Crop Yield Benchmark: Combining Satellite Image, Climate, Evapotranspiration, and Soil Data Layers for County-Level Yield Forecasting of Over 70 Crops},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHFKXTIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10228}
}
read the original abstract

California is a global leader in agricultural production, contributing 12.5% of the United States total output and ranking as the fifth-largest food and cotton supplier in the world. Despite the availability of extensive historical yield data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, accurate and timely crop yield forecasting remains a challenge due to the complex interplay of environmental, climatic, and soil-related factors. In this study, we introduce a comprehensive crop yield benchmark dataset covering over 70 crops across all California counties from 2008 to 2022. The benchmark integrates diverse data sources, including Landsat satellite imagery, daily climate records, monthly evapotranspiration, and high-resolution soil properties. To effectively learn from these heterogeneous inputs, we develop a multi-modal deep learning model tailored for county-level, crop-specific yield forecasting. The model employs stratified feature extraction and a timeseries encoder to capture spatial and temporal dynamics during the growing season. Static inputs such as soil characteristics and crop identity inform long-term variability. Our approach achieves an overall R2 score of 0.76 across all crops of unseen test dataset, highlighting strong predictive performance across California diverse agricultural regions. This benchmark and modeling framework offer a valuable foundation for advancing agricultural forecasting, climate adaptation, and precision farming. The full dataset and codebase are publicly available at our GitHub repository.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10228 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample visualization of California Landsat imagery highlighting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Yield trends from 2008 to 2022 for 70 crop types across all counties in California, grouped by crop category: Grains & Cereal Crops, Nuts & Fruit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample time series visualization of the evapotranspiration (ET) variable for Merced County, California, 2022. This figure serves as an example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample visualization of the 8 climate variables for Fresno County, California, day 180, year 2022. This figure serves as an example from a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample visualization of five rasterized soil properties from the SSURGO database at 30-meter spatial resolution for Monterey County, California. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multi-modal Vision Transformer model architecture. CDL is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Model Performance on Multi-Crop Yield Prediction (2008–2022) Scatter plots illustrate the performance of a multimodal model in predicting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A time-dependent pa- rameter estimation framework for crop modeling.Scientific reports, 11(1):11437, 2021

    Faezeh Akhavizadegan, Javad Ansarifar, Lizhi Wang, Isaiah Huber, and Sotirios V Archontoulis. A time-dependent pa- rameter estimation framework for crop modeling.Scientific reports, 11(1):11437, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    California agricultural statistics, 2024

    California Department of Food and Agriculture. California agricultural statistics, 2024. Accessed: March 14, 2025. 1

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    High-resolution crop yield and water pro- ductivity dataset generated using random forest and remote sensing.Scientific data, 9(1):641, 2022

    Minghan Cheng, Xiyun Jiao, Lei Shi, Josep Penuelas, Lalit Kumar, Chenwei Nie, Tianao Wu, Kaihua Liu, Wenbin Wu, and Xiuliang Jin. High-resolution crop yield and water pro- ductivity dataset generated using random forest and remote sensing.Scientific data, 9(1):641, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Contribution of crop models to adaptation in wheat.Trends in plant science, 22(6):472–490, 2017

    Karine Chenu, John Roy Porter, Pierre Martre, Bruno Basso, Scott Cameron Chapman, Frank Ewert, Marco Bindi, and Senthold Asseng. Contribution of crop models to adaptation in wheat.Trends in plant science, 22(6):472–490, 2017. 2

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

    work page

  6. [6]

    Nicola Falco, Haruko M Wainwright, Baptiste Dafflon, Craig Ulrich, Florian Soom, John E Peterson, James Bentley Brown, Karl B Schaettle, Malcolm Williamson, Jackson D Cothren, et al. Influence of soil heterogeneity on soybean plant development and crop yield evaluated using time-series of uav and ground-based geophysical imagery.Scientific re- ports, 11(1...

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A gnn-rnn approach for harnessing geospa- tial and temporal information: application to crop yield pre- diction

    Joshua Fan, Junwen Bai, Zhiyun Li, Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, and Carla P Gomes. A gnn-rnn approach for harnessing geospa- tial and temporal information: application to crop yield pre- diction. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pages 11873–11881, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Rice crop yield prediction using artificial neural networks

    Niketa Gandhi, Owaiz Petkar, and Leisa J Armstrong. Rice crop yield prediction using artificial neural networks. In 2016 IEEE Technological Innovations in ICT for Agriculture and Rural Development (TIAR), pages 105–110. IEEE, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Panoptic segmentation of satellite image time series with convolu- tional temporal attention networks

    Vivien Sainte Fare Garnot and Loic Landrieu. Panoptic segmentation of satellite image time series with convolu- tional temporal attention networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4872–4881, 2021. 2

    2021

  2. [10]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16000– 16009, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [11]

    To- ward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems sci- ence.Agricultural systems, 155:269–288, 2017

    James W Jones, John M Antle, Bruno Basso, Kenneth J Boote, Richard T Conant, Ian Foster, H Charles J Godfray, Mario Herrero, Richard E Howitt, Sander Janssen, et al. To- ward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural sy...

    2017

  4. [12]

    Cmavit: Integrating climate, managment, and remote sensing data for crop yield estima- tion with multimodel vision transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16989, 2024

    Hamid Kamangir, Brent Sams, Nick Dokoozlian, Luis Sanchez, J Mason Earles, et al. Cmavit: Integrating climate, managment, and remote sensing data for crop yield estima- tion with multimodel vision transformers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16989, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hamid Kamangir, Brent S Sams, Nick Dokoozlian, Luis Sanchez, and J Mason Earles. Large-scale spatio-temporal yield estimation via deep learning using satellite and man- agement data fusion in vineyards.Computers and Electron- ics in Agriculture, 216:108439, 2024. 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    Simultaneous corn and soybean yield prediction from remote sensing data using deep transfer learning.Scientific Reports, 11(1):11132,

    Saeed Khaki, Hieu Pham, and Lizhi Wang. Simultaneous corn and soybean yield prediction from remote sensing data using deep transfer learning.Scientific Reports, 11(1):11132,

  7. [15]

    Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works.Advances in neural information processing systems, 25, 2012

    Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural net- works.Advances in neural information processing systems, 25, 2012. 2

    2012

  8. [16]

    Mmst-vit: Climate change- aware crop yield prediction via multi-modal spatial-temporal vision transformer

    Fudong Lin, Summer Crawford, Kaleb Guillot, Yihe Zhang, Yan Chen, Xu Yuan, Li Chen, Shelby Williams, Robert Min- vielle, Xiangming Xiao, et al. Mmst-vit: Climate change- aware crop yield prediction via multi-modal spatial-temporal vision transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/...

  9. [17]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 10012–10022, 2021. 2

    2021

  10. [18]

    Openet: Filling a critical data gap in water management for the western united states.JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 58(6):971–994, 2022

    Forrest S Melton, Justin Huntington, Robyn Grimm, Jamie Herring, Maurice Hall, Dana Rollison, Tyler Erickson, Richard Allen, Martha Anderson, Joshua B Fisher, et al. Openet: Filling a critical data gap in water management for the western united states.JAWRA Journal of the Amer...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Advancing agricultural research using ma- chine learning algorithms.Scientific reports, 11(1):17879,

    Spyridon Mourtzinis, Paul D Esker, James E Specht, and Shawn P Conley. Advancing agricultural research using ma- chine learning algorithms.Scientific reports, 11(1):17879,

  12. [20]

    Department of Agriculture

    Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), 2020. Accessed: February 12, 2025. 5

    2020

  13. [21]

    Fulu Tao, Masayuki Yokozawa, and Zhao Zhang. Modelling the impacts of weather and climate variability on crop pro- ductivity over a large area: a new process-based model de- velopment, optimization, and uncertainties analysis.agricul- tural and forest meteorology, 149(5):831–8...

    2009

  14. [22]

    Daymet: Daily surface weather data on a 1-km grid for north america, version 2

    Peter E Thornton, Michele M Thornton, Benjamin W Mayer, Nate Wilhelmi, Yaxing Wei, Ranjeet Devarakonda, and Robert B Cook. Daymet: Daily surface weather data on a 1-km grid for north america, version 2. Technical report, Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United Sta...

    2014

  15. [23]

    Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through at- tention

    Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Herv ´e J´egou. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through at- tention. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 10347–10357. PMLR, 2021. 2

    2021

  16. [24]

    Department of Agriculture (USDA)

    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). CroplandCROS: Cropland Data Layer and Agricultural Monitoring, 2025. Accessed: February 12, 2025. 3, 5

    2025

  17. [25]

    USDA Na- tional Agricultural Statistics Service, 2020

    USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. USDA Na- tional Agricultural Statistics Service, 2020. Accessed: 18 March 2025. 1, 3

    2020

  18. [26]

    Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko- reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2

    2017

  19. [27]

    Pyramid vision transformer: A versatile backbone for dense prediction without convolutions

    Wenhai Wang, Enze Xie, Xiang Li, Deng-Ping Fan, Kaitao Song, Ding Liang, Tong Lu, Ping Luo, and Ling Shao. Pyramid vision transformer: A versatile backbone for dense prediction without convolutions. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pag...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Xiaocui Wu, Xiangming Xiao, Jean Steiner, Zhengwei Yang, Yuanwei Qin, and Jie Wang. Spatiotemporal changes of win- ter wheat planted and harvested areas, photosynthesis and grain production in the contiguous united states from 2008– 2018.Remote Sensing, 13(9):1735, 2021. 2

    2008

  21. [29]

    Rongting Xu, Hanqin Tian, Shufen Pan, Stephen A Prior, Yucheng Feng, William D Batchelor, Jian Chen, and Jia Yang. Global ammonia emissions from synthetic nitrogen fertilizer applications in agricultural systems: Empirical and process-based estimates and uncertainty.Global cha...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.