journal article·2026-05-19Open access

Agroclimatic Forecasting Under Degraded Sensor Data: A Robustness Benchmark of Machine-Learning Models

Oleksandr Zhabko, Ivan Laktionov, Grygorii Diachenko, Oleksandr Vinyukov, Dmytro Moroz

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 10

Abstract

Reliable short-term agroclimatic forecasting is essential for precision agriculture, irrigation planning, disease-risk assessment, and microclimatic decision support. However, field-deployed sensor systems often operate under degraded data conditions, including missing measurements, noise, temporal interruptions, and limited local computational resources. These constraints make it necessary to evaluate not only forecasting accuracy under clean data, but also model robustness under realistic sensor-data degradation. The objective of this study is to compare machine-learning models for one-step-ahead agroclimatic time-series forecasting under degraded sensor-data conditions. Using a real meteorological dataset collected by a field weather station in the Dnipro region of Ukraine, twelve regression models were evaluated: Ridge Regression, Random Forest, Extra Trees, Gradient Boosting, HistGradientBoosting, Support Vector Regression, Linear SVR, KNN, PLSRegression, ElasticNet, Lasso, and MultiTaskElasticNet. The models were tested under five controlled scenarios: baseline data, missing values, additive noise, reduced training history, and combined noise–missingness degradation. Quantitatively, Ridge Regression achieved the strongest baseline temperature-forecasting performance, with MAE = 0.318 and R2 ≈ 0.98 under clean data. It also maintained R2 > 0.90 when trained on only 50% of the available history. Under Gaussian noise with σ = 0.05–0.10, Ridge Regression and HistGradientBoosting maintained R2 values in the range of 0.95–0.97, whereas under combined degradation with σ = 0.10 and 20% missing data, HistGradientBoosting retained R2 > 0.85. These findings indicate that machine-learning models differ substantially in their sensitivity to sensor-data degradation and that robustness-oriented benchmarking is necessary before selecting models for agroclimatic forecasting systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Smart Agriculture and AI · Remote Sensing in Agriculture · Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Information Technology and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Information Technologies, Dnipro University of Technology, UA49005 Dnipro, Ukraine

Lodz Campus, SAN University, 90-113 Lodz, Poland

Department of Software of Computer Systems, Faculty of Information Technologies, Dnipro University of Technology, UA49005 Dnipro, Ukraine

Department of Electric Drive, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Dnipro University of Technology, UA49005 Dnipro, Ukraine

Donetsk State Agricultural Science Station of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine, UA85307 Pokrovsk, Ukraine

Funding

Ministry of Education and Science

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. Liu, L., Cheng, W., and Kuo, H.-W. (2025). A Narrative Review on Smart Sensors and IoT Solutions for Sustainable Agriculture and Aquaculture Practices. Sustainability, 17.10.3390/su17125256 ↗
2. Miller, T., Mikiciuk, G., Durlik, I., Mikiciuk, M., Łobodzińska, A., and Śnieg, M. (2025). The IoT and AI in Agriculture: The Time Is Now—A Systematic Review of Smart Sensing Technologies. Sensors, 25.10.3390/s25123583 ↗
3. A Comprehensive Survey on Imputation of Missing Data in Internet of Things
4. Tackling the Problem of Noisy IoT Sensor Data in Smart Agriculture: Regression Noise Filters for Enhanced Evapotranspiration Prediction10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121608 ↗
5. Gong, R., Zhang, H., Li, G., and He, J. (2025). Edge Computing-Enabled Smart Agriculture: Technical Architectures, Practical Evolution, and Bottleneck Breakthroughs. Sensors, 25.10.3390/s25175302 ↗
6. Kalyani, Y., and Collier, R. (2021). A Systematic Survey on the Role of Cloud, Fog, and Edge Computing Combination in Smart Agriculture. Sensors, 21.10.3390/s21175922 ↗
7. Edge and Fog Computing for IoT: A Survey on Current Research Activities & Future Directions10.1016/j.comcom.2021.09.003 ↗
8. A Survey on Mobile Edge Computing: The Communication Perspective10.1109/COMST.2017.2745201 ↗
9. Edge Computing: Vision and Challenges10.1109/JIOT.2016.2579198 ↗
10. Szostek, K., Mazur, D., Drałus, G., and Kusznier, J. (2024). Analysis of the Effectiveness of ARIMA, SARIMA, and SVR Models in Time Series Forecasting: A Case Study of Wind Farm Energy Production. Energies, 17.10.3390/en17194803 ↗
11. A Hybrid SARIMA–LSTM Model for Air Temperature Forecasting10.1002/adts.202200502 ↗
12. Time-Series Forecasting with Deep Learning: A Survey10.1098/rsta.2020.0209 ↗
13. Convergence of Edge Computing and Deep Learning: A Comprehensive Survey10.1109/COMST.2020.2970550 ↗
14. Alajlan, N.N., and Ibrahim, D.M. (2022). TinyML: Enabling of Inference Deep Learning Models on Ultra-Low-Power IoT Edge Devices for AI Applications. Micromachines, 13.10.3390/mi13060851 ↗
15. HTHP Coupled Fluid-Thermal Model for Predicting Wellbore Temperature and Pressure Distribution of Underground Gas Storage10.1016/j.geoen.2025.213999 ↗
16. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
17. Support-Vector Networks10.1023/A:1022627411411 ↗
18. Ridge Regression: Biased Estimation for Nonorthogonal Problems10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634 ↗
19. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
20. Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., and Liu, T.-Y. (2017, January 4–9). LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA. Available online: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/file/6449f44a102fde848669bdd9eb6b76fa-Paper.pdf.
21. Xie, Y., and Tummala, S.P. (2025). Machine Learning for Sensor Analytics: A Comprehensive Review and Benchmark of Boosting Algorithms in Healthcare, Environmental, and Energy Applications. Sensors, 25.10.3390/s25237294 ↗
22. Diachenko, G., Laktionov, I., Vovna, O., Aleksieiev, O., and Moroz, D. (2025). Computer Model of an IoT Decision-Making Network for Detecting the Probability of Crop Diseases. IoT, 6.10.3390/iot6010008 ↗
23. A Decision Support System for Wheat Powdery Mildew Risk Prediction Using Weather Monitoring, Machine Learning and Explainable Artificial Intelligence10.1016/j.compag.2025.109905 ↗
24. Hall, T., and Rasheed, K. (2025). A Survey of Machine Learning Methods for Time Series Prediction. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15115957 ↗
25. Integrating IoT Sensors and Machine Learning for Sustainable Precision Agroecology: Enhancing Crop Resilience and Resource Efficiency Through Data-Driven Strategies, Challenges, and Future Prospects10.1007/s44279-025-00247-y ↗