Submitted:
30 July 2025
Posted:
31 July 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Field and Laboratory Research
2.1.1. Field Management Practices
2.1.2. Methodology for Soil Sampling and Preparation
2.1.3. Analysis of the Physicochemical Properties of Soil
2.1.4. Methodology for Sampling Potato Tubers Before Harvest
2.2. Data Analysis and Model Development
2.2.1. Dependent and Independent Variables for Building and Verifying a Neural Network Model
2.2.2. Correlation Analysis and Elimination of Collinearity
2.3. Data Preprocessing
2.3.1. Method of Creating a Neural Network Model
2.3.2. Model Evaluation
3. Results
3.1. Basic Statistical Measures of Predictive Model Variables
3.2. Forecasting Properties of Neural Model
3.3. Sensitivity Analysis of MLP 11-5-1 Neural Network
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The State of Food and Agriculture 2023; FAO, 2023; ISBN 978-92-5-138167-0.
- Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield Trends Are Insufficient to Double Global Crop Production by 2050. PLoS One 2013, 8, e66428. [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.; Li, S.; Duan, S.; Ye, Y.; Li, B.; Li, G.; Lyv, D.; Jin, L.; Bian, C.; Liu, J. Methodological Evolution of Potato Yield Prediction: A Comprehensive Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14. [CrossRef]
- Kurek, J.; Niedbała, G.; Wojciechowski, T.; Świderski, B.; Antoniuk, I.; Piekutowska, M.; Kruk, M.; Bobran, K. Prediction of Potato (Solanum Tuberosum L.) Yield Based on Machine Learning Methods. Agriculture 2023, 13, 2259. [CrossRef]
- Piekutowska, M. Using Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Crop Production – a Comprehensive Review with a Focus on Potato Production. J. Water L. Dev. 2025. [CrossRef]
- Niedbała, G., Piekutowska, M. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for the Prediction of Quality Characteristics Potato Tubers- Innovator Variety. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2018, 64, 132–138.
- Wang, R.-F.; Su, W.-H. The Application of Deep Learning in the Whole Potato Production Chain: A Comprehensive Review. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1225. [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Miao, Y.; Gupta, S.K.; Rosen, C.J.; Yuan, F.; Wang, C.; Wang, L.; Huang, Y. Improving Potato Yield Prediction by Combining Cultivar Information and UAV Remote Sensing Data Using Machine Learning. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3322. [CrossRef]
- Allal, L.G.; Bennekrouf, M.; Bettayeb, B.; Sahnoun, M. Technologies and Strategies for Optimizing the Potato Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review and Some Ideas for Application in the Algerian Context. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2025, 234, 110171. [CrossRef]
- Pszczółkowski, P.; Sawicka, B.; Skiba, D.; Barbaś, P. Enhancing Potato Quality in Fries Production Using Ultrasonic Techniques. Sustainability 2025, 17, 828. [CrossRef]
- Xing, Y.; Niu, X.; Wang, N.; Jiang, W.; Gao, Y.; Wang, X. The Correlation between Soil Nutrient and Potato Quality in Loess Plateau of China Based on PLSR. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1588. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Zhu, Q.; de Vries, W.; Ros, G.H.; Chen, X.; Muneer, M.A.; Zhang, F.; Wu, L. Effects of Soil Amendments on Soil Acidity and Crop Yields in Acidic Soils: A World-Wide Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 2023, 345, 118531. [CrossRef]
- Lipiec, J.; Kuś, J.; Słowińska-Jurkiewicz, A.; Nosalewicz, A. Soil Porosity and Water Infiltration as Influenced by Tillage Methods. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 89, 210–220. [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.T.; Aleinikovienė, J.; Butkevičienė, L.-M. Innovative Organic Fertilizers and Cover Crops: Perspectives for Sustainable Agriculture in the Era of Climate Change and Organic Agriculture. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2871. [CrossRef]
- Zayed, O.; Hewedy, O.A.; Abdelmoteleb, A.; Ali, M.; Youssef, M.S.; Roumia, A.F.; Seymour, D.; Yuan, Z.-C. Nitrogen Journey in Plants: From Uptake to Metabolism, Stress Response, and Microbe Interaction. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 1443. [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, N.; Zhang, B.; Chachar, Z.; Li, J.; Xiao, G.; Wang, Q.; Hayat, F.; Deng, L.; Narejo, M.-N.; Bozdar, B.; et al. Micronutrients and Their Effects on Horticultural Crop Quality, Productivity and Sustainability. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam). 2024, 323, 112512. [CrossRef]
- Mazur, P.; Gozdowski, D.; Wójcik-Gront, E. Soil Electrical Conductivity and Satellite-Derived Vegetation Indices for Evaluation of Phosphorus, Potassium and Magnesium Content, PH, and Delineation of Within-Field Management Zones. Agriculture 2022, 12, 883. [CrossRef]
- Serrano, J.; Shahidian, S.; Marques da Silva, J.; Paniágua, L.L.; Rebollo, F.J.; Moral, F.J. Temporal Stability of Management Zone Patterns: Case Study with Contact and Non-Contact Soil Electrical Conductivity Sensors in Dryland Pastures. Sensors 2024, 24, 1623. [CrossRef]
- Hara, P.; Piekutowska, M.; Niedbała, G. Selection of Independent Variables for Crop Yield Prediction Using Artificial Neural Network Models with Remote Sensing Data. Land 2021, 10, 609. [CrossRef]
- Larkin, R.P.; Griffin, T.S.; Honeycutt, C.W.; Olanya, O.M.; He, Z. Potato Cropping System Management Strategy Impacts Soil Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties over Time. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 213, 105148. [CrossRef]
- Dubois, A.; Teytaud, F.; Verel, S. Short Term Soil Moisture Forecasts for Potato Crop Farming: A Machine Learning Approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 180, 105902. [CrossRef]
- Khorramifar, A.; Rasekh, M.; Karami, H.; Malaga-Toboła, U.; Gancarz, M. A Machine Learning Method for Classification and Identification of Potato Cultivars Based on the Reaction of MOS Type Sensor-Array. Sensors 2021, 21, 5836. [CrossRef]
- Niedbała, G. Simple Model Based on Artificial Neural Network for Early Prediction and Simulation Winter Rapeseed Yield. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 54–61. [CrossRef]
- Verma, G.; Kumar, B. Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) Neural Network for Predicting the Modified Compaction Parameters of Coarse-Grained and Fine-Grained Soils. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2022, 7, 78. [CrossRef]
- WRB World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification Systems for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. 4th Edition; Internationl Union of Soil Science IUSS, 2022;
- Polish Standard PN-R-04023:1996 Determination of Plant-Available Phosphorus in Mineral Soils — Methodology’ 1999.
- Polish Standard PN-R-04022:1996 Determination of Available Potassium in Soils — Extraction and Measurement Method 1996.
- Polish Standard PB 31:2010 Soil - Determination of Available Magnesium by Extraction and Chemical Measurement’ 2010.
- Kabała, A; Karczewski C. Methodology of Laboratory Analysis of Soil and Plants; 2008;
- Piekutowska, M.; Niedbała, G.; Piskier, T.; Lenartowicz, T.; Pilarski, K.; Wojciechowski, T.; Pilarska, A.A.; Czechowska-Kosacka, A. The Application of Multiple Linear Regression and Artificial Neural Network Models for Yield Prediction of Very Early Potato Cultivars before Harvest. Agronomy 2021, 11, 885. [CrossRef]
- Piekutowska, M.; Hara, P.; Pentoś, K.; Lenartowicz, T.; Wojciechowski, T.; Kujawa, S.; Niedbała, G. Predicting Starch Content in Early Potato Varieties Using Neural Networks and Regression Models: A Comparative Study. Agronomy 2024, 14, 3010. [CrossRef]
- Hara, P.; Piekutowska, M.; Niedbała, G. Prediction of Protein Content in Pea (Pisum Sativum L.) Seeds Using Artificial Neural Networks. Agriculture 2022, 13, 29. [CrossRef]
- Peng, J.; Kim, M.; Kim, Y.; Jo, M.; Kim, B.; Sung, K.; Lv, S. Constructing Italian Ryegrass Yield Prediction Model Based on Climatic Data by Locations in South Korea. Grassl. Sci. 2017, 63, 184–195. [CrossRef]
- Basir, M.S.; Chowdhury, M.; Islam, M.N.; Ashik-E-Rabbani, M. Artificial Neural Network Model in Predicting Yield of Mechanically Transplanted Rice from Transplanting Parameters in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 5, 100186. [CrossRef]
- Bharti; Das, P.; Banerjee, R.; Ahmad, T.; Devi, S.; Verma, G. Artificial Neural Network Based Apple Yield Prediction Using Morphological Characters. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 436. [CrossRef]
- Hara, P.; Piekutowska, M.; Niedbała, G. Prediction of Pea (Pisum Sativum L.) Seeds Yield Using Artificial Neural Networks. Agriculture 2023, 13, 661. [CrossRef]
- Rawal, A.; Chakraborty, S.; Li, B.; Lewis, K.; Godoy, M.; Paulette, L.; Weindorf, D.C. Determination of Base Saturation Percentage in Agricultural Soils via Portable X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer. Geoderma 2019, 338, 375–382. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Qu, X.; Song, X.; Xiao, Y.; Wang, A.; Li, D. Spatial Variation in Soil Base Saturation and Exchangeable Cations in Tropical and Subtropical China. Agronomy 2023, 13, 781. [CrossRef]
- Gupta, U.C.; WU, K.; LIANG, S. Micronutrients in Soils, Crops, and Livestock. Earth Sci. Front. 2008, 15, 110–125. [CrossRef]
- Mostofa, M.G.; Rahman, M.M.; Ghosh, T.K.; Kabir, A.H.; Abdelrahman, M.; Rahman Khan, M.A.; Mochida, K.; Tran, L.-S.P. Potassium in Plant Physiological Adaptation to Abiotic Stresses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2022, 186, 279–289. [CrossRef]
- Vreugdenhil, D., Bradshaw, J., Gebhardt, C., Govers, F., MacKerron, D., Taylor, M., & Ross, H. Potato Biology and Biotechnology: Advances and Perspectives. Elsevier B.V.; 2007; ISBN 9780444510181.
- The Mechanisms of Absorption and Nutrients Transport in Plants: A Review. Trop. J. Nat. Prod. Res. 2022, 6, 8–14. [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.Z.; Akhtar, M.E.; Mahmood-ul-Hassan, M.; Mahmood, M.M.; Safdar, M.N. POTATO TUBER YIELD AND QUALITY AS AFFECTED BY RATES AND SOURCES OF POTASSIUM FERTILIZER. J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 35, 664–677. [CrossRef]
- Liszka-Skoczylas, M. Wpływ Nawożenia Roślin Ziemniaka (Solanum Tuberosum L.) Na Zawartość i Jakość Skrobi w Bulwach. Zywn. Nauk. Technol. Jakosc/Food Sci. Technol. Qual. 2020, 122, 31–46. [CrossRef]
- Trawczyński, C. Wpływ Nawożenia Mineralnego Azotem Na Plon i Jakość Bulw Bardzo Wczesnych i Wczesnych Odmian Ziemniaka Uprawianych Na Wczesny Zbiór. Agron. Sci. 2023, 78, 81–96. [CrossRef]







| Symbol of variable | Description | Data Range |
|---|---|---|
| INDEPENDET VARIABLES | ||
| PH | Soil pH measured in KCl | 5.5-7.2 |
| P_SOIL | Soil content of P2O5 (mg/100g) | 8.4-36.2 |
| K_SOIL | Soil content of K2O (mg/100g) | 8.0-26.0 |
| Mg_SOIL | Soil content of Mg (mg/100g) | 3.0-24.6 |
| HH | Hydrolytic acidity (cmol(+)∙kg-1) | 0.1-2.66 |
| S | Sum of exchangeable bases (cmol(+)∙kg-1) | 3.76-11.1 |
| CEC | Soil sorption capacity (cmol(+)∙kg-1) | 7.98-14.07 |
| V | Base saturation percentage (%) | 37.22-89.49 |
| SAND | Percentages of sand (%) | 65.24-96.16 |
| SILT | Percentages of silt (%) | 3.79-32.39 |
| CLAY | Percentages of clay (%) | 0.0-1.54 |
| OC | Organic carbon content (%) | 0.1-3.16 |
| H | Soil humus content (%) | 0.174-5.5 |
| TN | Total nitrogen (%) | 0.02-0.25 |
| DEPENDENT VARIABLE | ||
| YP | Yield of potato tubers (t∙ha-1) | 25.5-68.67 |
| CEC | PH | P_SOIL | K_SOIL | Mg_SOIL | HH | S | V | SAND | SILT | CLAY | OC | H | TN | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEC | 1,00 | -0,18 | 0,10 | 0,07 | -0,10 | -0,06 | 0,35 | -0,45 | -0,20 | 0,25 | 0,18 | -0,27 | -0,27 | -0,36 |
| PH | -0,18 | 1,00 | 0,37 | 0,07 | 0,13 | -0,67 | 0,31 | 0,45 | 0,07 | -0,15 | -0,04 | 0,17 | 0,17 | 0,14 |
| P_SOIL | 0,10 | 0,37 | 1,00 | 0,46 | 0,18 | -0,27 | 0,12 | 0,05 | -0,22 | 0,20 | 0,27 | 0,10 | 0,10 | -0,33 |
| K_SOIL | 0,07 | 0,07 | 0,46 | 1,00 | 0,35 | -0,04 | -0,07 | -0,09 | -0,44 | 0,45 | 0,42 | -0,08 | -0,08 | -0,34 |
| Mg_SOIL | -0,10 | 0,13 | 0,18 | 0,35 | 1,00 | -0,08 | -0,04 | 0,03 | -0,16 | 0,08 | 0,16 | 0,08 | 0,08 | -0,01 |
| HH | -0,06 | -0,67 | -0,27 | -0,04 | -0,08 | 1,00 | -0,60 | -0,51 | 0,04 | 0,03 | -0,09 | -0,17 | -0,17 | -0,11 |
| S | 0,35 | 0,31 | 0,12 | -0,07 | -0,04 | -0,60 | 1,00 | 0,67 | -0,16 | 0,13 | 0,19 | -0,01 | -0,01 | -0,11 |
| V | -0,45 | 0,45 | 0,05 | -0,09 | 0,03 | -0,51 | 0,67 | 1,00 | -0,01 | -0,06 | 0,05 | 0,20 | 0,20 | 0,16 |
| SAND | -0,20 | 0,07 | -0,22 | -0,44 | -0,16 | 0,04 | -0,16 | -0,01 | 1,00 | -0,92 | -0,91 | 0,22 | 0,22 | 0,35 |
| SILT | 0,25 | -0,15 | 0,20 | 0,45 | 0,08 | 0,03 | 0,13 | -0,06 | -0,92 | 1,00 | 0,93 | -0,28 | -0,28 | -0,43 |
| CLAY | 0,18 | -0,04 | 0,27 | 0,42 | 0,16 | -0,09 | 0,19 | 0,05 | -0,91 | 0,93 | 1,00 | -0,22 | -0,22 | -0,37 |
| OC | -0,27 | 0,17 | 0,10 | -0,08 | 0,08 | -0,17 | -0,01 | 0,20 | 0,22 | -0,28 | -0,22 | 1,00 | 1,00 | 0,21 |
| H | -0,27 | 0,17 | 0,10 | -0,08 | 0,08 | -0,17 | -0,01 | 0,20 | 0,22 | -0,28 | -0,22 | 1,00 | 1,00 | 0,21 |
| TN | -0,36 | 0,14 | -0,33 | -0,34 | -0,01 | -0,11 | -0,11 | 0,16 | 0,35 | -0,43 | -0,37 | 0,21 | 0,21 | 1,00 |
| Variable | Statistic | Training | Testing | Validation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | Min | 5.5 | 5.6 | 5.7 |
| Max | 7.2 | 6.6 | 7.1 | |
| Mean | 6.29 | 6.19 | 6.23 | |
| SD | 0.31 | 0.30 | 0.45 | |
| P_SOIL | Min | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.9 |
| Max | 36.2 | 25.6 | 36.2 | |
| Mean | 17.96 | 17.46 | 17.36 | |
| SD | 4.66 | 3.44 | 7.20 | |
| K_SOIL | Min | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Max | 26 | 22 | 24.6 | |
| Mean | 16.44 | 15.92 | 15.95 | |
| SD | 3.35 | 3.06 | 5.92 | |
| Mg_SOIL | Min | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Max | 24.6 | 17 | 24.6 | |
| Mean | 6.31 | 5.95 | 6.35 | |
| SD | 2.60 | 2.43 | 6.37 | |
| HH | Min | 0.1 | 1 | 1 |
| Max | 2.66 | 2.5 | 2.24 | |
| Mean | 1.43 | 1.47 | 1.51 | |
| SD | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.33 | |
| S | Min | 3.76 | 4 | 5 |
| Max | 11.1 | 10.3 | 10.4 | |
| Mean | 7.39 | 7.71 | 7.19 | |
| SD | 1.47 | 1.55 | 1.48 | |
| CEC | Min | 8 | 7.98 | 8 |
| Max | 14.07 | 13.5 | 14 | |
| Mean | 10.66 | 10.83 | 10.86 | |
| SD | 1.74 | 1.94 | 1.53 | |
| V | Min | 37.22 | 44.44 | 38.96 |
| Max | 89.49 | 85.86 | 89.05 | |
| Mean | 65.38 | 67.39 | 6265 | |
| SD | 14.25 | 14.75 | 15.08 | |
| SAND | Min | 65.24 | 71.04 | 76.28 |
| Max | 96.16 | 95.17 | 95.17 | |
| Mean | 85.74 | 85.12 | 87.09 | |
| SD | 7.11 | 6.25 | 11.16 | |
| OC | Min | 0.044 | 0.096 | 0.1 |
| Max | 1.36 | 1.16 | 3.16 | |
| Mean | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.85 | |
| TN | Min | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| Max | 0.2549 | 0.126 | 0.138 | |
| Mean | 0.056 | 0.053 | 0.054 | |
| SD | 0.041 | 0.034 | 0.038 | |
| YP | Min | 26.6 | 27.13 | 27 |
| Max | 68.67 | 66.87 | 65.2 | |
| Mean | 46.83 | 46.44 | 51 | |
| SD | 9.21 | 9.16 | 8.00 |
| Abbreviation | Unit | Value |
|---|---|---|
| R2 | - | 0,8227 |
| RMSE | t∙ha-1 | 4.19 |
| MAE | t∙ha-1 | 3.35 |
| MAPE | % | 7.34 |
| MAX | t∙ha-1 | 9.35 |
| MAXP | % | 17.54 |
| Variable | Impact Value | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| CEC | 12.84 | 1 |
| V | 8.50 | 2 |
| S | 6.80 | 3 |
| K_SOIL | 2.97 | 4 |
| SAND | 1.69 | 5 |
| P_SOIL | 1.68 | 6 |
| PH | 1.15 | 7 |
| OC | 1.26 | 8 |
| HH | 1.19 | 9 |
| Mg_SOIL | 1.22 | 10 |
| TN | 1.00 | 11 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).