Europ. J.

Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Agronomy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eja

Seed yield prediction of sesame using artificial neural network

Samad Emamgholizadeh a,∗ , M. Parsaeian b , Mehdi Baradaran b
a
Associate professor, Department of Water and Soil Engineering, Shahrood University, Shahrood, Iran
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Shahrood University, Shahrood, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The prediction of seed yield is one of the most important breeding objectives in agricultural research. So,
Received 29 September 2014 in this study, two methods namely artificial neural network (ANN) and multiple regression model (MLR)
Received in revised form 23 April 2015 were employed to estimate the seed yield of sesame (SYS) from readily measurable plant characters
Accepted 30 April 2015
(e.g., flowering time of 100% (days), the plant height (cm), the capsule number per plant, the 1000-seed
weight (g) and the seed number per capsule). The ANN and MLR were tested using field data. Results
Keywords:
showed that the ANN predicts the SYS accurately with a root-mean-square-error (RMSE) of 0.339 t/ha
Seed yield estimation
and a determination coefficient (R2 ) of 0.901. Also, it was found that the ANN model performed better
Sesame
Artificial neural networks
than the MLR model with a RMSE of 0.346 t/ha, and R2 of 0.779. Finally, sensitivity analysis was conducted
Multiple regression model to determine the most and the least influential characters affecting SYS. It was found that the capsule
number per plant and the flowering time of 100% had the most and least significant effects on SYS,
respectively.
© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction sion is predominantly affected by the environmental conditions;

Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) is one of the oldest oil seed crops
and is widely grown in tropical and subtropical areas of Asia (Ashri,
1998). There is no consensus among researchers regarding the cen-
ter of origin of the cultivated sesame and it seems that it is a crop
with more than one origin. The primary center of sesame origin
has been predicted to be Fertile Crescent, the Indian subcontinent
or the Iran–Afghanistan region (Ashri, 1989). Also, the wild species
of this plant can be found in Africa. Nowadays, our knowledge about
the nutritional value and health benefits of sesame, has increased
the universal demand for its seed and oil. The superior oil quality of
sesame, which is ascribed by the low level of saturated fatty acids
as well as the activity of unique natural antioxidants together with
tocopherols make it distinctive among other oil seed crops. How-
ever, sesame has a low ranking in the world production of edible
oil seeds which is mainly attributed to low yielding varieties with
an indeterminate growth habit, uneven ripening of capsules, seed
shattering, susceptibility to environmental stresses and the lack of
adequate researches in this crop (Bhat et al., 1999). The increase of
seed yield is one of the most important breeding objectives in all
crop plants. Seed yield is a quantitative polygenic and complex trait
and also, it is a resultant of different factors. Its phenotypic expres-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9111194389; fax: +98 234 5224620.
E-mail address: s gholizadeh517@yahoo.com (S. Emamgholizadeh).
hence it has a low heritability. Therefore, the response to the direct
selection for this character could lead to a low profit. In contrast, the
selection of high-heritable characters associated with seed yield
is good prospect for increasing its performance. Seed yield com-
ponents not only directly affect the seed yield but also indirectly
affect the performance through negative or positive ways (Solanki
and Gupta, 2001; Khan et al., 2007; Ibrahim and Khidir, 2012).
A number of studies have tried to relate the seed yield of sesame
to its components and morpho-phenological properties of plant
using multivariate analysis such as multiple linear regressions
(MLR), path analysis (PA), factor analysis (FA) and other techniques.
For example Ganesh and Sakila (1999) and Ibrahim and Khidir
(2012) used simple phenotypic or genotype correlations to find the
association of seed yield and its contributing characters in sesame.
They found that seed yield was positively correlated with the cap-
sule number per plant, plant height, 1000- seed weight and days
to maturity. Parimala and Mathur (2006) were employed multiple
linear regression (MLR) to establish a model between seed yield of
sesame and its component such as capsules per plant, the capsule
length, number of branches, the plant height, the number of seeds
per capsule, the 1000-seed weight and days to first flower. Their
findings indicated that the number of capsules per plant was the
most important character and could explain the high amount of the
total variation of seed yield in sesame. Based on the predicted equa-
tion for grain yield Shim et al. (2006) found that the plant height
and number of capsules per plant had significant contribution to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.04.010
1161-0301/© 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V.
90 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96

sesame grain yield under the early sowing condition, while there
was no significant effect for 1000-seed weight. Furthermore, path
coefficient analysis (PCA) has been widely used in sesame breed-
ing programs to interpret the nature of relationships between seed
yield and yield-determining traits (Yingzhong and Yishou, 2002;
Shim et al., 2001; Mothilal, 2005; Kurdistani et al., 2011; Azeez
and Morakinyo, 2011). Ganesh and Sakila (1999) also studied path
analysis for some parental genotypes and their progeny in sesame
and reported that the traits of number of capsules per plant, plant
height and number of branches per plant had a high positive direct
effect on the plant yield in sesame. Also the literature review shows
that many researchers such as Shim et al. (2006) and Ashraf (2013)
have used MLR to predict the seed yield of sesame.
The main shortcoming of regression-based models is that
they cannot capture the highly nonlinear and complex relation-
ship between seed yield and the relevant crop plant properties.
In contrast to the traditional methods such MLR and PA mod-
els, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) models such as
artificial neural networks (ANN), genetic expression program-
ming (GEP) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)
were recently attracted the attention of researchers in agricul-
ture science (Azamathulla and Ghani, 2011; Shahinfar et al., 2012;
Emamgholizadeh et al., 2013a,b; Samadianfard et al., 2014; Silva
et al., 2014; Iquebal et al., 2014). Alvarez (2007) used the ANN
approach to predict average regional yield and production of wheat
in the Argentine Pampas. Other researchers applied the ANN as a
feasible alternative method for the discrimination and identifica-
tion of Camellia japonicaCamellia japonica L. (Mugnai et al., 2008)
and tea genotypes (Pandolfi et al., 2009). Yong-Jun et al. (2011) also
reiterated on the application of artificial neural network in genomic
selection for crop improvement.
Barbosa et al. (2011) used the ANN to study the genetic diversity
analysis of Carica papaya based on the model proposed by Kohonen.
Zaefizadeh et al. (2011) also compared two methods of multiple
linear regressions (MLR) and the artificial neural network (ANN)
in predicting the yield using its components in the hulless barley.
Other researchers applied the ANN as a feasible alternative method
for the discrimination and identification of C. japonica L. (Mugnai
et al., 2008) and tea genotypes (Pandolfi et al., 2009). Yong-Jun et al.
(2011) utilized ANN in genomic selection for crop improvement.
The objective of this study is to develop and test the ANN model
to predict the seed yield of sesame (SYS). It is worth noting that this
is the first study which explores the potential ability of the ANN to
model the seed yield of sesame.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Field experiments
Nine diverse genotypes of sesame including five genotypes
representing different sesame growing regions of Iran (Varamin
2822, Yekta, Darab1, TN234 and TN240) and four Asian genotypes,
belonging to Pakistan, Indian, Turkey and Iraq (Pakistani, Indian,
EM and Iraq 22) were crossed in a full-diallel mating design. Iranian
genotypes were produced by selection within different Iranian lan-
draces. The field experiment was carried out at the research farm
of Isfahan University of Technology (32◦ 2 N and 51◦ 32 E, 1630 m as
1) during the two years of 2007–2008 with a cropping season on a
Typic Haplargid soil with clay loam texture, pH 7.5 and organic mat-
ter content of 1%. All parents, 81 F1 s (progenies of first filial), and 45
F2 s (progenies of second filial, without reciprocals) were agro- mor-
phologically evaluated using a randomized complete block design
with three replications. Each plot consisted of four rows 1.5 m in
length and 50 cm row to row spacing with inter-row plant distance
of 7 cm. Fertilizer were applied at 80 kg N/ha and 100 kg P/ha prior
to sowing and 40 kg N/ha top dressed four weeks after planting.
Days to flowering and days to maturity were visually recorded on
plot basis. The plant height, the height to the first fruiting node,
the number of fruiting branches per plant, the capsule number per
plant, the seed number per capsule, the 1000-seedweight and seed
yield per plant were recorded using 10 (F1 experiment) and 30
(F2 experiment) randomly selected plants from each plot and their
average were used. Two middle rows of each plot were harvested
to determine the seed yield.
2.2. Statistical analysis
Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using gen-
eral linear model of SAS statistical program (2010). The association
of agro-morphological traits was evaluated by computing the Pear-
son correlation coefficients among all combinations of characters
using SAS statistical package. The ANN was carried out by Qnet
2000 model using seed yield as the dependent variable and the
remaining traits as independent variables. For training and testing
the ANN model, 378 samples were collected from the study area.
To have an overview of the measured variables (i.e., flowering time
(10% and 100%), seed maturity, plant height, capsule number per
plant, 1000-seed weight, seed number per capsule, plant height to
the first fruiting branch, plant height to the first fruiting node, cap-
sule number per branch and branch number), the statistical indices
are shown in Table 1.
2.3. Artificial neural network (ANN)
Artificial neural network (ANN) is an intelligence model and
it imitates the procedure of the human brain works (Tufail et al.,
2008). In other words, the ANN has certain performance character-
istics like biological neural networks of the human brain (Haykin,
1994). This computational technique was first introduced in 1943
(McCulloch and Pitts, 1943). A typical ANN consists of a number of
simple processing elements called neurons or nodes. These neurons
are organized into groups termed layers. Each neuron is connected

Table 1
Statistical indices of measured data.

Variables Synonym Min Max Mean Std. deviation

Flowering time of 10% (days) FT10 40.00 55.00 47.13 2.55

Flowering time of 100% (days) FT100 40.00 60.00 52.27 2.69
Seed maturity (days) SM 105.00 151.00 129.82 13.11
Plant height (cm) PH 100.70 200.40 144.95 16.96
Capsule number per plant CNPP 24.80 100.50 51.92 12.44
1000-seed weight (g) TSW 1.99 4.20 3.40 0.37
Seed number per capsule SNPC 27.58 100.48 55.56 14.17
Plant height to first fruiting branch (cm) PHFFB 26.10 88.90 60.68 10.69
Plant height to first fruiting node (cm) PHFFN 0.00 5.20 1.81 0.92
Capsule number per branch CNPB 0.00 62.80 30.78 14.87
Branch number BN 0.00 18.20 8.33 4.22
Seed yield of sesame (t/ha) SYS 1.24 5.04 2.76 0.71
 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96
FT100
PH
SYS
SNPC
TSW
CNPP
Input Layer Hidden Layer Output
Fig. 1. Structure of a typical MLP model.
to other neurons by means of direct communication links, each with
an associated weight. The weights represent information being
used by the net to solve a problem (Mozejko and Gniot, 2008).
The organization and weights of these connecting elements are
adjusted through a process of “training” in order to calibrate the
model (Tufail et al., 2008). The ANN can be used to identify and learn
correlated patterns between input and output data sets especially
when the underlying data relationship is nonlinear, the volume
and number of variables or diversity of the data are very great,
the relationships between variables are vaguely understood, or the
relationships are difficult to describe adequately with conventional
approaches. Thus, the ANN provides an analytical alternative to
conventional techniques such as linear regression, multivariable
regression, and other statistical techniques, which are often limited
by strict assumptions of normality, linearity, variable indepen-
dence, etc (Singh et al., 2003). An ANN can be classified according to
its structure, its type of nodes and etc. Also different algorithm such
as back-propagation, feed forward back-propagation, feed forward
cascade correlation, radial basis function and conjugate gradients
can be used according to the need of training convergence (ASCE,
2000a,b). These models have been used by many researchers for
engineering problems (Yilmaz and Kaynar, 2011; Lashkarblooki
et al., 2012; Bastania et al., 2013; Kolay and Baser, 2014). In the
present study, the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with back propa-
gation algorithm was used.
2.4. Multi-layer perceptron (MLP)
The MLP has more layers namely: (a) an input layer, (b) an
intermediate or hidden layer(s) and (c) an output layer. A typi-
cal configuration for MLP is shown in Fig. 1. As indicated, a set
of data (FT10, PH, SNPC, TSW, CNPP) is first fed directly into the
MLP through the input layer, and subsequently, the multi-layer
perceptron produces an expected result of SYS in the output layer.
The number of hidden layers exhibits the complexity of the MLP,
because a greater number of hidden layers increase the number
of connections in the ANN. The number of hidden layers and the
number of neurons in each hidden layer are often varied to opti-
mize the performance of the final model (Tufail et al., 2008). The
number of nodes in each layer is evaluated by trial and error. The
MLP is trained with a training set of input and known output data.
MLP transforms m inputs to n outputs through some nonlin-
ear functions. With activation of the units in the output layer, the
output of the MLP network will be determined as follows:
  Khidir (2012). In contrast, a very weak correlation is found between
Xo = f Xh who + bj
where (f) is the activation function, Xh is the activation of hidden
layer node; who is the interconnection between hidden and out-
put layers nodes and the bj is the bias. Back propagation proposed
91
Table 2
Neuron activate function.
Activation function Formula
Sigmoid f (x) = 1+e1−x
Hyperbolic tangent f (x) = tanh(x)
Hyperbolic Secant f (x) = sech(x)
2
Gaussian f (x) = e−x
by Rumelhart et al. (1986) is the most popular algorithm for train-
ing of the MLP network (Wasserman, 1989; Fausett, 1994; Haykin,
1994). The back- propagation algorithm involves two steps. The
first step is a forward pass, in which the effect of the input is passed
forward through the network to reach the output layer. After the
RMS error between the network response and the training targets
is computed, a second step starts backward through the network.
The errors at the output layer are propagated back toward the input
layer with the weights being modified according to the Eq. (2).
∂E
wij (n) = − × + ˛ × wij (n − 1) (2)
∂wij
where wij (n) and wij (n − 1) are, respectively, weight incre-
ments between node i and j during the nth and (n − 1)th pass, or
epoch,  and ˛ are called the learning rate coefficient and momen-
tum factor, and control the algorithm’s rate of learning. To optimize
the rate at which a network learns, these factors must be set and/or
adjusted properly during the training process. The valid range for
both  and ˛ is between 0 and 1 (Qnet2000 Manual, 1999). In this
study, four different activation functions including, Gaussian, Sig-
moid, Hyperbolic Tangent and Hyperbolic Secant have been used
and are listed in Table 2.
3. Results and discussion
In this study, field data measured in the research farm of Isfahan
University of Technology were used for the training and testing of
the ANN and MLR models. One of the most important steps in devel-
oping of these models for satisfactory forecasting is the selection
of the input variables. Because, these variables determine model
structures and affect the weighted coefficient and the results of
the models. For this purpose, a correlation analysis is performed
to assess relationships between the seed yield of sesame (SYS)
and the crop plant variables (i.e., flowering time (10% and 100%),
seed maturity, plant height, capsule number per plant, 1000-seed
weight, seed number per capsule, plant height to the first fruit-
ing branch, plant height to the first fruiting node, capsule number
per branch and branch number) (see Table 3). This analysis allows
us to understand how each variable affects SYS and eventually
which variable(s) should be used as input in ANN and MLR models.
The strongest correlation is observed between SYS and seed num-
ber per capsule (CNPP) with correlation coefficient (R) of 0.639.
Also, SYS is found to be well correlated with plant height (PH)
with R = 0.468. These findings are consistent with the studies of
Shim et al. (2006), Ganesh and Sakila (1999), Yol et al. (2010),
Goudappagoudra et al. (2011), Kurdistani et al. (2011) and Ibrahim
and Khidir (2012). Also there is a significant correlation between
SYS and the flowering time of 100% (FT100), seed number per cap-
sule (SNPC) and 1000-seed weight (TSW) with R = 0.273, 0.338,
0.186 and 0.375, respectively. These results are in conformity with
the findings of Yol et al. (2010), Akbar et al. (2011), and Ibrahim and
(1) SYS and the branch number (BN), plant height to the first fruit-
ing branch (PHFFB) and capsule number per branch (CNPB) with
R = 0.063, 0.127 and 0.113, respectively. In other words, the corre-
lation between the SYS and BN, PHFFB and CNPB is not significant at
the 0.01 and 0.05 levels; therefore, we do not consider them as input
92 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96

Table 3
The correlation analysis between SYS and the crop plant variables.

FT10 FT100 SM PH CNPP SNPC TSW PHFFN BN PHFFB CNPB SYS

FT10 1
FT100 0.888a 1
SM 0.463a 0.454a 1
PH 0.397a 0.415a 0.333a 1
CNPP 0.074 0.102 −0.044 0.324a 1
SNPC 0.023 −0.006 −0.126 0.059 −0.12 1
TSW 0.282a 0.284a 0.680a 0.267a −0.063 −0.171a 1
PHFFN 0.556a 0.505a 0.471a 0.641a 0.220a 0.055 0.379a 1
BN −0.187a −0.114 0.108 −0.258a 0.104 −0.260a 0.256a −0.013 1
PHFFB −0.043 −0.039 0.087 0.165a −0.037 0.004 0.192a 0.339a 0.434a 1
CNPB −0.322a −0.262a −0.119 −0.179a 0.200a −0.144b 0.035 −0.072 0.692a 0.58a 1
SYS 0.271a 0.273a 0.283a 0.468a 0.639a 0.338a 0.375a 0.437a 0.063 0.127 0.113 1

FT10 = flowering time of 10%, FT100 = flowering time of 100%, PH = plant height, CNPP = capsule number per plant, TSW = 1000-seed weight plant, SNPC = seed number per
capsules, SYS = seed yield of sesame, PHFFB = plant height to the first fruiting branch, PHFFN = plant height to the first fruiting node, CNPB = capsule number per branch,
BN = branch number and SYS = seed yield of sesame.
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

data to predict the SYS. In addition, the results revealed that there
are strong correlation between the flowering time of 10% (FT10) and
the flowering time of 100% (FT100) (R = 0.888), 1000-seed weight
(TSW), seed maturity (SM) (R = 0.680) and also plant height (PH)
and plant height to the first fruiting node (PHFFN) (R = 0.641). So,
three variables of FT100, TSW and PH are used as input data instead
of FT10, SM and PHFFN.
Following the correlation analysis (see Table 3) and previous
studies (e.g., Shim et al., 2006; Yol et al., 2010; Akbar et al., 2011;
Kurdistani et al., 2011; Ibrahim and Khidir, 2012), five variables
namely the flowering time of 100% (FT100), plant height (PH), cap-
sule number per plant (CNPP), 1000-seed weight (TSW) and seed
number per capsule (SNPC) were applied to estimate the SYS. Both
models were trained using the same input data. The whole dataset
included 378 field data points, which was randomly divided into
two parts: training (302 data points) and testing (76 data points).
Dividing the whole data set into training and testing data points
was done based on the simple random sampling approach. In this
method, each data point is chosen randomly from the data sets such
that each individual has the same probability of being chosen at any
stage during the sampling process (Yates et al., 2008).
In order to compare the performance of the ANN and MLR
models, three statistical criteria were used in this research. These
statistical criteria were the root mean square error (RMSE), mean
absolute error (MAE) and the coefficient of determination, R2 of the
linear regression line between the predicted values from either the
MLR and ANN models and the desired output. These metrics can be
shown by:
1 n
MAE = |Oi − Pi |
n i=1

n den nodes indicated that the ANN model with one hidden layer
2
(Oi − Pi )
i=1
RMSE =
n RMSE = 0.212 t/ha and R2 = 0.911 and with MAE = 0.166 t/ha,
n    RMSE = 0.214 and R2 = 0.901 in testing stages. Table 5 shows these
Oi − Ō Pi − P̄
R2 = i=1
n  2 n  2
Oi − Ō Pi − P̄
i=1 i=1
where n is the number of data, Oi is the observed values, Pi is the
predicted values and the bar denote the mean of the variable.
number of neurons (nodes) in the input and output layers is gen-
erally simple because it is dictated by the number of model inputs
and outputs and usually the choice of input data is based on the
nature of the problem. Determining the optimum structure of the
ANN model, especially selecting the number of layers and neurons
(nodes) in the hidden layer(s) is one of the most important and
difficult tasks (Baziar and Ghorbani, 2011) and they are typically
determined by trial-and- error (Eberhart and Dobbins, 1990). In
this study, the optimal structure was specified by changing the
number of hidden nodes from 1 to 5 and picking the ANN struc-
ture which leads to the best results. The ANN training was stopped
when maximum iterations of 100,000 were reached. A learning rate
coefficient of  = 0.01 and momentum factor of ˛ = 0.1 were used
in this study. Also, the ANN model was run with different trans-
fer functions including Sigmoid, Hyperbolic Tangent, Gaussian and
Hyperbolic Secant.
Comparison of results with the aforementioned transfer func-
tions is shown in Table 4. As can be seen in this table, the ANN
model with transfer functions of Hyperbolic Tangent and Sigmoid
gives the best results in training and testing stages (i.e., the least
MAE and RMSE and highest R2 values). In contrast, applying transfer
functions of Gaussian and Hyperbolic Secant caused the accuracy of
ANN model significantly decreased in both training and testing. The
reason for that was related to the natures of transfer functions. For
example, the functions of Sigmoid and Hyperbolic Tangent act as
an output gate that can be opened (1), closed (0) or somewhere
in-between for a node’s output response, but the Gaussian and
Hyperbolic Secant transfer functions significantly alter the learning
dynamics of a neural network model and they act like a probabilistic
(3) output controller (Qnet2000 Manual, 1999).
Comparison of results with the aforementioned different hid-
gives the best results in the training stage with MAE = 0.163 t/ha,
(4)
(5) results.
Table 4
The performance of the ANN model with different transfer functions.
Transfer function Training Testing

R2 RMSE MAE R2 RMSE MAE

3.1. SYS estimates from MLP/ANN Model (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha)

Sig. 0.911 0.212 0.163 0.901 0.214 0.166

In addition to the selecting of input data which affect the perfor- Gauss. 0.010 0.711 0.582 0.001 0.703 0.598
mance of MLP/ANN model, selecting the number of hidden nodes Tan. H. 0.898 0.227 0.174 0.892 0.223 0.170
Sec. H. 0.114 0.456 0.354 0.010 0.476 0.374
and also the transfer function between nodes are important. The
 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96 93

Fig. 2. Measured and predicted seed yield of sesame (SYS) from ANN model for training period.

Fig. 3. Measured and predicted seed yield of sesame (SYS) from ANN model for testing period.

Overall, based on Tables 4 and 5, it is clear that the ANN model
with one hidden layer and with transfer function of Sigmoid has
the minimal MAE and RMSE and maximal correlation (R2 ), and has
presented more correct predicting rather other ANN structures.
The estimated seed yield of sesame (SYS) values were compared
with observations in Figs. 4 and 5 for both training and testing
datasets in two forms of scatter plot (left panel). Furthermore,
the box plot (right panel) was used for comparison of measured
seed yield of sesame (SYS) data and the predicted data with the
ANN model (Figs. 2 and 3b). The box plot is a convenient way of
graphically depicting groups of numerical data through their five-
number summaries (minimum of sample, lower quartile, median,
upper quartile, and maximum of sample). As shown in these fig-
ures, there is no significant difference between measured data and
the ANN model and they have the same median and also the same
distribution.
3.2. Multiple linear regression analysis (MLR)
The MLR model was carried out to correlate the measured seed
yield of sesame (SYS) to five variables, namely, flowering time of
100% (FT100), plant height (PH), the capsule number per plant
(CNPP), 1000-seed weight (TSW) and the seed number per cap-
sule (SNPC). For this purpose, the MLR model was generated using
the SPSS software package. The regression model was also applied
to the same inputs and output data which used for the MLP-ANN
model. The following equation is achieved for the calculation of SYS
based on the MLR model:

Table 5 ␣ = −5.613 + 0.013FD1000 + 0.004PH + 0.716CNPP + 0.039TSW

The performance of the ANN model with different hidden layers
+0.048SNPC (6)
Number of Training Testing
hidden layer(s) where FT100 is days of 100% flowering, the PH is the plant height,
R2 RMSE MAE R2 RMSE MAE the CNPP is the capsule number per plant, the TSW is the 1000-seed
(t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) weight plant, the SNPC is the seed number per capsules, and the SYS
1 0.911 0.212 0.163 0.901 0.214 0.166
is the seed yield of sesame. The MLR based equation (Eq. (6)) allows
2 0.903 0.222 0.169 0.897 0.215 0.175 us to assess the rate of variations of SYS with changes in each of its
3 0.895 0.231 0.176 0.855 0.239 0.186 influential soil variables (i.e., FT100, PH, CNPP, TSW and SNPC) and
4 0.859 0.238 0.188 0.848 0.259 0.196 thus provides insight into the physics of the problem. This can be
5 0.819 0.258 0.198 0.836 0.287 0.201
done easily by taking the derivative of SYS in Eq. (6) with respect to
94 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96

Fig. 4. Measured and predicted seed yield of sesame (SYS) from MLR model for training period.

Fig. 5. Measured and predicted seed yield of sesame (SYS) from MLR model for testing period.

each of its independent variables. It helps agronomists understand
how SYS varies with FT100, PH, CNPP, TSW and SNPC and to what
extent these variables should be altered to reach the desirable SYS
value.
The observed and estimated SYS values from the MLR model for
the training data sets have been compared in Fig. 4 in the form of
a scatter plot (left panel) and a box plot (right panel). For inves-
tigation the ability of Eq. (6) to predict SYS the testing data sets
have been used. As illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5, the proposed model
has R2 = 0.811, RMSE = 0.309 t/ha and MAE = 0.229 t/ha for the train-
ing stage and R2 = 0.779, RMSE = 0.346 t/ha and MAE = 0.234 t/ha for
the testing stage. It can be concluded from the statistical quan-
tities that the MLR model has relatively the lowest R2 with the
highest errors (RMSE and MAE). Also, the box plot was used for
comparison of measured and predicted SYS data with the MLR
method (Figs. 4 and 5). It can be seen that there is variation in the
predicted data with this method and also there is outliers (unusual
values of the data) in two stages of training and testing. This sug-
gests that there is a difference between the measured and predicted
data. In comparison to the ANN model the performance of the MLR
model is not good.
3.3. Comparing MLR with MLP/ANN model
To further assess the capability of MLR and MLP/ANN models in
estimating SYS, their results are compared with each other. Using
the MLR approach, Eq. (6) developed for SYS.

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of the governing variables on the SYS

Method ANN MLR

2
MAE RMSE R MAE RMSE R2

The best ANN/MLR (with FT100, PH, CNPP, TSW, SNPC as input) 0.166 0.214 0.901 0.234 0.346 0.779
MLR/ANN without CNPP 0.456 0.577 0.335 0.445 0.563 0.354
MLR/ANN without PH 0.408 0.537 0.455 0.411 0.544 0.444
MLR/ANN without TSW 0.379 0.497 0.489 0.380 0.499 0.477
MLR/ANN without SNPC 0.211 0.378 0.568 0.215 0.381 0.554
MLR/ANN without FT100 0.172 0.302 0.735 0.175 0.315 0.717
 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96
The training dataset (with 302 data points) was used to train
MLR and MLP/ANN in this study. The testing dataset was utilized in
the ANN model to estimate SYS and eventually compare its perfor-
mance with MLR. The scatter plots of the computed (by MLP/ANN
and MLR) and observed SYS values during the testing period for
both models (Figs. 3 and 4) showed a clear indication of the rela-
tive skills of two mentioned models. But the MLR approach gave
the least accurate SYS estimates with large scattering in compar-
ison to the ANN model. It suggests that the MLR performance for
the estimation of SYS values is poor and it is not able to predict SYS
values compared with the ANN model. Using the ANN, the MAE
and RMSE were reduced by 40.99% and 61.58% compared to MLR.
In overall, the results of this study suggest that the ANN model is a
viable alternative to the already popular MLR model and the com-
parison clearly suggests that the choice of model has a significant
effect on the model predictions.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
A number of sensitivity tests were performed to determine the
relative importance of each input variable on the SYS. Table 6 shows
the statistical indices of the MLR and ANN models without a spe-
cific input variable (that use the flowering time of 100% (FT100),
plant height (PH), capsule number per plant (CNPP), 1000-seed
weight(TSW) and seed number per capsule(SNPC) as input data).
As illustrated, the MLR and ANN models without the capsule num-
ber per plant have the highest MAE and RMSE. The RMSE and R2
of the ANN (MLR) model without the capsule number per plant are
0.577 t/ha (0.563 t/ha) and 0.335 (0.354), respectively. This means
that the MAE and RMSE of the ANN (MLR) model without the cap-
sule number per plant are 174.70% (90.17%) and 169.63% (62.72%)
larger than those of the best ANN (MLR) model. Thus, the ability of
ANN and MLR models to retrieve the SYS is significantly degraded
when they are run without the capsule number per plant (CNPP).
This implies that the capsule number per plant has the most sig-
nificant effect on the SYS which is in agreement with findings of
Shim et al. (2006), Ganesh and Sakila (1999), Goudappagoudra et al.
(2011), Ibrahim and Khidir (2012). Overall, the effect of input vari-
ables on the SYS can be ranked from higher to lower as the capsule
number per plant, plant height, 1000-seed weight, seed number per
capsule and flowering time of 100% (see Table 6). Also these out-
comes are consistent with the correlation analysis in Table 2. As the
seeds of sesame are produced within the structure called the cap-
sule, hence the maximum number of capsules per plant and also the
seed number per capsule and 1000-seed weight increased the seed
yield of the SYS. Besides this, sesame is an indeterminate plant and
the increase of plant height can increase the number of capsules
formed on the stem. Moreover, if the plant flowering phase start
earlier or we have longer flowering period, the plant can produce a
greater number of capsules and therefore a greater seed yield can
be achieved.
4. Conclusion
In this study, artificial neural networks (ANN) and multiple lin-
ear regression (MLR) approaches have been used to predict the seed
yield of sesame (SYS). Based on the correlation analysis and exist-
ing studies, five plant variables namely, flowering time of 100%
(FT100), plant height (PH), capsule number per plant (CNPP), 1000-
seed weight (TSW) and seed number per capsule (SNPC) were used
in the ANN and MLR to estimate the SYS. Both models were tested
using collected data from the research farm of Isfahan University
of Technology in Iran. The results showed that the SYS estimates
from the ANN were better than those from the MLR. The estimated
SYS by the ANN and MLR had a RMSE of 0.214 t/ha and 0.346 t/ha
95
and the corresponding MAE values were 0.166 t/ha and 0.234 t/ha.
Overall, the results indicated that the ANN was an effective and reli-
able method for estimating the SYS. The results also showed that
the ANN could predict the SYS more accurately than the MLR and it
reduced the RMSE and MAE of SYS estimation by 61.58% and 40.99%
compared to the MLR model.
Several sensitivity tests were performed to determine the effect
of plant properties (i.e., the flowering time of 100% (FT100), plant
height (PH), capsule number per plant (CNPP), 1000-seed weight
(TSW) and seed number per capsule (SNPC)) on its SYS. In these
tests, the ANN and MLR were run without a specific input variable.
It was found that the RMSE of SYS estimates increased by 169.63%
and 62.72% when the ANN and MLR model were run without the
capsule number per plant. Overall, the results showed that the cap-
sule number per plant (CNPP) and flowering time of 100% (FT100)
had the most and the least effect on the SYS.
References
Akbar, F., Rabbani, M.A., Shinwari, Z.B., Khan, S., 2011. Genetic divergence in
sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) Landraces based on qualitative and quantitative
traits. Pak. J. Bot. 43 (6), 2737–2744.
Alvarez, R., 2007. Predicting average regional yield and production of wheat in the
Argentine Pampas by an artificial neural network approach. Eur. J. Agron. 30,
70–77.
ASCE Task Committee, 2000a. Artificial neural networks in hydrology. I:
preliminary concepts. J. Hydrol. Eng. 5 (2), 115–123,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2000)5:2(115).
ASCE Task Committee, 2000b. Artificial neural networks in hydrology. II:
hydrologic applications. J. Hydrol. Eng. 5 (2), 124–137,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2000)5:2(124).
Ashri, A., 1998. Sesame Breeding. In: Janick, J. (Ed.), Plant Breeding Review, 160.
Wiley, Somerset, pp. 179–228.
Ashraf, A., 2013. Comparison of some statistical techniques in evaluating Sesame
yield and its contributing factors. Scientia Agriculturae 1 (1), 8–14.
Ashri, A., 1989. Sesame. In: Robbelen, G., Downey, R.K., Ashri, A. (Eds.), Oil Crops of
the World. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 375–387.
Azamathulla, H.M., Ghani, A.A., 2011. Genetic programming for predicting
longitudinal dispersion coefficients in streams. Water Res. Manage. vol. 25 (6
April), 1537–1544.
Azeez, M.A., Morakinyo, J.A., 2011. Path analysis of the relationships between
single seed yield and some morphological traits in sesame (genera Sesamum
and Ceratotheca). Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 5, 358–368.
Barbosa, C.D., Viana, A.P., Red Quintal, S.S., Pereira, M.G., 2011. Artificial neural
network analysis of genetic diversity in Carica papaya L. Crop Breed. Appl.
Biotechnol. 11, 224–231.
Bastania, D., Hamzehiea, M.E., Davardoosta, F., Mazinanib, S., Poorbashiria, A.,
2013. Prediction of CO2 loading capacity of chemical absorbents using a
multi-layer perceptron neural network. Fluid Phase Equilib. 354, 6–11.
Baziar, M.H., Ghorbani, A., 2011. Evaluation of lateral spreading using artificial
neural networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 5958–5966.
Bhat, V., Babrekar, P.P., Lakhanpaul, S., 1999. Study of genetic diversity in Indian
and exotic sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) germplasm using random amplified
polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. Euphytica 110, 21–33.
Eberhart, R.C., Dobbins, R.W., 1990. Neural Network PS Tools: A Practical Guide.
Academic press, San Diego.
Emamgholizadeh, S., Bateni, S.M., Jeng, D.S., 2013a. Artificial intelligence-based
estimation of flushing half-cone geometry. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26 (10),
2551–2558, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2013.05.014.
Emamgholizadeh, S., Kashi, H., Marofpoor, I., Zalaghi, E., 2013b. Prediction of water
quality parameters of Karoon River (Iran) by artificial intelligence-based
models. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (3), 645–656.
Fausett, L., 1994. Fundamentals of Neural Networks: Architectures, Algorithms,
and Applications. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ganesh, S.K., Sakila, M., 1999. Association analysis of single plant yield and its yield
contributing characters in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Sesame Safflower
Newslett. 14, 16–18.
Goudappagoudra, R., Lokesha, R., Ranganatha, A.R.G., 2011. Trait association and
path coefficient analysis attributing traits in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.).
Electron. J. Plant Breed. 2 (3), 448–452.
Haykin, S., 1994. Neural networks. In: A comprehensive foundation. IEEE press,
MacMillan, New York.
Ibrahim, S.E., Khidir, M.O., 2012. Genotypic correlation and path coefficient
analysis of yield and some yield components in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.).
Int. J. AgriSci. 2 (8), 664–670.
Iquebal, M.A., Ansari, M.S., Sarika, S.P., Dixit, N.K., Aggarwal, Verma R.A.K.,
Jayakumar, S., Rai, A., Kumar, D., 2014. Locus minimization in breed prediction
using artificial neural network approach. Stichting Int. Found. Anim. Gen. 45,
898–902.
96 S. Emamgholizadeh et al. / Europ. J. Agronomy 68 (2015) 89–96
McCulloch, W.S., Pitts, W.H., 1943. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in
nervous activity. Bull. Math. Biophys. 5, 115–133.
Mothilal, A., 2005. Correlation and path analysis in sesame (Sesamum indicum L.).
Environ. Ecol. 233, 478–480.
Mozejko, J., Gniot, R., 2008. Application of Neural Networks for the prediction of
total phosphorus concentrations in surface waters. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 17 (3),
363–368.
Mugnai, S., Pandolfi, C., Azzarello, E., Masi, E., Mancuso, S., 2008. Camellia japonica
L. genotypes identified by an artificial neural network based on phyllometric
and fractal parameters. Plant SystEvol. 270, 95–108.
Khan, M.A., YasinMirza, M., Akmal, M., Naazar, A., Khan, I., 2007. Genetic
parameters and their implications for yield improvement in sesame. Sarhad J.
Agric. 23 (3), 623–627.
Kolay, E., Baser, T., 2014. Estimating of the dry unit weight of compacted soils using
general linear model and multi-layer perceptron neural networks. Appl. Soft
Comput. 18, 223–231.
Kurdistani, R., Tohidinejad, E., Mohammadi-Nejad, G., Zareie, S., 2011. Yield
potential evaluation and path analysis of different sesame genotypes under
various levels of iron. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 5, 862–866.
Lashkarblooki, M., Zeinolabedini Hezaveb, A., Al-Ajmic, A.M., Ayatollahib, S., 2012.
Viscosity prediction of ternary mixtures containing ILs using multi-layer
perceptron artificial neural network. Fluid Phase Equilib. 326,
15–20.
Pandolfi, C., Mugnai, S., Azzarello, E., Bergamasco, S., Masi, E., Mancuso, S., 2009.
Artificial neural networks as a tool for plant identification: a case study on
Vietnamese tea accessions. Euphytica 166, 411–421.
Parimala, K., Mathur, R.K., 2006. Yield component analysis through multiple
regression analysis in sesame. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 2 (2), 338–340.
Qnet2000 Manual, 1999. Qnet2000 neural network modelling for windows
95/98/NT. In: Qnet Toll User’s Guide and Datapro User’s Guide. Vesta Services
Inc., USA.
Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J., 1986. Learning internal representation
by error back propagation. In: Rumelhart, D.E., McClelland, J.L. (Eds.), Parallel
Distributed Processing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 318–362.
Samadianfard, S., Nazemi, A.H., Ashraf Sadraddini, A., 2014. M5 model tree and
gene expression programming based modeling of sandy soil water movement
under surface drip irrigation. Agric. Sci. Dev. 3 (5), 178–190.
SAS, 2010. Statistical Analysis Software. Institute Inc. and World Programming
Limited, England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division).
Singh, T.N., Kanchan, R., Verma, A.K., Singh, S., 2003. An intelligent approach for
prediction of triaxial properties using unconfined uniaxial strength. Mining
Eng. J. 5, 12–16.
Silva, G.N., Tomaz, R.S., Sant’Anna, I.C., Nascimento, M., Bhering l, L., Cruz, C.D.,
2014. Neural networks for predicting breeding values and genetic gains. Sci.
Agricola 71 (6), 494–498.
Shahinfar, S., Mehrabani-Yeganeh, H., Lucas, C., Kalhor, A., Kazemian, M., Weigel,
K.A., 2012. Prediction of breeding values for dairy cattle using artificial neural
networks and neuro-fuzzy systems. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Comput.
Math. Methods Med., 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/127130.
Shim, K.B., Kang, C.W., Seong, J.D., Hwang, C.D., Suh, D.Y., 2006. Interpretation of
relationship between sesame yield and it’s components under early sowing
cropping condition. Kor. J. Crop Sci. 51 (4), 269–273.
Shim, K.B., Kang, C.W., Lee, S.W., Kim, D.H., Lee, B.H., 2001. Heritabilities, genetic
correlations and path coefficients of some agronomic traits in different
environments in sesame. Sesame Safflower Newslett. 16, 23–27.
Solanki, Z.S., Gupta, D., 2001. Combining ability and heterosis studies for seed yield
and its components in sesame. Sesame Safflower Newslett. 16, 9–12.
Tufail, M., Ormsbee, L.E., Teegavarapu, R., 2008. Artificial intelligence-based
inductive models for prediction and classification of fecal coliform in surface
waters. J. Environ. Eng. 134 (9), 789–799.
Wasserman, P.D., 1989. Neural Computing: Theory and Practice. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Yates, D.S., David, S.M., Daren, S.S., 2008. The Practice of Statistics, 3rd ed. Freeman,
ISBN 978-0-7167-7309-2.
Yingzhong, Z., Yishou, W., 2002. Genotypic correlations and path coefficient
analysis in sesame. Sesame and Safflower News 17, 10–12.
Yilmaz, I., Kaynar, O., 2011. Multiple regression, ANN (RBF, MLP) and ANFIS models
for prediction of swell potential of clayey soils. Expert Syst. Appl. 38,
5958–5966.
Yol, E., Karaman, E., Furat, S., Uzun, B., 2010. Assessment of selection criteria in
sesame by using correlation coefficients, path and factor analyses. Aust. J. Crop
Sci. 4, 598–602.
Yong-Jun, S., Lei, W., Wang, D., Chang-Hong, G., 2011. Application of artificial
neural network in genomic selection for crop improvement. Acta Agronom.
Sin. 37 (12), 1–8.
Zaefizadeh, M., Khayatnezhad, M., Gholamin, R., 2011. Comparison of multiple
linear regressions (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN) in predicting the
yield using its components in the Hulless Barley. Am. Eur. J. Agric. Environ. Sci.
10 (1), 60–64.