Neural Computing and Applications

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 1215–1225 | Cite as

Decision-making tool for crop selection for agriculture development

  • N. DeepaEmail author
  • K. Ganesan
Original Article


In the present competitive environment, a farmer needs better education, business expertise and good knowledge of technologies and tools to be successful in agriculture. Farmers usually select crop for cultivation according to their traditional knowledge and past experience in farming, but a farmer’s predictions may go wrong due to natural disaster. Thus, decision-making tool need to be developed to help farmers to take decision on crop cultivation. In this paper, decision-making tool was developed for selecting the suitable crop that can be cultivated in a given agricultural land. In the present study, 26 input variables were identified and categorized into six broad heads of main variables such as soil, water, season, input, support and infrastructure. Each main variable has several sub-variables. The priority weights for the variables were determined using the dominance-based rough set approach. In order to convert sub-variable sequences to main variable sequences, evaluation scores of each main variable were calculated by applying the weights of sub-variables and by using simple additive method. Finally, the evaluation scores were applied to Johnson’s reduct algorithm and classification rules were generated. The developed tool predicts each site in the datasets into one of the three crops such as paddy, groundnut and sugarcane. In order to validate the performance of the tool, the same datasets were predicted again by agriculture experts. The results obtained from the tool showed 92% agreement with the results obtained from the experts. Thus, the tool is a feasible tool for cultivating the suitable crops in the agricultural sites.


Agriculture Classification Dominance-based rough set approach Johnson’s reduct Crop selection 



This work forms part of the R&D activities of TIFAC-CORE in Automotive Infotronics located at VIT University, Vellore. The authors would like to thank DST, Government of India, for providing necessary hardware and software support for completing this work successfully.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Goodridge W, Bernard M, Jordan R, Rampersad R (2017) Intelligent diagnosis of diseases in plants using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making technique. Comput Electron Agric 133:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodríguez R, Gauthier-Maradei P, Escalante H (2017) Fuzzy spatial decision tool to rank suitable sites for allocation of bioenergy plants based on crop residue. Biomass Bioenerg 100:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129(1):1–47CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stańczyk U (2015) Ranking of characteristic features in combined wrapper approaches to selection. Neural Comput Appl 26(2):329–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rong Z, Sifeng L, Bin L (2009) A method for weight assignment by dominance-based rough sets approach. In: 2009 Chinese control and decision conference. IEEE, pp 6060–6065Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chai J, Liu JN (2013) Dominance-based decision rule induction for multicriteria ranking. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 4(5):427–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang HY, Yang SY (2017) Feature selection and approximate reasoning of large-scale set-valued decision tables based on α-dominance-based quantitative rough sets. Inf Sci 378:328–347MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verma AK, Garg PK, Prasad KH (2017) Sugarcane crop identification from LISS IV data using ISODATA, MLC, and indices based decision tree approach. Arab J Geosci 10(1):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Al-Yaseen WL, Othman ZA, Nazri MZA (2017) Multi-level hybrid support vector machine and extreme learning machine based on modified K-means for intrusion detection system. Expert Syst Appl 67:296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang ZM, Wu HJ, Li CN, Shao YH (2016) Least squares recursive projection twin support vector machine for multi-class classification. Int J Mach Learn Cybernet 7(3):411–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhardwaj A, Tiwari A, Bhardwaj H, Bhardwaj A (2016) A genetically optimized neural network model for multi-class classification. Expert Syst Appl 60:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dev S, Savoy FM, Lee YH, Winkler S (2017) Rough-Set-Based Color Channel Selection. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 14(1):52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wei HL, Billings SA (2007) Feature subset selection and ranking for data dimensionality reduction. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 29(1):162–166.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bazan JG, Nguyen HS, Nguyen SH, Synak P, Wróblewski J (2000) Rough set algorithms in classification problem. In: Polkowski L, Tsumoto S, Lin TY (eds) Rough set methods and applications). Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 49–88Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Skowron A, Rauszer C (1992) The discernibility matrices and functions in information systems. In: Slowinski R (ed) Intelligent decision support. Handbook of applications and advances of the rough sets theory. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 331–362Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bazan JG, Nguyen HS, Nguyen SH, Synak P, Wróblewski J (2000) Rough set algorithms in classification problem. In: Rough set methods and applications (studies in fuzziness and soft computing), vol 56. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 49–88Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chatterjee R, Guha D, Sanyal DK, Mohanty SN (2016) Discernibility matrix based dimensionality reduction for EEG signal. In: Hand, 140, p 140Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akbar Z (2003) Marketing data classification using Johnson’s algorithm. In: Knowledge discovery and discrete mathematics. Springer, pp 257–266Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gholap J, Ingole A, Gohil J, Gargade S, Attar V (2012). Soil data analysis using classification techniques and soil attribute prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.1557
  20. 20.
    Venkatesharaju K, Ravikumar P, Somashekar RK, Prakash KL (2010) Physico-chemical and bacteriological investigation on the river Cauvery of Kollegal stretch in Karnataka. Kathmandu Univ J Sci Eng Technol 6(1):50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mustafa AA, Singh M, Sahoo RN, Ahmed N, Khanna M, Sarangi A, Mishra AK (2011) Land suitability analysis for different crops: a multi criteria decision making approach using remote sensing and GIS. Researcher 3(12):1–24Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson DS (1974) Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. J Comput Syst Sci 9(3):256–278MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    AliKhashashneh EA, Al-Radaideh QA (2013) Evaluation of discernibility matrix based reduct computation techniques. In: 2013 5th international conference on computer science and information technology (CSIT). IEEE, pp. 76–81Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deepa N, Ganesan K (2016) Multi-class classification using hybrid soft decision model for agriculture crop selection. Neural Comput Appl 1–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Natural Computing Applications Forum 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Technology & EngineeringVIT UniversityVelloreIndia
  2. 2.TIFAC-CORE in Automotive InfotronicsVIT UniversityVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations