Operation-Level Prediction of Tractor Productivity and Fuel Consumption in Vineyard Operations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54174/2e0f0q75Keywords:
CAN-Bus telemetry; field capacity; fuel consumption; tractor performance; vineyard operationsAbstract
Precise prediction of tractor operational output and fuel use is important for machinery management and sustainable agricultural operations. This study evaluated whether operation-level CAN-Bus and GNSS summaries can support tractor-agnostic prediction of effective field capacity and fuel consumption per unit area in vineyard operations. An open vineyard tractor telemetry dataset was used, with two targets: HectaresPerH and LitersPerHa. Three predictive approaches were compared: an activity-mean baseline, Ridge regression, and Histogram-based Gradient Boosting Regression. Model performance was evaluated using leave-one-tractor-out validation with nested hyperparameter tuning, allowing the assessment of transferability to unseen tractors. For HectaresPerH, the activity-mean baseline, Ridge, and HGBR produced very similar pooled performance, with the baseline slightly strongest by RMSE and R2. This indicates that tractor productivity at the operation-summary level was largely captured by activity context. For LitersPerHa, both machine-learning models improved over the baseline, and HGBR achieved the best pooled performance, although the improvement was modest. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests on fold-wise RMSE did not show statistically significant differences between the main model comparisons. Activity-level error analysis showed that predictive difficulty varied across vineyard tasks. The findings indicate that CAN-derived operation summaries contain useful predictive signal, but simple operational baselines remain important. The main contribution of the study is a realistic unseen-tractor evaluation framework.
Downloads
References
Alemanno, R., Rossi, P., Monarca, D. and Bencini, A. (2025). Evaluation of tractor performance, efficiency and fuel consumption in vineyard activities. Scientific Reports, 15, 8416. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-93526-z
Angelucci, L. and Mattetti, M. (2024). The development of reference working cycles for agricultural tractors. Biosystems Engineering, 242, 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2024.04.004
Apley, D.W. and Zhu, J. (2020). Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 82(4), 1059-1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12377
ASABE. (2011). ASABE EP496.3: Agricultural machinery management data. St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Friedman, J.H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics, 29(5), 1189-1232. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451.
Götz, K., Kusuma, A., Dörfler, A. and Lienkamp, M. (2025). Agricultural load cycles: Tractor mission profiles from recorded GNSS and CAN bus data. Data in Brief, 60, 111494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111494
Hoerl, A.E. and Kennard, R.W. (1970). Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1), 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634.
Kolator, B.A. (2021). Modeling of tractor fuel consumption. Energies, 14(8), 2300. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082300
Mattetti, M., Maraldi, M., Lenzini, N., Fiorati, S., Sereni, E. and Molari, G. (2021). Outlining the mission profile of agricultural tractors through CAN-BUS data analytics. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 184, 106078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106078
Molnar, C., Freiesleben, T., König, G., Casalicchio, G., Wright, M.N. and Bischl, B. (2023). Relating the partial dependence plot and permutation feature importance to the data generating process. In: Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 1901, pp. 456-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44064-9_24
Pitla, S.K., Luck, J.D., Werner, J., Lin, N. and Shearer, S.A. (2016). In-field fuel use and load states of agricultural field machinery. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 121, 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.12.023
Roberts, D.R., Bahn, V., Ciuti, S., Boyce, M.S., Elith, J., Guillera-Arroita, G., Hauenstein, S., Lahoz-Monfort, J.J., Schröder, B., Thuiller, W., Warton, D.I., Wintle, B.A., Hartig, F. and Dormann, C.F. (2017). Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography, 40, 913-929. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02881
Rossi, P. and Alemanno, R. (2024). Tractor performances in vineyard operations [Data set]. Mendeley Data. https://doi.org/10.17632/y3h5xzkjc6.1
Varma, S. and Simon, R. (2006). Bias in error estimation when using cross-validation for model selection. BMC Bioinformatics, 7, 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-91
Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80-83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Rawaz Jalal Hama Ali, Fawzy Faidhullah Khurshid, Adnan Fattah Khalid , Shaee Ghareeb

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.




1.png)
