When 2-compound combinations were interrogated, the WisDM Green-pinpointed 6-BAP/EDTA-Fe combination, at concentrations 1 mg mL-1 and 2 g L-1, respectively, led to 26.34±15.80 increase in %Yield (Figure 9). However, 6-BAP/EDTA-Fe at concentrations 0.50 mg mL-1 and 1 g L-1, respectively, mediated a negative %Yield (-14.66±15.52). Furthermore, HA/SWE at concentrations 2 g L-1 and 12.50% v/v, respectively, resulted in a substantial increase in %Yield (33.59±14.60%). When the concentrations of HA were reduced to 0.25 g L-1 and SWE increased to 100% v/v, HA/SWE led to 9.36±14.42 decrease in %Yield. The concentration-dependent interactions of 6-BAP/EDTA-Fe and HA/SWE are illustrated in the response surfaces (Figure 9c, 9e and 10). The results suggested certain compounds may require higher concentrations to achieve optimal outcomes, while some may lead to better interactions at lower concentrations when carefully paired in combinations. To demonstrate the fidelity of negative predictivity of WisDM Green, an ineffective combination pinpointed by WisDM Green (6-BAP/Adenine/HA/EDTA-Fe/Sucrose) (Table 8) was also validated. This combination had two identical compounds as the top 2 ranked combinations, and WisDM Green determined that replacing some of the compounds may lead to negative %Yield. The experimentally measured %Yield was -6.93±8.27 (Figure 9a). The results suggested that properly pairing two compounds in optimal concentration ratios may mediate interactions that facilitate better %Yield enhancement than multi-compound combinations. To reduce the use of fertilizers, which is closely connected to environmental impact, appropriately pairing compounds and determining their optimal concentration ratios that can provide yield enhancement may be the most sustainable approach to the future of farming. For example, HA and SWE are both ecologically sustainable, natural compounds, and pairing them in combination and in optimal ratios improved the %Yield. The individual replicates used to plot the response surfaces in Figure 9 are illustrated in Figure 11.The 2-dimensional heatmaps of each response surface are displayed in Figure 10.