MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399565691 · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104015

Harmonizing methods to account for soil nitrous oxide emissions in Life Cycle Assessment of agricultural systems

2024· article· en· W4399565691 on OpenAlexaff
Pietro Goglio, Simon Moakes, Marie Trydeman Knudsen, Klara Van Mierlo, N. R. Adams, Fossey Maxime, Alberto Maresca, M. Romero-Huelva, Muhammad Waqas, Laurence Smith, Giampiero Grossi, Ward Smith, Camillo De Camillis, Thomas Nemecek, Francesco Tei, Frank W Oudshoorn

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersHorizon 2020HORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsNitrous oxideAgricultureEnvironmental scienceLife-cycle assessmentLife cycle inventoryEconomicsChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reached 59 Gt of CO 2 eq in 2019 and agricultural soils are the primary source of N 2 O emissions. Life cycle assessments (LCA) have been successful in assessing GHG from agricultural systems. However, no review and harmonization attempt has been focused on soil N 2 O emissions, despite the need to improve LCA methodologies for assessing GHG in agricultural LCA. We therefore undertook a review and harmonization of existing methods to account for soil N 2 O emissions in LCA of agricultural systems and products: i) to compare current methods used in LCA; ii) to identify advantages and iii) disadvantages of each method in LCA; iv) to suggest recommendations for LCA of agricultural systems; v) to identify research needs and potential methodological developments to account for soil N 2 O emissions in the LCA of agricultural systems. In this paper, we consider as soil N 2 O emissions, those originated from soils in relation to fertilisers (organic and manufactured), crop residues, land use/land management change, grassland management, manure and slurry applications and from grazing animals. The approach adopted was based on two anonymous expert surveys and a series of expert workshops ( n = 21) to define general and specific criteria to review LCA methods for GHG emissions used in LCA of agricultural systems. A broad list of keywords and search criteria was used as the research involved GHG assessment in agricultural LCA. Reviewed papers and methodology were then assessed by LCA and soil N 2 O emission experts ( n = 14). >25,000 scientific papers and reports were identified, 1175 were screened, 263 included in the final review and 31 scientific papers were related to soil N 2 O emissions. The results showed that a high level of accuracy corresponded to a low level of applicability and vice versa, following the assessment framework developed in this work through participatory approaches. The choice of LCA methods, critical for high quality LCA of agricultural systems, should be based on the assessment objectives, data availability and expertise of the LCA practitioner. However, it is preferable to use DNDC model after calibration and validation or direct field measurements, considering system effects. When necessary data are lacking, IPCC tier 2 methodology where available should be used, otherwise 2019 IPCC Tier 1 methodology. This LCA method development should be synchronous with improvements of quantification methods and the assessment of a wider range of agricultural management practices and systems. • Methods used in life cycle assessment (LCA) of agricultural systems to account for soil N 2 O need to be improved. • A method harmonization was carried out and recommendations for soil N 2 O emissions were identified in agricultural LCA. • The results showed that a high level of accuracy corresponded to a low level of applicability and vice versa. • DNDC, DAYCENT and direct measurements scores high on accuracy to assess soil N 2 O emissions in LCA of agricultural systems. • Alternative to DNDC and measurements are IPCC Tier 1 or 2 methodologies to assess soil N 2 O emissions in agricultural LCA.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural SystemsSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207