Machine learning-based prediction of nitrous oxide emissions from arable farming: Exploring management practices as predictor variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Machine learning models for N 2 O emission prediction in arable farming were compared. • Random forest model exceled in weekly, Feedforward neural network in annual fluxes. • Management practice “days after hoeing” was most relevant predictor variable. • Further training is needed for large-scale application. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural activities significantly contribute to the global greenhouse gas balance, with approximately 60 % originating from agricultural soils, primarily due to nitrogen fertilizer application. Estimating these emissions from croplands for national reporting and mitigation strategies presents a complex challenge, considering the intricate interplay of meteorological factors, soil conditions, and management practices governing microbial processes such as nitrification and denitrification. Current estimation methods, including the 1 % IPCC approach and process-based models, face limitations due to incomplete process representation, parameter uncertainties, and complex initialization procedures. This study explores the potential of machine learning to improve the prediction of nitrous oxide emissions. We evaluated three machine learning algorithms (Random forest (RF), Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), and Feedforward neural network (FNN)) for their ability to predict weekly fluxes, peak flux, and annual emissions using data from a field study with seven different management treatments. A comprehensive set of predictor variables, including meteorological, soil, and management factors, was utilized. Cross-validation results demonstrate the superior performance of the RF model, achieving a root mean squared error of 8.51, surpassing the XGBoost model (9.28) and FNN model (9.08). Remarkably, analysis of cumulative emissions reveals that the FNN model, in particular, exhibits better predictive capability for annual trends compared to other models, with 72.5 % of predictions falling within the standard error range. The inclusion of agricultural management variables such as “Days after Hoeing” emerged as the dominant predictor, contributing to 40 % (RF)/55 % (XGBoost) of the prediction accuracy. These results demonstrate the potential of machine learning to become a robust, and time-efficient method for predicting N 2 O fluxes at different scales. Due to its potential generalizability, the large-scale application, e.g. for national greenhouse gas reporting, is envisioned. This requires further training with data from multiple locations with different site factors and land uses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".