Atmospheric Emissions from Crop Residue Burning and Other Agricultural Activities in India: Why Do Croplands Still Deserve Closer Attention?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
sı Supporting Information C ropland agricultural processes involve several stages, such as tillage, fertilizer use, harvesting, and residue handling, all of which significantly contribute to air pollution.Among these, open crop residue burning (CRB) is the most visible and controversial practice, used to clear fields postharvest.CRB is strongly linked to elevated particulate and gaseous pollutants, affecting both rural and urban areas due to long-range atmospheric transport. 1While CRB may appear straightforward to estimate and regulate, it is fraught with significant uncertainties.Emission inventories, crucial for air-quality modeling and policy-making, primarily rely on two elements: the mass of crop residue burned and the emission factors (EFs) for various pollutants.In India, both aspects are affected by considerable data limitations.A major challenge is the scarcity of India-specific emission factors.Most emission inventories rely on EFs adapted from foreign studies, conducted under different agro-climatic conditions and farming techniques.Although the elemental composition of crop residues may be broadly comparable, the actual emissions can vary considerably based on local factors like fertilizer usage, soil health, and crop management practices.These variables influence the biomass's chemical and physical properties, and hence, its emissions profile. 2 A comprehensive review of CRB-related emission inventory studies from the past 25 years reveals that over 90% of researchers used foreign EFs (Table S1).Only two peerreviewed Indian studies have reported in situ emission factors for a limited range of pollutants. 3,4 Uncertainty also stems from estimating the mass of residue burned.Many studies continue to use a generalized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guideline suggesting that 25% of total crop residue is burned, an assumption that is neither empirically validated nor regionally specific.Given India's vast agro-ecological and socio-economic diversity, applying such blanket assumptions is methodologically flawed.Some researchers have attempted to refine CRB estimates using field surveys.However, these typically involve only a few hundred to a few thousand farmers and are extrapolated to the national scale, which is insufficient to capture India's regional variability.A more promising method involves analyzing satellite-based fire counts during harvesting seasons.Most Indian farmers hold small land parcels, and the resulting fires are often too small to be detected by remote sensing techniques.Addition-
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".