Cited by 56Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Geostatistics and MappingSmart Agriculture and AI

Machine Learning Approach to Simulate Soil CO2 Fluxes under Cropping Systems

Open access
Adjuik, Toby A., Davis, Sarah C.·2022·Agronomy

Abstract

With the growing number of datasets to describe greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there is an opportunity to develop novel predictive models that require neither the expense nor time required to make direct field measurements. This study evaluates the potential for machine learning (ML) approaches to predict soil GHG emissions without the biogeochemical expertise that is required to use many current models for simulating soil GHGs. There are ample data from field measurements now publicly available to test new modeling approaches. The objective of this paper was to develop and evaluate machine learning (ML) models using field data (soil temperature, soil moisture, soil classification, crop type, fertilization type, and air temperature) available in the Greenhouse gas Reduction through Agricultural Carbon Enhancement network (GRACEnet) database to simulate soil CO2 fluxes with different fertilization methods. Four machine learning algorithms—K nearest neighbor regression (KNN), support vector regression (SVR), random forest (RF) regression, and gradient boosted (GB) regression—were used to develop the models. The GB regression model outperformed all the other models on the training dataset with R2 = 0.88, MAE = 2177.89 g C ha−1 day−1, and RMSE 4405.43 g C ha−1 day−1. However, the RF and GB regression models both performed optimally on the unseen test dataset with R2 = 0.82. Machine learning tools were useful for developing predictors based on soil classification, soil temperature and air temperature when a large database like GRACEnet is available, but these were not highly predictive variables in correlation analysis. This study demonstrates the suitability of using tree-based ML algorithms for predictive modeling of CO2 fluxes, but no biogeochemical processes can be described with such models.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/agronomy12010197

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The diverse site conditions, geographical locations, soil types, management strategies, and prior land use histories may provide an explanation for the range in C accumulation.

    “The diverse site conditions, geographical locations, soil types, management strategies, and prior land use histories may provide an explanation for the range in C accumulation (Adjuik & Davis, 2022; Anderson- Teixeira et al., 2009; Davis etal.,2013; Zimmermann etal.,2013).”

    From Decadal change in soil carbon and nitrogen with a <i>Miscanthus</i> × <i>giganteus</i> crop on abandoned agricultural land in southeast Ohio (2024) · cites this paper as Adjuik & Davis, 2022

    Section 1.2 says that switching cropping systems may increase carbon sequestration, and section 2.1 identifies differing soil types, sites, and management practices. But the paper examines soil CO2 fluxes; it does not explain a range in carbon accumulation using the full set of factors claimed, particularly geographical location and prior land-use history. The cited passages have no page numbers in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 71 · Cited by 56

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Shabani, E.; Hayati, B.; Pishbahar, E.; Ghorbani, M.A.; Ghahremanzadeh, M. A novel approach to predict CO2 emission in the agriculture sector of Iran based on Inclusive Multiple Model. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123708. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Oertel, C.; Matschullat, J.; Zurba, K.; Zimmermann, F.; Erasmi, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from soils-A review. Chem. Der Erde Geochem. 2016, 76, 327-352. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Zhang, K.; Zheng, H.; Chen, F.; Li, R.; Yang, M.; Ouyang, Z.; Lan, J.; Xiang, X. Impact of nitrogen fertilization on soil-Atmosphere greenhouse gas exchanges in eucalypt plantations with different soil characteristics in southern China. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172142. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  4. Post, W.M.; Emanuel, W.R.; Zinke, P.J.; Stangenberger, A.G. Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 1982, 298, 156-159. [CrossRef] · DOI
  5. Yousaf, B.; Liu, G.; Wang, R.; Abbas, Q.; Imtiaz, M.; Liu, R. Investigating the biochar effects on C-mineralization and sequestration of carbon in soil compared with conventional amendments using the stable isotope (δ13C) approach. GCB Bioenergy 2017, 9, 1085-1099. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Li, C. Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from soils: Scientific basis and modeling approach. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2007, 53, 344-352. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Liang, N.; Nakadai, T.; Hirano, T.; Qu, L.; Koike, T.; Fujinuma, Y.; Inoue, G. In situ comparison of four approaches to estimating soil CO2 efflux in a northern larch (Larix kaempferi Sarg.) forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2004, 123, 97-117. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. Heinemeyer, A.; McNamara, N.P. Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology: Implications for soil respiration studies. Plant Soil 2011, 346, 145-151. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Gargiulo, O.; Morgan, K.T. Procedures to Simulate Missing Soil Parameters in the Florida Soils Characteristics Database. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2015, 79, 165-174. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Li, C.; Frolking, S.; Frolking, T.A. A model of nitrous oxide evolution from soil driven by rainfall events: 1. Model structure and sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1992, 97, 9759-9776. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Del Grosso, S.J.; Parton, W.J.; Adler, P.R.; Davis, S.C.; Keough, C.; Marx, E. DayCent model simulations for estimating soil carbon dynamics and greenhouse gas fluxes from agricultural production systems. In Managing Agricultural Greenhouse Gases; Liebig, M.A., Franzluebbers, A.J., Follett, R.F., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 341-353.
  12. Del Grosso, S.J.; Ojima, D.S.; Parton, W.J.; Stehfest, E.; Heistemann, M.; Deangelo, B.; Rose, S. Global scale DAYCENT model analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies for cropped soils. Glob. Planet. Change 2009, 67, 44-50. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Hamrani, A.; Akbarzadeh, A.; Madramootoo, C.A. Machine learning for predicting greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural soils. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140338. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  14. Liakos, K.G.; Busato, P.; Moshou, D.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors 2018, 18, 2674. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  15. Twarakavi, N.K.C.; Šim ůnek, J.; Schaap, M.G. Development of Pedotransfer Functions for Estimation of Soil Hydraulic Parameters using Support Vector Machines. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73, 1443-1452. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Baker, R.E.; Peña, J.-M.; Jayamohan, J.; Jérusalem, A. Mechanistic models versus machine learning, a fight worth fighting for the biological community? Biol. Lett. 2018, 14, 20170660. [CrossRef] · DOI
  17. Saha, D.; Basso, B.; Robertson, G.P. Machine learning improves predictions of agricultural nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from intensively managed cropping systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 024004. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Ebrahimi, M.; Sarikhani, M.R.; Safari Sinegani, A.A.; Ahmadi, A.; Keesstra, S. Estimating the soil respiration under different land uses using artificial neural network and linear regression models. CATENA 2019, 174, 371-382. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  19. Abbasi, N.A.; Hamrani, A.; Madramootoo, C.A.; Zhang, T.; Tan, C.S.; Goyal, M.K. Modelling carbon dioxide emissions under a maize-soy rotation using machine learning. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 212, 1-18. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Freitas, L.P.; Lopes, M.L.; Carvalho, L.B.; Panosso, A.R.; Júnior, N.L.S.; Freitas, R.L.; Minussi, C.R.; Lotufo, A.D. Forecasting the spatiotemporal variability of soil CO 2 emissions in sugarcane areas in southeastern Brazil using artificial neural networks. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 741. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Philibert, A.; Loyce, C.; Makowski, D. Prediction of N2O emission from local information with Random Forest. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 177, 156-163. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Tavares, R.L.M.; Oliveira, S.R.D.M.; Barros, F.M.M.D.; Farhate, C.V.V.; Souza, Z.M.D.; Scala Junior, N.L. Prediction of soil CO2 flux in sugarcane management systems using the Random Forest approach. Sci. Agric. 2018, 75, 281-287. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Gauder, M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Graeff-Hönninger, S.; Claupein, W.; Wiegel, R. Soil-derived trace gas fluxes from different energy crops -results from a field experiment in Southwest Germany. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4, 289-301. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  24. Snyder, C.S.; Bruulsema, T.W.; Jensen, T.L.; Fixen, P.E. Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 247-266. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  25. Davis, S.C.; Parton, W.J.; Dohleman, F.G.; Smith, C.M.; Grosso, S.D.; Kent, A.D.; DeLucia, E.H. Comparative Biogeochemical Cycles of Bioenergy Crops Reveal Nitrogen-Fixation and Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a Miscanthus × giganteus Agro-Ecosystem. Ecosystems 2009, 13, 144-156. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  26. Jawson, M.; Shafer, S.; Franzluebbers, A.; Parkin, T.; Follett, R. GRACEnet: Greenhouse gas reduction through agricultural carbon enhancement network. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 83, 167-172. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Del Grosso, S.J.; White, J.W.; Wilson, G.; Vandenberg, B.; Karlen, D.L.; Follett, R.F.; Johnson, J.M.F.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Archer, D.W.; Gollany, H.T.; et al. Introducing the GRACEnet/REAP Data Contribution, Discovery, and Retrieval System. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 1274-1280. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  28. Kotsiantis, S.B.; Kanellopoulos, D.; Pintelas, P.E. Data preprocessing for supervised leaning. Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2006, 1, 111-117.
  29. Lakshminarayan, K.; Harp, S.A.; Samad, T. Imputation of missing data in industrial databases. Appl. Intell. 1999, 11, 259-275. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Derksen, S.; Keselman, H.J. Backward, forward and stepwise automated subset selection algorithms: Frequency of obtaining authentic and noise variables. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 1992, 45, 265-282. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Guyon, I.; Elisseeff, A. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 3, 1157-1182.
  32. Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blondel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 2825-2830.
  33. Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009.
  34. Witten, I.H.; Frank, E. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations; Acm Sigmod Record: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; Volume 31, pp. 76-77.
  35. Yang, L.; Shami, A. On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice. Neurocomputing 2020, 415, 295-316. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. McKinney, W. Python for Data Analysis: Data Wrangling with Pandas, NumPy, and IPython; O'Reilly Media, Inc.: Newton, MA, USA, 2012.
  37. Kluyver, T.; Ragan-Kelley, B.; Pérez, F.; Granger, B.E.; Bussonnier, M.; Frederic, J.; Kelley, K.; Hamrick, J.B.; Grout, J.; Corlay, S. Jupyter Notebooks-a Publishing Format for Reproducible Computational Workflows; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; Volume 2016.
  38. Raschka, S. MLxtend: Providing machine learning and data science utilities and extensions to Python's scientific computing stack. J. Open Source Softw. 2018, 3, 638. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Ayodele, T.O. Types of machine learning algorithms. New Adv. Mach. Learn. 2010, 3, 19-48.
  40. Kotsiantis, S.B.; Zaharakis, I.; Pintelas, P. Supervised machine learning: A review of classification techniques. In Real Word AI Systems with Applications in eHealth, Hci, Information Retrieval and Pervasive Technologies; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Volume 160, pp. 3-24.
  41. Achieng, K.O. Modelling of soil moisture retention curve using machine learning techniques: Artificial and deep neural networks vs support vector regression models. Comput. Geosci. 2019, 133, 104320. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Awad, M.; Khanna, R. Support Vector Regression. In Efficient Learning Machines; Apress: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 67-80.
  43. Üstün, B.; Melssen, W.J.; Buydens, L.M. Facilitating the application of support vector regression by using a universal Pearson VII function based kernel. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2006, 81, 29-40. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Müller, A.C.; Guido, S. Introduction to Machine Learning with Python: A Guide for Data Scientists; O'Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2016.
  45. Imandoust, S.B.; Bolandraftar, M. Application of k-nearest neighbor (knn) approach for predicting economic events: Theoretical background. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. 2013, 3, 605-610.
  46. Ray, S. A Quick Review of Machine Learning Algorithms. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Big Data, Cloud and Parallel Computing (Com-IT-Con), Faridabad, India, 14-16 February 2019; p. 5.
  47. Ho, T.K. Random decision forests. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Montreal, QC, Canada, 14-16 August 1995; pp. 278-282.
  48. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5-32. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  49. Horning, N. Random Forests: An algorithm for image classification and generation of continuous fields data sets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Geoinformatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences, Osaka, Japan, 9-11 December 2010.
  50. Zhang, H.; Nettleton, D.; Zhu, Z. Regression-enhanced random forests. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1904.10416. · arXiv
  51. Friedman, J.H. Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2002, 38, 367-378. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  52. Molnar, C.; König, G.; Herbinger, J.; Freiesleben, T.; Dandl, S.; Scholbeck, C.A.; Casalicchio, G.; Grosse-Wentrup, M.; Bischl, B. Pitfalls to avoid when interpreting machine learning models. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2007.04131. · arXiv
  53. Sandri, M.; Zuccolotto, P. Variable Selection Using Random Forests. In Data Analysis, Classification and the Forward Search; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 263-270.
  54. O'Brien, R.M. A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 673-690. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  55. Chandra, B. Gene Selection Methods for Microarray Data. In Applied Computing in Medicine and Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 45-78.
  56. Elbisy, M.S. Support vector machine and regression analysis to predict the field hydraulic conductivity of sandy soil. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 19, 2307-2316. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Kaingo, J.; Tumbo, S.D.; Kihupi, N.I.; Mbilinyi, B.P. Prediction of Soil Moisture-Holding Capacity with Support Vector Machines in Dry Subhumid Tropics. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2018, 2018, 9263296. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Altman, N.S. An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression. Am. Stat. 1992, 46, 175-185. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2002, 2, 18-22.
  60. Elith, J.; Leathwick, J.R.; Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 2008, 77, 802-813. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI · Paper page
  61. Gilpin, L.H.; Bau, D.; Yuan, B.Z.; Bajwa, A.; Specter, M.; Kagal, L. Explaining explanations: An overview of interpretability of machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), Turin, Italy, 1-3 October 2018; pp. 80-89.
  62. Wadoux, A.M.-C.; Molnar, C. Beyond prediction: Methods for interpreting complex models of soil variation. Geoderma 2021. [CrossRef] · DOI
  63. Casalicchio, G.; Molnar, C.; Bischl, B. Visualizing the feature importance for black box models. In Proceedings of the Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Dublin, Ireland, 10-14 September 2018; pp. 655-670.
  64. Wachiye, S.; Merbold, L.; Vesala, T.; Rinne, J.; Räsänen, M.; Leitner, S.; Pellikka, P. Soil greenhouse gas emissions under different land-use types in savanna ecosystems of Kenya. Biogeosciences 2020, 17, 2149-2167. [CrossRef] · DOI
  65. Schaufler, G.; Kitzler, B.; Schindlbacher, A.; Skiba, U.; Sutton, M.A.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. Greenhouse gas emissions from European soils under different land use: Effects of soil moisture and temperature. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2010, 61, 683-696. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  66. Schindlbacher, A.; Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. Effects of soil moisture and temperature on NO, NO2, and N2O emissions from European forest soils. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2004, 109, D17. [CrossRef] · DOI
  67. Lloyd, J.; Taylor, J.A. On the Temperature Dependence of Soil Respiration. Funct. Ecol. 1994, 8, 315. [CrossRef] · DOI
  68. Ni, X.; Liao, S.; Wu, F.; Groffman, P.M. Short-term precipitation pulses stimulate soil CO 2 emission but do not alter CH4 and N2O fluxes in a northern hardwood forest. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 130, 8-11. [CrossRef] · DOI
  69. Nemes, A.; Rawls, W.J.; Pachepsky, Y.A. Use of the nonparametric nearest neighbor approach to estimate soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 327-336. [CrossRef] · DOI

Authors
Adjuik, T. A., & Davis, S. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • Ohio University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Adjuik, Toby A.
  • Davis, Sarah C.
Venue
Agronomy
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-01-14
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
197
ISSN
2073-4395 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206481038
Cited by
56
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 3
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Agronomy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Agricultural Research Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Soil Geostatistics and Mapping
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
Keywords
soil CO2 flux, soil respiration, greenhouse gas emissions, machine learning prediction, gradient boosting regression, random forest regression, support vector regression, k-nearest neighbors regression, fertilization methods, soil temperature, air temperature, soil classification, tree-based models, cropping systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review