Machine Learning Approach to Simulate Soil CO2 Fluxes under Cropping Systems
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Li, C. Quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from soils: Scientific basis and modeling approach. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2007, 53, 344-352. [CrossRef] · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Philibert, A.; Loyce, C.; Makowski, D. Prediction of N2O emission from local information with Random Forest. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 177, 156-163. [CrossRef] · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kotsiantis, S.B.; Kanellopoulos, D.; Pintelas, P.E. Data preprocessing for supervised leaning. Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2006, 1, 111-117.
- Lakshminarayan, K.; Harp, S.A.; Samad, T. Imputation of missing data in industrial databases. Appl. Intell. 1999, 11, 259-275. [CrossRef] · DOI
- 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
- Guyon, I.; Elisseeff, A. An introduction to variable and feature selection. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2003, 3, 1157-1182.
- 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.
- Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009.
- 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.
- Yang, L.; Shami, A. On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice. Neurocomputing 2020, 415, 295-316. [CrossRef] · DOI
- McKinney, W. Python for Data Analysis: Data Wrangling with Pandas, NumPy, and IPython; O'Reilly Media, Inc.: Newton, MA, USA, 2012.
- 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.
- 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
- Ayodele, T.O. Types of machine learning algorithms. New Adv. Mach. Learn. 2010, 3, 19-48.
- 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.
- 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
- Awad, M.; Khanna, R. Support Vector Regression. In Efficient Learning Machines; Apress: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2015; pp. 67-80.
- 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
- Müller, A.C.; Guido, S. Introduction to Machine Learning with Python: A Guide for Data Scientists; O'Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2016.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5-32. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- 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.
- Zhang, H.; Nettleton, D.; Zhu, Z. Regression-enhanced random forests. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1904.10416. · arXiv
- Friedman, J.H. Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2002, 38, 367-378. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- 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.
- O'Brien, R.M. A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 673-690. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
- Chandra, B. Gene Selection Methods for Microarray Data. In Applied Computing in Medicine and Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 45-78.
- 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
- 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
- Altman, N.S. An Introduction to Kernel and Nearest-Neighbor Nonparametric Regression. Am. Stat. 1992, 46, 175-185. [CrossRef] · DOI
- Liaw, A.; Wiener, M. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2002, 2, 18-22.
- 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
- 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.
- Wadoux, A.M.-C.; Molnar, C. Beyond prediction: Methods for interpreting complex models of soil variation. Geoderma 2021. [CrossRef] · DOI
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Lloyd, J.; Taylor, J.A. On the Temperature Dependence of Soil Respiration. Funct. Ecol. 1994, 8, 315. [CrossRef] · DOI
- 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
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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