Search

Accurate and cost-effective quantification of the carbon cycle for agroecosystems at decision-relevant scales is critical to mitigating climate change and ensuring sustainable food production. However, conventional process-based or data-driven modeling approaches alone have large prediction uncertainties due to the complex biogeochemical processes to model and the lack of observations to constrain many key state and flux variables. Here we propose a Knowledge-Guided Machine Learning (KGML) framework that addresses the above challenges by integrating knowledge embedded in a process-based model, high-resolution remote sensing observations, and machine learning (ML) techniques. Using the U.S. Corn Belt as a testbed, we demonstrate that KGML can outperform conventional process-based and black-box ML models in quantifying carbon cycle dynamics. Our high-resolution approach quantitatively reveals 86% more spatial detail of soil organic carbon changes than conventional coarse-resolution approaches. Moreover, we outline a protocol for improving KGML via various paths, which can be generalized to develop hybrid models to better predict complex earth system dynamics.

Agriculture contributes nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is motivating interest in adopting certain farming practices that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions or sequester carbon in soil. The related GHG emission (including N2O and CH4) and changes in soil carbon stock are defined here as “agricultural carbon outcomes”. Accurate quantification of agricultural carbon outcomes is the basis for achieving emission reductions for agriculture, but existing approaches for measuring carbon outcomes (including direct measurements, emission factors, and process-based modeling) fall short of achieving the required accuracy and scalability necessary to support credible, verifiable, and cost-effective measurement and improvement of these carbon outcomes. Here we propose a foundational and scalable framework to quantify field-level carbon outcomes for farmland, which is based on the holistic carbon balance of the agroecosystem: Agroecosystem Carbon Outcomes = Environment (E) × Management (M) × Crop (C). Following a comprehensive review of the scientific challenges associated with existing approaches, as well as their tradeoffs between cost and accuracy, we propose that the most viable path for the quantification of field-level carbon outcomes in agricultural land is through an effective integration of various approaches (e.g. diverse observations, sensor/in-situ data, and modeling), defined as the “System-of-Systems” solution. Such a “System-of-Systems” solution should simultaneously comprise the following components: (1) scalable collection of ground truth data and cross-scale sensing of environment variables (E), management practices (M), and crop conditions (C) at the local field level; (2) advanced modeling with necessary processes to support the quantification of carbon outcomes; (3) systematic Model-Data Fusion (MDF), i.e. robust and efficient methods to integrate sensing data and models at each local farmland level; (4) high computation efficiency and artificial intelligence (AI) to scale to millions of individual fields with low cost; and (5) robust and multi-tier validation systems and infrastructures to ensure solution fidelity and true scalability, i.e. the ability of a solution to perform robustly with accepted accuracy on all targeted fields. In this regard, we provide here the detailed scientific rationale, current progress, and future research and development (R&D) priorities to achieve different components of the “System-of-Systems” solution, thus accomplishing the Environment×Management×Crop framework to quantify field-level agricultural carbon outcomes.

Cropland carbon budget depicts the amount of carbon flowing in and out of agroecosystems and the changes in carbon stocks of soil and living biomass during the same period. Soil carbon credit is the additional change in soil carbon stock under certain farming practices compared with the business-as-usual practices. Accurately calculating cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is critical to assessing climate change mitigation potential in agroecosystems. The calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit is sensitive to local soil and climatic conditions, especially initial soil organic carbon (SOC) stock, which is determined by both SOC concentration (SOC%) and bulk density (Bulk_Density). SOC stock data are either from soil sampling or gridded public survey data. In agroecosystem models, SOC stock data are a key model input for quantifying cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. However, various types and degrees of uncertainties exist in SOC stock datasets, which propagate to the quantification of SOC stock change. In particular, a large discrepancy is found in two widely used SOC stock datasets — Rapid Carbon Assessment dataset (RaCA) and Gridded Soil Survey Geographic Database (gSSURGO) — in the U.S. Midwest, with a relative difference (quantified using Normalized Root Mean Square Error, NRMSE) of 48.0% for 0–30 cm SOC stock between the two datasets. It remains largely unclear how uncertainty in SOC stocks affects the calculation of cropland carbon budget and soil carbon credit. To address this question, we used a well-validated process-based agroecosystem model, ecosys, to assess the impacts of SOC stock uncertainty on carbon budget and soil carbon credit calculation in the U.S. Midwestern corn-soybean rotation systems. Our results reveal the following findings: (1) A sizable discrepancy exists in simulated cropland carbon budget between using gSSURGO and using RaCA for their SOC% and Bulk_Density as model inputs, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of only 0.4 for simulated change of SOC stock (ΔSOC) using these two different soil datasets. (2) Simulated cropland carbon budget components were more sensitive to initial SOC% than to Bulk_Density. For example, the upper and lower quartiles of multi-year averaged ΔSOC were −29.8 and 4.8 gC/m2/year for the selected counties respectively, with an uncertainty of 13.7 and 0.7 gC/m2/year induced by uncertainties in initial SOC% and Bulk_Density, respectively. (3) Both simulated ΔSOC and its uncertainty were negatively correlated with initial SOC%, whereas ΔSOC was negatively correlated with air temperature, and ΔSOC uncertainty was positively correlated with air temperature. (4) The uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits was much smaller compared with the uncertainty of calculated absolute carbon budgets assuming the same SOC stock uncertainty level in the inputs. Specifically, in our assessment comparing planting cover crops vs no cover crop, the uncertainty of calculated soil carbon credits induced by initial SOC% uncertainty was less than 4% (relative to the quantified value of the soil carbon credits) for 90% of the cases. Our analysis highlights that high accuracy measurement of SOC% as inputs is needed for the calculation of cropland carbon budgets; however, soil carbon credit quantification is much less sensitive to the initial SOC% inputs, and the current publicly available soil datasets (e.g., gSSURGO) are largely suitable for the calculation of soil carbon credits.