Sunchai PHUNGERN, Yuji GOTO, Liya DING, Iain MCTAGGART, Kosuke NOBORIO
{"title":"利用机器学习技术研究稻田封闭室方法的温室气体通量","authors":"Sunchai PHUNGERN, Yuji GOTO, Liya DING, Iain MCTAGGART, Kosuke NOBORIO","doi":"10.2480/agrmet.d-22-00024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Measurements of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from paddy fields can often include flux measurement errors due to either instrument errors or unfavorable weather. Therefore, data post-processing, including the gap-filling process, is required to improve data quality and quantify the GHG flux budget. This study applied machine learning (ML) techniques with polynomial and multivariate polynomial regression models for gap-filling methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from closed chamber (CC) method measurements and compared results with mean diurnal variation (MDV) and look-up table (LUT) techniques. The most influential factors affecting methane emissions in the paddy field were used for input variables in the models: air temperature, soil temperature, soil redox potential, soil water content, solar radiation, and days after transplanting. The models' performances were compared using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE). The results showed that MAE and RMSE for gap-filling CH4 fluxes were 1.299-2.984 and 2.499-4.981 mg CH4 m-2 h-1, respectively. Also, the multivariate polynomial regression models performed better for gap-filling CH4 fluxes (RMSE = 2.499 mg CH4 m-2 h-1) than the polynomial regression models, MDV (RMSE = 3.210 mg CH4 m-2 h-1), and LUT (RMSE = 3.339 mg CH4 m-2 h-1) techniques. The MAE and RMSE for gap-filling CO2 fluxes were 0.282-0.949 and 0.435-1.078 g CO2 m-2 h-1, respectively. The ML techniques with polynomial regression using solar radiation (RMSE = 0.435 g CO2 m-2 h-1) and multivariate models (RMSE = 0.445 g CO2 m-2 h-1) perform better on gap-filling CO2 fluxes than MDV (RMSE = 0.544 g CO2 m-2 h-1), and LUT (RMSE = 0.553 g CO2 m-2 h-1) techniques. The gap-filling using the multivariate polynomial regression models used in this study improved the reliability of the diurnal variation in GHG fluxes. Therefore, ML techniques could be a proper alternative for gap-filling GHG fluxes.","PeriodicalId":56074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Meteorology","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gap-filling greenhouse gas fluxes for the closed chamber method at paddy fields using machine learning techniques\",\"authors\":\"Sunchai PHUNGERN, Yuji GOTO, Liya DING, Iain MCTAGGART, Kosuke NOBORIO\",\"doi\":\"10.2480/agrmet.d-22-00024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Measurements of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from paddy fields can often include flux measurement errors due to either instrument errors or unfavorable weather. Therefore, data post-processing, including the gap-filling process, is required to improve data quality and quantify the GHG flux budget. This study applied machine learning (ML) techniques with polynomial and multivariate polynomial regression models for gap-filling methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from closed chamber (CC) method measurements and compared results with mean diurnal variation (MDV) and look-up table (LUT) techniques. The most influential factors affecting methane emissions in the paddy field were used for input variables in the models: air temperature, soil temperature, soil redox potential, soil water content, solar radiation, and days after transplanting. The models' performances were compared using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE). The results showed that MAE and RMSE for gap-filling CH4 fluxes were 1.299-2.984 and 2.499-4.981 mg CH4 m-2 h-1, respectively. Also, the multivariate polynomial regression models performed better for gap-filling CH4 fluxes (RMSE = 2.499 mg CH4 m-2 h-1) than the polynomial regression models, MDV (RMSE = 3.210 mg CH4 m-2 h-1), and LUT (RMSE = 3.339 mg CH4 m-2 h-1) techniques. The MAE and RMSE for gap-filling CO2 fluxes were 0.282-0.949 and 0.435-1.078 g CO2 m-2 h-1, respectively. The ML techniques with polynomial regression using solar radiation (RMSE = 0.435 g CO2 m-2 h-1) and multivariate models (RMSE = 0.445 g CO2 m-2 h-1) perform better on gap-filling CO2 fluxes than MDV (RMSE = 0.544 g CO2 m-2 h-1), and LUT (RMSE = 0.553 g CO2 m-2 h-1) techniques. The gap-filling using the multivariate polynomial regression models used in this study improved the reliability of the diurnal variation in GHG fluxes. Therefore, ML techniques could be a proper alternative for gap-filling GHG fluxes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56074,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agricultural Meteorology\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agricultural Meteorology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.d-22-00024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Meteorology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2480/agrmet.d-22-00024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
稻田温室气体(GHG)排放的测量常常包括由于仪器误差或不利天气造成的通量测量误差。因此,需要对数据进行后处理,包括填补空白过程,以提高数据质量并量化温室气体通量预算。本研究将机器学习(ML)技术与多项式和多元多项式回归模型应用于封闭室(CC)方法测量的空隙填充甲烷(CH4)和二氧化碳(CO2)通量,并将结果与平均日变化(MDV)和查找表(LUT)技术进行比较。模型输入变量采用对稻田甲烷排放影响最大的因子:气温、土壤温度、土壤氧化还原电位、土壤含水量、太阳辐射和定植后天数。使用平均绝对误差(MAE)和均方根误差(RMSE)比较模型的性能。结果表明,填隙CH4通量的MAE和RMSE分别为1.299 ~ 2.984和2.499 ~ 4.981 mg CH4 m-2 h-1。此外,多元多项式回归模型(RMSE = 2.499 mg CH4 m-2 h-1)比多项式回归模型、MDV (RMSE = 3.210 mg CH4 m-2 h-1)和LUT (RMSE = 3.339 mg CH4 m-2 h-1)技术具有更好的空隙填充CH4通量(RMSE = 2.499 mg CH4 m-2 h-1)。填隙CO2通量的MAE和RMSE分别为0.282 ~ 0.949和0.435 ~ 1.078 g CO2 m-2 h-1。利用太阳辐射(RMSE = 0.435 g CO2 m-2 h-1)和多变量模型(RMSE = 0.445 g CO2 m-2 h-1)进行多项式回归的ML技术在填补空隙的CO2通量方面优于MDV (RMSE = 0.544 g CO2 m-2 h-1)和LUT (RMSE = 0.553 g CO2 m-2 h-1)技术。本研究采用多元多项式回归模型进行补空,提高了温室气体通量日变化的可靠性。因此,ML技术可能是填补间隙的温室气体通量的适当替代方法。
Gap-filling greenhouse gas fluxes for the closed chamber method at paddy fields using machine learning techniques
Measurements of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from paddy fields can often include flux measurement errors due to either instrument errors or unfavorable weather. Therefore, data post-processing, including the gap-filling process, is required to improve data quality and quantify the GHG flux budget. This study applied machine learning (ML) techniques with polynomial and multivariate polynomial regression models for gap-filling methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes from closed chamber (CC) method measurements and compared results with mean diurnal variation (MDV) and look-up table (LUT) techniques. The most influential factors affecting methane emissions in the paddy field were used for input variables in the models: air temperature, soil temperature, soil redox potential, soil water content, solar radiation, and days after transplanting. The models' performances were compared using mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE). The results showed that MAE and RMSE for gap-filling CH4 fluxes were 1.299-2.984 and 2.499-4.981 mg CH4 m-2 h-1, respectively. Also, the multivariate polynomial regression models performed better for gap-filling CH4 fluxes (RMSE = 2.499 mg CH4 m-2 h-1) than the polynomial regression models, MDV (RMSE = 3.210 mg CH4 m-2 h-1), and LUT (RMSE = 3.339 mg CH4 m-2 h-1) techniques. The MAE and RMSE for gap-filling CO2 fluxes were 0.282-0.949 and 0.435-1.078 g CO2 m-2 h-1, respectively. The ML techniques with polynomial regression using solar radiation (RMSE = 0.435 g CO2 m-2 h-1) and multivariate models (RMSE = 0.445 g CO2 m-2 h-1) perform better on gap-filling CO2 fluxes than MDV (RMSE = 0.544 g CO2 m-2 h-1), and LUT (RMSE = 0.553 g CO2 m-2 h-1) techniques. The gap-filling using the multivariate polynomial regression models used in this study improved the reliability of the diurnal variation in GHG fluxes. Therefore, ML techniques could be a proper alternative for gap-filling GHG fluxes.
期刊介绍:
For over 70 years, the Journal of Agricultural Meteorology has published original papers and review articles on the science of physical and biological processes in natural and managed ecosystems. Published topics include, but are not limited to, weather disasters, local climate, micrometeorology, climate change, soil environment, plant phenology, plant response to environmental change, crop growth and yield prediction, instrumentation, and environmental control across a wide range of managed ecosystems, from open fields to greenhouses and plant factories.