Tree-Based Modeling for Large-Scale Management in Agriculture: Explaining Organic Matter Content in Soil
Source abstract
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) has become more prevalent as a tool used for biogeochemical analysis in agricultural management. However, a common drawback of ML models is the lack of interpretability, as they are black boxes that provide little insight into agricultural management. To overcome this limitation, we compared three tree-based models (decision tree, random forest, and gradient boosting) to explain soil organic matter content through Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). Here, we used nationwide data on field crops, soil, terrain, and climate across South Korea (n = 9584). Using the SHAP method, we identified common primary controls of the models, for example, regions with precipitation levels above 1400 mm and exchangeable potassium levels exceeding 1 cmol+ kg−1, which favor enhanced organic matter in the soil. Different models identified different impacts of macronutrients on the organic matter content in the soil. The SHAP method is practical for assessing whether different ML models yield consistent findings in addressing these inquiries. Increasing the explainability of these models means determining essential variables related to soil organic matter management and understanding their associations for specific instances.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Soil Geostatistics and Mapping · Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies · Data Analysis with R
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Smart Distribution and Logistics, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52725, Republic of Korea
Department of Smart Agro-Industry, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52725, Republic of Korea
Funding
The National Research Foundation of Korea
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. Benchmarking and survey of explanation methods for black box models10.1007/s10618-023-00933-9 ↗
2. Explainable artificial intelligence and interpretable machine learning for agricultural data analysis
3. Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 ↗
4. Principles and practice of explainable machine learning10.3389/fdata.2021.688969 ↗
5. Explainable AI (XAI): A systematic meta-survey of current challenges and future opportunities10.1016/j.knosys.2023.110273 ↗
6. A survey on large-scale machine learning
7. Imprecision farming? Examining the (in)accuracy and risks of digital agriculture10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.024 ↗
8. Agricultural ethics and multifunctionality are unavoidable10.1104/pp.103.029124 ↗
9. Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x ↗
10. Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems10.1093/erae/jbad021 ↗
11. Mapping potential conflicts between global agriculture and terrestrial conservation10.1073/pnas.2208376120 ↗
12. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments10.1089/big.2016.0047 ↗
13. Schuett, J. (2023). Risk management in the Artificial Intelligence Act. Eur. J. Risk Regul., 1–19.10.1017/err.2023.1 ↗
14. Thomson Reuters (2023). LAWnB IP Exclusive Report: 2023 Domestic and International AI Regulatory and Policy Trends, Thomson Reuters Korea.
15. Statistical modeling: The two cultures10.1214/ss/1009213726 ↗
16. A survey of methods for explaining black box models10.1145/3236009 ↗
17. Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052 ↗
18. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 ↗
19. Explainable AI for time series classification: A review, taxonomy and research directions10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3207765 ↗
20. Explainability in graph neural networks: A taxonomic survey
21. Machine learning and deep learning—A review for ecologists10.1111/2041-210X.14061 ↗
22. Interpretable machine learning: Fundamental principles and 10 grand challenges10.1214/21-SS133 ↗
23. Towards a new generation of agricultural system data, models and knowledge products: Design and improvement10.1016/j.agsy.2016.10.002 ↗
24. Towards an integrated global framework to assess the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon: Current capability and future vision10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02689.x ↗
25. Crop yield prediction via explainable AI and interpretable machine learning: Dangers of black box models for evaluating climate change impacts on crop yield10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109458 ↗
26. Climate-smart soils10.1038/nature17174 ↗
27. Challenges and opportunities in soil organic matter research10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01114.x ↗
28. The properties of agroecosystems10.1016/0308-521X(87)90056-4 ↗
29. The nature of agricultural systems10.1111/j.1467-8306.1973.tb00946.x ↗
30. NAS (2023, January 30). Chemical Data for Soil Test. National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Rural Development Administration 2023, Available online: www.data.go.kr/data/15073569/openapi.do.
31. RDA (2023, January 19). Precision Soil Maps. Rural Development Administration 2023, Available online: https://soil.rda.go.kr.
32. NSDI (2020, August 11). Degital Elevation Model. National Spatial Data Infrastructure 2020, Available online: https://data.nsdi.go.kr/dataset/20001.
33. KMA (2023, December 20). Climate Change Scenarios, Available online: https://www.climate.go.kr/home/CCS/contents_2021/35_download.php.
34. NEO (2023, February 20). Net Primary Productivity (1 year—TERRA/MODIS). NASA Earth Observations 2023, Available online: https://neo.gsfc.nasa.gov.
35. Hill shading and the reflectance map10.1109/PROC.1981.11918 ↗
36. The in(a/tan/β) index: How to calculate it and how to use it within the topmodel framework10.1002/hyp.3360090204 ↗
37. EGIS (2023, January 13). Land Cover Maps. Environmental Geographic Information Service 2023, Available online: https://egis.me.go.kr/intro/land.do.
38. Statistics Korea (2022, October 06). Arable land in Korea. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1EB001&conn_path=I2.
39. R Core Team (2023). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
40. An overview and comparison of machine-learning techniques for classification purposes in digital soil mapping10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.11.014 ↗
41. Review of deep learning: Concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions10.1186/s40537-021-00444-8 ↗
42. Hartemink, A.E., McBratney, A., and Mendonça-Santos, M.d.L. (2008). Digital Soil Mapping with Limited Data, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8592-5 ↗
43. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 ↗
44. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.-I. (2017, January 4–9). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
45. Prediction of undrained shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and random forest based on Bayesian optimization10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.007 ↗
46. Interpreting the prediction results of the tree-based gradient boosting models for financial distress prediction with an explainable machine learning approach10.1002/for.2931 ↗
47. Interpretation of machine learning models using shapley values: Application to compound potency and multi-target activity predictions10.1007/s10822-020-00314-0 ↗
48. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
49. Nitrogen fertilization reduces yield declines following no-till adoption10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.023 ↗
50. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020 ↗
51. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter10.1038/ncomms7995 ↗
52. Egger, R. (2022). Applied Data Science in Tourism: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Methodologies, and Applications, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-88389-8 ↗
53. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture10.1038/nature13809 ↗
54. What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.002 ↗
55. Productivity, profitability and partial nutrient balance in maize-based conventional and organic farming systems in Kenya10.1016/j.agee.2016.10.001 ↗
56. Estimating the economic value of soil organic carbon for grains cropping systems in Western Australia10.1071/SR15101 ↗
57. Mikhailova, E.A., Groshans, G.R., Post, C.J., Schlautman, M.A., and Post, G.C. (2019). Valuation of soil organic carbon stocks in the contiguous United States based on the avoided social cost of carbon emissions. Resources, 8.10.3390/resources8030153 ↗
58. Dube, B., White, A., Ricketts, T., and Darby, H. (2022). Valuation of Soil Health Ecosystem Services, The University of Vermont.
59. Economic valuation of soil erosion in a semi and area in Turkey
60. Soil organic matter protects US maize yields and lowers crop insurance payouts under drought10.1088/1748-9326/abe492 ↗
61. What is soil organic matter worth?10.2134/jeq2005.0230 ↗
62. Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.007 ↗
63. Spatio-temporal variation of crop loss in the United States from 2001 to 201610.1088/1748-9326/ab1ac9 ↗