the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving ammonia emission predictions with dynamic machine learning models
Abstract. Ammonia emissions pose significant challenges for both environmental protection and human health. A substantial portion of these emissions occurs after field fertilization. Accurate prediction of these emissions is essential for national inventories and for identifying effective mitigation strategies. Although several static machine learning models have been developed to estimate final cumulative emissions, the potential benefits of dynamic machine learning to improve these predictions remain unknown. To address this gap, we compared 13 static models (1 random forest, 12 neural networks) and 33 dynamic models (7 random forests and 26 recurrent neural networks). The best performing model was a recurrent neural network, achieving an average mean absolute error (MAE) of 4.56 kgN/ha (95 % CI = [4.17, 4.95]), corresponding to a decrease in MAE of 13.6 % and 17.7 % compared to the best static neural network and the static random forest, respectively.
- Preprint
(2022 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Aug 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2404', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jul 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 300 | 36 | 20 | 356 | 17 | 16 |
- HTML: 300
- PDF: 36
- XML: 20
- Total: 356
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 16
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The submission is of high quality and gives highly relevant insights and ideas on new approaches for modelling ammonia emissions from field applied cattle and pig liquid manure. I have added a document with many detailed comments and criticism. In the following I give some general points for improvement:
- the branding/definition of the model groups as either static or dynamic should be explicitly made and motivated very early in the manuscript as the use of the adjectives is somewhat conflicting with what readers expect about the nature of a static and a dynamic model,
- the role of covariates is not explicitly addressed and in how far their involvement is in agreement with our broader understanding of the emission process. This causes an uncertainty for scientist with a typical theory driven approach to solving problems. The effect of covariates should be clearly shown and discussed.
- what is the effect of the new modelling approaches on the science rather than on prediction for practical/applied reasons. This should be elaborated. How can such models drive and synthesize existing science?
- many scientists are critical for such kind of models for emission prediction e.g. due to the opaque role of covariates. Can you elaborate on this...
- have another check on the use of past and present tense throughout the manuscript, otherwise is well written and good to read