Utsab Ghimire, Alakananda Mitra, David Fleisher, John Park, Jinyoung E. Barnaby, Yonghyun Kim, Eunjin Han
Accurate operational predictions of cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) biomass are critical for quantifying the agroecosystem services provided by cover crops and for guiding growers’ management decisions for subsequent cash crops. In this study, we developed machine learning-based biomass prediction models using two advanced gradient-boosted tree algorithms, CatBoost and XGBoost. A comprehensive dataset comprising cereal rye biomass and management information from 24 U.S. states, combined with soil and weather data, were used to train the models. Models relying solely on early spring weather inputs achieved moderate predictive skill (R2 ≈ 0.74). Incorporating later-season weather data modestly improved mid-season fits but led to overfitting in late-spring predictions. Extending CatBoost to quantile regression enabled estimation of 10%–90% prediction intervals with moderate pinball loss. Overall, our findings demonstrate that publicly available soil and weather data, supplemented with limited management inputs, can support interpretable, uncertainty-aware biomass predictions suitable for optimal cover crop management.
{"title":"Machine learning-based prediction of cereal rye cover crop biomass across diverse agroecosystems","authors":"Utsab Ghimire, Alakananda Mitra, David Fleisher, John Park, Jinyoung E. Barnaby, Yonghyun Kim, Eunjin Han","doi":"10.1002/ael2.70055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.70055","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate operational predictions of cereal rye (<i>Secale cereale</i> L.) biomass are critical for quantifying the agroecosystem services provided by cover crops and for guiding growers’ management decisions for subsequent cash crops. In this study, we developed machine learning-based biomass prediction models using two advanced gradient-boosted tree algorithms, CatBoost and XGBoost. A comprehensive dataset comprising cereal rye biomass and management information from 24 U.S. states, combined with soil and weather data, were used to train the models. Models relying solely on early spring weather inputs achieved moderate predictive skill (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> ≈ 0.74). Incorporating later-season weather data modestly improved mid-season fits but led to overfitting in late-spring predictions. Extending CatBoost to quantile regression enabled estimation of 10%–90% prediction intervals with moderate pinball loss. Overall, our findings demonstrate that publicly available soil and weather data, supplemented with limited management inputs, can support interpretable, uncertainty-aware biomass predictions suitable for optimal cover crop management.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.70055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145963947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ellayna J. LaFond, Katherine A. Dynarski, Samia Hamati, Brian J. Darby, Kathryn A. Yurkonis, Ekundayo Adeleke, Ryan C. Hodges, Skye Wills, Tiffany L. Carter
Nematodes are important in soil food webs and are being considered in soil health frameworks. We evaluated nematode counts as a potentially rapid measure of land use effects on soil biology in a benchmark Mollisol. We assessed pedons (0–120 cm) from conventional, no-till, and grassland fields in eastern North Dakota in October 2022. Although bulk density was 25% higher at 5–10 cm and aggregate stability was 36% lower (0–5 and 5–10 cm) in conventional versus grassland fields, land use did not affect nematode counts above 20 cm (288–2498 100 g−1 dry soil). Land use did mitigate nematode responses to soil properties. Nematodes more than doubled with increasing aggregate stability in no-till and grassland samples and were reduced by a third with increasing bulk density in grassland samples. Although nematode counts per se are not useful for assessing land use effects, soil properties can be used to predict nematode numbers in the series.
{"title":"Soil physical properties affect nematode counts in the Barnes soil series","authors":"Ellayna J. LaFond, Katherine A. Dynarski, Samia Hamati, Brian J. Darby, Kathryn A. Yurkonis, Ekundayo Adeleke, Ryan C. Hodges, Skye Wills, Tiffany L. Carter","doi":"10.1002/ael2.70052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Nematodes are important in soil food webs and are being considered in soil health frameworks. We evaluated nematode counts as a potentially rapid measure of land use effects on soil biology in a benchmark Mollisol. We assessed pedons (0–120 cm) from conventional, no-till, and grassland fields in eastern North Dakota in October 2022. Although bulk density was 25% higher at 5–10 cm and aggregate stability was 36% lower (0–5 and 5–10 cm) in conventional versus grassland fields, land use did not affect nematode counts above 20 cm (288–2498 100 g<sup>−1</sup> dry soil). Land use did mitigate nematode responses to soil properties. Nematodes more than doubled with increasing aggregate stability in no-till and grassland samples and were reduced by a third with increasing bulk density in grassland samples. Although nematode counts per se are not useful for assessing land use effects, soil properties can be used to predict nematode numbers in the series.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145969699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Agricultural systems are vulnerable to extreme weather, market volatility, and changing socio-cultural contexts. Despite efforts to create transformational solutions in agriculture to ensure economic, social, and environmental sustainability, there is often a disconnect between research findings and real-world experience. Co-production is a collaborative process that engages farmers, ranchers, and other community members as equals in research design and implementation, incorporates diverse knowledges, and includes community members as research decision-makers. While co-production requires more time, trust, and institutional support, it offers greater research impact and increased public support for science as a problem-solving tool. We share three case studies from our own research, and an introduction to the literature featuring best practices, to illustrate pathways for integrating co-production in research programs.
{"title":"Co-produced agricultural research can provide value for communities while building trust and public support for science","authors":"Alison J. Duff, Hailey Wilmer, Jules Reynolds","doi":"10.1002/ael2.70053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ael2.70053","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Agricultural systems are vulnerable to extreme weather, market volatility, and changing socio-cultural contexts. Despite efforts to create transformational solutions in agriculture to ensure economic, social, and environmental sustainability, there is often a disconnect between research findings and real-world experience. Co-production is a collaborative process that engages farmers, ranchers, and other community members as equals in research design and implementation, incorporates diverse knowledges, and includes community members as research decision-makers. While co-production requires more time, trust, and institutional support, it offers greater research impact and increased public support for science as a problem-solving tool. We share three case studies from our own research, and an introduction to the literature featuring best practices, to illustrate pathways for integrating co-production in research programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.70053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145842990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kelly R. Wilson, Tanner O. Rankin, Jordon Wade, Timothy Haithcoat, Jenny Melo-Velasco, Olivia Caillouet, Donna Brandt, Catherine Brockert
Many soil health indicators have been developed by researchers to aid farmer decision-making yet rarely incorporate farmer preferences in the presentation of that data. To fill this gap, we conducted focus groups with Midwestern row crop farmers to elicit the characteristics they want to translate data from soil health indicators into useable information that inform management decisions. Farmers were interested in the potential economic and conservation benefits of soil health, but current soil health report outputs are difficult to understand and put in practice. Farmers wanted clear management guidance that is tailored to their specific edaphic context. While they expressed ambivalence about specific indicators, they wanted to understand a full picture of their soil health. Moreover, they expressed interest in using the information to both affirm current management practices and adopt future practices. Findings suggest that improved alignment of current research questions with stakeholder needs can help harness the potential of soil health.
{"title":"Turning numbers into knowledge: Farmer-preferred approaches for soil health reporting","authors":"Kelly R. Wilson, Tanner O. Rankin, Jordon Wade, Timothy Haithcoat, Jenny Melo-Velasco, Olivia Caillouet, Donna Brandt, Catherine Brockert","doi":"10.1002/ael2.70048","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ael2.70048","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Many soil health indicators have been developed by researchers to aid farmer decision-making yet rarely incorporate farmer preferences in the presentation of that data. To fill this gap, we conducted focus groups with Midwestern row crop farmers to elicit the characteristics they want to translate data from soil health indicators into useable information that inform management decisions. Farmers were interested in the potential economic and conservation benefits of soil health, but current soil health report outputs are difficult to understand and put in practice. Farmers wanted clear management guidance that is tailored to their specific edaphic context. While they expressed ambivalence about specific indicators, they wanted to understand a full picture of their soil health. Moreover, they expressed interest in using the information to both affirm current management practices and adopt future practices. Findings suggest that improved alignment of current research questions with stakeholder needs can help harness the potential of soil health.</p>","PeriodicalId":48502,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural & Environmental Letters","volume":"10 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2025-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ael2.70048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145824515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}