Next Article in Journal
Evaluation, Regional Disparities and Driving Mechanisms of High-Quality Agricultural Development in China
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Annona diversifolia Seed Extract as A Natural Coagulant for Water Treatment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Systems Engineering Using Life Cycle Assessment: Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Agro-Environmental Footprint

1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 1411713116, Iran
2
Genetics and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute of Tabarestan, Department of Agronomy, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari 6898448181, Iran
3
Department of Biosystem Engineering, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari 6898448181, Iran
4
Department of Water Engineering, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari 6898448181, Iran
5
Department of Engineering and Engineering Technology, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 6326; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076326
Submission received: 4 January 2023 / Revised: 1 April 2023 / Accepted: 4 April 2023 / Published: 6 April 2023

Abstract

:
The increase in population has increased the need for agricultural and food products, and thus agricultural production should be increased. This goal may cause increases in emissions and environmental impacts by increasing the consumption of agricultural inputs. The prediction of environmental impacts plays an important role in evaluating pollutant emissions in crop production. This study employed two artificial intelligence (AI) methods: the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system–fuzzy c-means (ANFIS–FCM) algorithm as a novel computational method, and an artificial neural network (ANN) as a conventional computational method to predict the environmental impacts of soybean production in different scenarios (i.e., soybean cultivation after rapeseed (R-S), wheat (W-S), and fallow (F-S)). The life cycle of soybean production was assessed in terms of environmental impacts through the IMPACT2002+ method in SimaPro. In the present study, the production of one ton of soybeans was considered the functional unit, and the boundary of the system was considered the gate of the field. According to the results, the production of each ton of soybean in the defined scenarios resulted in 0.0009 to 0.0016 DALY, 5476.18 to 8799.80 MJ primary, 1033.68 to 1840.70 PDF × m2 × yr, and 563.55 to 880.61 kg CO2-eq damage to human health, resources, ecosystem quality, and climate change, respectively. Moreover, the weighted analysis indicated that various soybean production scenarios led to 293.87–503.73 mPt damage to the environment, in which the R-S scenario had the best environmental performance. According to the results, the ANFIS–FCM algorithm acted as the best prediction model of environmental indicators for soybean cultivation in all cases related to the ANN. The range of calculated R2 for the ANFIS-FCM and ANN models were between 0.9967 to 0.9989 and 0.9269 to 0.9870, respectively. It can be concluded that the proposed ANFIS–FCM model is an efficient technique for obtaining accurate environmental prediction parameters of soybean cultivation.

1. Introduction

The most important factor for good management of agricultural products, such as soybean, is good decision-making. The decision-making process can be undertaken using current conditions and expected future conditions. Hence, there exists a need for a model to predict various parameters of soybean cultivation. Several models may be available for this type of prediction. However, since there is not a clear and specific relationship between inputs and outputs in soybean cultivation, the applied model should ideally have high precision, be fast and computationally inexpensive, and have the ability to solve these issues. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) and ANFIS-FCM are well-known computational systems and methods used to predict the output of complex systems and solve multifaceted nonlinear problems with high accuracy. The methods of machine learning (ML) or artificial intelligence (AI) have been recently considered in the fields of biomass, food, and agriculture by many researchers; therefore, progress in this field is rapidly being made [1,2,3]. Consequently, it is indispensable to predict environmental impacts for various types of agricultural production and identify appropriate means to reduce emissions and pollutant gases [4].
The agricultural sector directly accounts for around 10–15% of the world’s GHG emissions, which rises to about 30% if adding emissions from deforestation and land-use changes [5]. Additionally, based on a special report from the IPCC in 2019, forestry, agriculture, and other land-use sectors had a 23% share of total anthropogenic GHG from 2007–2016 [6]. Iran, with approximately 616,741 million tons of CO2-equivalent emissions, is not exempt from this rule. It is the country most responsible for global warming (GW) in the Middle East and the seventh most responsible country in the world [7]. Significant population growth, along with the reduction of water resources and productive land area in the country [8], has led Iran’s agriculture to compress rapidly over the past few decades. This has led to increasing yield production from existing farmland, which naturally requires more energy, materials, and water to ensure food security for the growing populations. As these inputs (resources) and intensive farming practices increase, GHG emissions, as well as the emission of other harmful gases, increase, which causes various environmental hazards, such as damage to ecosystem quality, human health, and the climate change phenomenon and its related consequences, e.g., reduced agricultural productivity [9].
Currently, various concepts and methods exist for environmental, economic, and/or social assessments of processes, products, or specific activities [10]. Each of these developed tools has the desired characteristics as accompanied by its limitations. As a comprehensive scientific and internationally standardized tool to achieve sustainable production and consumption, the life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach makes it possible to analyze eco-efficiency and optimize agro-systems [11,12]. LCA is a methodology used to determine environmental burdens, considering the usage of resources and the emissions throughout a product’s lifetime, i.e., from the stage of material extraction, manufacturing, and utilization, to waste management phases [13]. This method evaluates and quantifies the environmental burdens of a product or process within the scope defined, i.e., system boundary [14]. Accordingly, it can compare the various systems’ environmental impacts [15].
LCA enables the diagnosis of environmental problems before damages occur, focusing on agricultural practices and identifying the most critical environmental hotspots [12]. Moreover, this powerful tool can cover a broad range of other environmental issues, such as the effects of eco-toxic from metals, aquatic eutrophication, non-renewable resources depletion, toxic impacts on human health, and climate change [15].
Various researchers have focused on using combined ML and LCA methods to predict output energy and environmental impacts of agricultural products. Elhami et al. [16] used a combination of artificial neural network (ANN) and LCA methods to assess the model yield and environmental emissions from lentil cultivation. Their studies showed that an ANN model with the structure of 9-10-6-11 is the most suitable network for predicting yield and environmental effects in lentil cultivation.
The combined application of LCA and an adaptive neural fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) for energy modeling and environmental emissions of oilseeds was performed by Mousavi-Avval et al. [17]. They also used artificial neural networks (ANNs) to compare the multi-level ANFIS in their research. They concluded that multilevel ANFIS can be used as a useful tool in predicting the energy, economic, and environmental indicators of agricultural production systems in different regions. Their evaluations also showed that the multilevel ANFIS model was able to more accurately predict the energy, economic, and environmental outputs of canola compared to the ANNs.
Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al. [2] predicted the energy and environmental impacts of paddy production using a combination of AI methods (ANNs and ANFIS) and LCA. The results showed that the ANFIS model based on a hybrid learning algorithm with a correlation coefficient (R) was used to predict output energy of 0.860 and environmental impacts of 0.997. Additionally, an ANN model with a 12-6-8-1 structure predicted energy and environmental impacts with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.524 and 0.999, respectively.
To predict the life cycle environmental impacts and output energy of sugarcane production in planted or ratoon farms, research was performed by Kaab et al. [3] using two methods of AI, namely ANNs and ANFIS. Overall, their results showed that the ANFIS model is a useful tool for predicting the environmental impact and output energy of sugarcane production in planted and ratoon farms. A comparison of ML approaches to estimate the spatially explicit life cycle of GW and eutrophication of corn production was performed in the U.S. Midwest region in a case study by Romeiko et al. [18]. Their results showed that the gradient-boosting regression tree model had the highest prediction accuracy with cross-validation (CV) values of 0.8 and 0.87 for life-cycle GW and the life cycle eutrophication impacts, respectively.
Iran also has many advantages in the production of agricultural products. One of these products is soybean. It is a major oilseed crop and supply of vegetable oil in Iran mostly planted for edible oil and meal [19]. Such cultivation occurs mainly in the northern and northwestern provinces of the country, i.e., Golestan, Mazandaran, and Ardabil [20]. However, despite the potential to produce this oilseed crop in Iran, it still imports about 95% of its 1.5 million tons of vegetable oil [21]. Hence, to create capacity and promote soybean production in Iran, FAO implemented a Technical Cooperation Project (TCP) in the country in 2017–2019 [22]. In addition to highlighting the importance of further development of this oilseed crop, this issue also provides a good incentive for new research in the field.
Despite the importance of the EIA for sustainable economic growth, it has not had a long history in Iran [23], and although more than two decades (since 1994) have passed since its official introduction in the country, little research has been carried out in the field [24]. However, though few studies have been reported on the EIA of soybean production in Iran, the effects of different cultivation scenarios on the production of this crop have not yet been investigated. Moreover, based on a literature review, it has been observed that ANNs and ANFIS are the only ML methods used in life-cycle assessments. Therefore, it is essential to introduce a new model that can accurately predict several environmental impacts based on input energies. In this study, the ANFIS-FCM algorithm as a novel computational method based on fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering was used to predict the environmental performance of soybean based on life cycle input and output data. Finally, a comparison was made between the proposed model and the artificial neural network model using the statistical quality parameters. The present study can guide decision-makers in drafting policies and creating awareness to provide solutions for sustainable production and management. Farmers can also adopt proper crop management in this regard, given the potential contributions of any soybean cultivation system to emissions, environmental protection, and economic benefits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Region and Farming System Description

Mazandaran (located at 35° to 36° N latitude, 50° to 54° E longitude) is one of the northern provinces of Iran that is situated on the southern side of the Caspian Sea (Figure 1). Mazandaran Province is one of the most important agricultural hubs in Iran, thanks to its specific geographical location and natural features (weather conditions, surface, and underground water resources, fertile soil, etc.). Soybean cultivation in this region is performed mainly in rotation with wheat, rapeseed, and fallow. In this study, three scenarios were investigated because of their dominance in different regions of the province, as follows:
(1)
Soybean cultivation after rapeseed harvest;
(2)
Soybean cultivation after wheat harvest;
(3)
Soybean cultivation after six months of fallow.

2.2. LCA of Soybean Production

Based on ISO standards [25], LCA as an appropriate approach to investigating the environmental impacts of agricultural products includes four stages: defining scope and target, life-cycle inventory (LCI), assessing impacts, and results interpretation.

2.2.1. Goal, Functional Unit, and System Boundary

In this study, the FU was mass-based on 1 ton of soybean produced. The system boundary included agricultural operations and all inputs used by farmers from the cradle (e.g., fuel and biocide production from raw materials) to the farm gate (harvested soybean) (Figure 2).

2.2.2. LCI Analysis and Data Collection

This step of LCA is an inventory of various input/output data for a product about the system under study, including the collection and analysis of these data throughout its life cycle [26]. In fact, in this segment of LCA, all quantitative and qualitative data collected (measured, calculated, or estimated for each unit/process) are utilized to quantify the inputs and outputs related to every unit (or process) that enters the system boundary [25].
In this study, two datasets were used to complete the LCI.
  • Background systems (cradle-to-gate) data: Data related to this section include the environmental impacts of production, distribution, and transportation of inputs (e.g., biocides, chemical fertilizers, electricity, and fuels). In the present study, the data used in this section were adapted from the EcoInvent3.5 database available in SimaPro software v. 9.0.0.49.
  • Foreground systems (gate-to-gate) data: Data associated with this section include the number of inputs (fertilizers, biocides, and fuels, etc.), and outputs, i.e., soybean seed, and emissions in water, soil, and air caused by input application on the farm (from the planting to harvesting of soybean).
According to Table 1, based on the amount of active ingredient per pesticide, On-Farm emissions from biocides were considered 0.01, 0.09, and 0.9 (kg/kg) for water, air, and soil, respectively [27]. The application of chemical fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) is also responsible for several On-Farm emissions. In this context, for the calculation of pollutants in air and water, the standard equations and conversion coefficients of pollutants to the applied value (Table 1) were applied [28]. Additionally, the chemical fertilizers used in the field cause the emission of heavy metals into the soil, resulting in environmental pollution and harm to human health. In the present study, the coefficients presented in Table 2 were used to calculate the heavy metal emissions in the soil [27].
The diesel fuel combustion in tractor engines and other agricultural machinery emits some harmful compounds into the air (e.g., CO2). As shown in Table 3, the EcoInvent database was used to calculate the On-Farm emissions derived from the combustion of diesel fuel [29,30]. Additionally, emission factors for air emissions from kerosene [31,32,33] fuel combustion are presented in Table 3. Ultimately, all the inputs and outputs (the inventory data), based on the FU of 1-ton product yield (i.e., soybean), were imported to SimaPro software v. 9.0.0.49 for further analysis.
In this study, to determine the information on agricultural input consumption, the initial data were collected by providing questionnaires and face-to-face interviews with farmers. Additionally, the simple random sampling method and Cochran formula were used to determine the number of farmers or sample size [34]. All inputs and soybean yields collected from farmers as well as On-Farm emissions from the application of these inputs in different cultivation scenarios are presented in Table 4.

2.2.3. Assessing the Impacts of Soybean Production

As the third step of the LCA, impact assessment, which applies LCI results and provides characterization factors, expresses the impacts per amount of inventory [13,35]. In addition, to evaluate potential environmental impacts, this step also provides information on the life-cycle interpretation stage [13].
In this study, the IMPACT 2002+ (v2. 15) model was used to determine soybean production’s environmental impacts. This methodology is a combination of the CML, Eco-indicator 99, IPCC, and Impact 2002 methods [36]. IMPACT 2002+ combines the midpoint and damage indicators as a life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodology to enhance consistency in the impact pathway modeling [37]. As described in Humbert et al. [38], the model consists of 15 midpoint categories (Figure 3), all of which are expressed in units of a reference substance and are related to four damage indicators of ecosystem quality (PDF × m2 × yr: Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) of species, year (yr), climate change (kg CO2-eq), resources (MJ primary), and human health (DALY: Disability-Adjusted Life Years).

2.3. ANFIS-FCM Method

The adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) was first proposed by Jang [39]. ANFIS is a neural network that uses the Takagi–Sugeno inference model structure. ANFIS is a powerful modeling technique with a combination of learning rules from ANNS and linguistic transparency of fuzzy logic theory. Fuzzy inference systems (FIS) are one of the most popular applications of fuzzy logic theory in various fields of economics, science, engineering, and management. In FIS, membership functions (MFs) usually have to be manually adjusted by trial and error, and this model is known as the white box, while in the ANN, achieving the goal is self-learning and acts as a black box. The general picture of ANFIS architecture is described in Figure 4. This model includes five layers with several nodes described by the node function. The function of each layer is described as follows. The set of parameters in this model that can be changed and fixed are shown as squares and circles, respectively.
Layer 1: The first layer comprised of an adaptive node with a node function converting the inputs into a fuzzy set using the process of fuzzification:
O 1 , i = μ A i X 1 , f o r i = 1 , 2 O 1 , i = μ B i 2 X 2 , f o r i = 3 , 4
where X1 and X2 are the input variables i, A and B are the linguistic labels characterized with this node, and μ(X1) and μ(X2) are the MFs, such as a generalized bell, sigmoid or triangular.
Layer 2: Every circle node in layer 2 represents a fixed node and is labeled by Π, which multiplies the input signals and sends the output signal.
O 2 , i = w i = μ A i X 1 . μ B i 2 X 2 , f o r i = 1 , 2
where the O2,i is the output of Layer 2. The output of each node wi shows the firing strength of a rule.
Layer 3: Every circle node in layer 3 is considered a fixed node. Here, the ratio of the ith rule is firing strength to the sum of all firing strength, calculated as:
O 3 , i = w ¯ i = w i w 1 + w 2 , f o r i = 1 , 2
where the O3,i is the output of Layer 3. The w ¯ is the normalized firing strength of the fuzzy rule.
Layer 4: This layer is called defuzzier. In this layer, for every square node, the output from the previous layer is multiplied with the function of fuzzy rules:
O 4 , i = w ¯ i . f i , f o r i = 1 , 2
where f1 and f2 are the fuzzy if–then rules as follows:
Rule   1 .   IF   X 1   i s   A 1   a n d   X 2   i s   B 1 ,   T H E N   f 1 = p 1 X 1 + q 1 X 2 + r 1
Rule   2 .   IF   X 1   i s   A 2   a n d   X 2   i s   B 2 ,   T H E N   f 2 = p 2 X 1 + q 2 X 2 + r 2
where, pi, qi, and ri are the parameters set (consequent parameters).
Layer 5: The single circle node in layer 5 in the fifth layer of the output layer is labeled Σ, which calculates using the sum of all inputs of the previous layer:
O 5 , i = i w ¯ i . f i , = i w i . f i w i = f o u t
The most widely used ANFIS learning rule is “back-propagation”, which calculates error signals recursively from the output layer (layer 5) and transfers backward to the input nodes (layer 1). The gradient descent method is applied to optimize the parameters of the premise part. This learning rule is the same as the back-propagation learning rule in the feed-forward neural networks. Excessive slowness and being trapped in local minima for conventional methods are some of the main problems that can be solved by a hybrid learning algorithm.
The ANFIS-fuzzy c-means clustering is the most common hybrid learning method of fuzzy clustering. In this structure, the behavior of the data describes the rules of ANFIS. The fuzzy c-means (FCM) method determines the number of rules and MFs for input and output variables. The developed K-means algorithm is the FCM method. FCM divides the data set X into C clusters by minimizing the weight distance errors for each data point Xi relative to all C cluster centroids. Thereafter, the algorithm tries to minimize the objective function, which is a generalization of the least-squares method:
j m = c = 1 c i = 1 n w i c p || x i v c || 2
where n represents the number of data points, c presents the number of clusters, v is the cluster centers, w i c is the degree of membership of xi in the cluster c, and x shows the input data point. w i c can be calculated with the following formula:
w i c = 1 k = 1 c || x i v i || || x i c k || 2 / p 1
where p presents the fuzzifier exponent and k is the number of iteration steps.
Additionally, in the FCM algorithm, after initializing the central vectors, the centers are calculated with the following formula:
v i = i = 1 n w i c p x i i = 1 n w i c p
In this study, the input set for the developing model included 14 variables independent of field soybean cultivation, including the type of soybean cultivation (after wheat cultivation, rapeseed cultivation, and fallow land), seed, agricultural machinery, polyethylene, nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, sulfur, herbicide, insecticide, electricity, diesel, lubricating oil, and kerosene (Table 4). Human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources were given as data output sets. This data set was subdivided into 123 data for training and 52 data for testing. In the modeling process, ANFIS-related functions in Matlab software (version Matlab 2019) were used to generate the model program. In the modeling process, the parameters of the ANFIS model are determined during the learning phase at a specific epoch that verifies that errors are minimal. Experimental datasets are applied to assess the accuracy, effectiveness, and prevention of over-fitting of the trained model. To create the structure of FIS from data in ANFIS, the FCM clustering method was used in this work. These methods were applied to develop and select the best LCA prediction model for soybean cultivation. In this study, 70% of the data was used for training (123 data) and 30% of the data was used for testing (52 data). In this method, the number of rules and MFs for input and output variables is determined by the FCM method. The number of clusters (NC) created by FCM can be specified in the program. Determining the radius of a smaller cluster usually results in more clusters. This means more rules have been produced in FIS. When the FIS structure type is selected as Sugeno, the input and output membership types are defined as gauss and linear, respectively. Six alternative models are produced by assigning different values to the NC. The NC determines the number of MFs and rules. Simulations are performed for these alternative models to find the optimal FIS structure.

2.4. ANN Method

ANN with a multi-layered feed-forward (MLFF) back-propagation algorithm learns by changing the weights; these changes are stored as knowledge. To obtain the best prediction by the network, several architectures were evaluated and trained to apply the experimental data. The hidden layer can consist of one or more layers; the number of neurons in each layer varies and is usually determined by trial and error [40]. In this study, the neural network structure was modeled with 14 factors, including inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers, agriculture machinery, polyethylene, electricity, diesel, lubricating oil, kerosene, and seed as 14 neurons in the input layer, and the 4 factors of human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources as output layer neurons. Combined parameters, such as the number of hidden layers, the number of neurons, and the number of training cycles during the artificial neural network training process, were determined by trial and error. The total number of input patterns to the network was 123, which were randomly divided into three groups: training (70%), evaluation (15%), and testing (15%). Additionally, the training rate for all cases was 0.2 and the momentum rate was 0.1. The best neural network topology was determined based on two criteria: R and RMSE.

2.5. Model Validation

Statistical parameters were used to evaluate and fit the best model for data. Indices of mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root means square error (RMSE), and the determination coefficient (R2) can be expressed as:
M A P E = 1 n i = 1 n y i y i y i × 100
R M S E = 1 n i = 1 n ( y i y i ) 2
R 2 = 1 i = 1 n ( y i y i ) 2 i = 1 n ( y i y ¯ ) 2
where y i and y i are the observed and predicted values for the ith testing dataset (respectively), y represents the average of the observed values (respectively), and n represents the total number of data.

3. Results

3.1. EIA of Soybean Production Scenarios

3.1.1. Results of Damage Assessment

The damage categories result for the production of 1 ton of soybean, based on the IMPACT2002+ method presented in Table 5 and illustrated graphically in Figure 5, showed the relative contribution of different inputs to the four environmental damage indicators. Based on the obtained results, On-Farm emissions from soybean production in all cultivation scenarios have the highest share in the three damage categories of human health (>71%), climate change (>50%), and ecosystem quality (>89%). In the following section, we will concentrate on the description of soybean production’s environmental damages.
As shown in Table 5, in different scenarios of soybean production, the highest CO2-eq value related to W-S (880.61 kg) was followed by F-S (794.50 kg), and the lowest CO2-eq value was for the R-S (563.55 kg) cropping system. In this way, the R-S scenario was the best in terms of kg CO2-eq emissions, which led to a reduction of about 29 and 36% compared to the F-S and W-S scenarios. According to Figure 5, the direct emissions from farm operations played the most important role in increasing GW or climate change in different scenarios of soybean production (about 51–60%). This increase was mainly due to the release of CO2 from diesel combustion in all farms and then the emitted N2O, albeit in smaller amounts compared to CO2. Likewise, concerning Figure 5, the contribution of indirect emissions from seed production to this category was also significant.
As shown in Figure 3, the resource damage category is related to the two midpoint categories of mineral extraction and non-renewable energy. These midpoints mean “MJ additional or surplus energy (or kg-eq iron)” and “MJ total primary non-renewable energy (or kg-eq crude oil)”, respectively [41]. According to Table 5, the R-S scenario with a total value of 5476.18 MJ primary had the lowest use of resources. The highest damage to resources was also related to the W-S scenario, which was estimated at 8799.80 MJ primary. As can be deduced from Figure 5, diesel has played the biggest role in creating the environmental burden of this damage category. After diesel, the share of nitrogenous chemical fertilizers was also significant, which varied from about 16–22% in different scenarios.
The results demonstrate that the total amount of damage to ecosystem quality in the wheat–soybean (W-S) scenario is higher than in other scenarios (Table 5). In other words, the production of each ton of soybeans in the R-S, F-S, and W-S scenarios has resulted in damage of 1033.68, 1410.73, and 1840.70 PDF × m2 × yr to the quality of the ecosystem, respectively. This shows that the R-S scenario performed better than the F-S and W-S scenarios by about 27 and 44%, respectively, in terms of ecosystem degradation in the region. The most damage to this category in the production of soybean relates to the field operations, with no considerable share from background processes (Figure 5). It is also notable that the main contributors to On-Farm emissions are heavy metals (mostly Zn) in applied chemical fertilizers; in particular, phosphorus.
As shown in Table 5, the total amounts of human health damage category produced in the F-S, R-S, and W-S scenarios are 0.0015, 0.0009, and 0.0016 DALY, respectively. As can be seen in Figure 5, this difference is mainly due to the high share of direct emissions in different scenarios, i.e., about 71–78%. Given the importance of human health, it is of particular importance to identify the sources of these pollutants so that the right management strategies can be provided to mitigate these emissions by identifying these inputs. The analysis revealed the direct emissions of NOX and Particulates, <2.5 μm caused by diesel fuel, and NH3 from nitrogen fertilizers had the most significant role in damage to human health in all scenarios of soybean production, respectively. Like N2O, the release of NH3 depends on the number of nitrogen fertilizers consumed on farms [42]. In this way, as the results in Table 5 also show, the R-S scenario can be introduced as the best scenario in terms of damage to human health due to the reduced emission of these On-Farm pollutants. According to the results listed in Table 5, this scenario showed a decrease of about 44 and 40% in damage to human health compared to the other two scenarios, i.e., W-S and F-S, respectively.
Because damage categories have different units, it is still difficult to select the most environmental scenario. Accordingly, damage categories were weighted according to the IMPACT 2002+ method to obtain a single score (in milli Point unit (mPt)) based on which decisions could be made. Based on the results obtained from the weighting analysis, the total environmental damage for soybean production under various cultivation scenarios was 293.87–503.73 mPt. Moreover, the human health damage category had a critical role in the total environmental impacts of around 43–47%.

3.1.2. Comparison of Environmental Damages among Various Scenarios

From Figure 6, it is evident that the R-S scenario showed greater environmental compliance than the other scenarios. More specifically, compared to W-S (as the most applied scenario in Mazandaran), R-S led to a reduction of around 44, 44, 36, 38, and 42%, respectively, in human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, resources, and total environmental damage.

3.2. Evaluating of ANFIS-FCM and ANN Models

The ANFIS-FCM models and performance results are given in Table 6. As can be seen, it is not easy to conclude that with more clusters, better performance results can be obtained. For environmental parameters, i.e., human health, climate change, and resources, the best performance of the model was obtained in the lower clusters (FCM2). On the other hand, for ecosystem quality, the best performance forecast of the model in cluster 3 was obtained (FCM3). The criterion for selecting the best model is fewer differences in the RMSE of training and testing of models. For example, in ecosystem quality, the RMSE values obtained for training, testing, and all data sets were 31.20, 42.02, and 34.83, respectively. Therefore, the ANFIS-FCM3 model was considered with three optimal rules in ecosystem quality. Increasing the number of clusters causes over-fitting of the model. For instance, in the FCM7 model, although the training error was the lowest (RMSE = 20.98), the testing error reached its highest level (RMSE = 1776.55). This trend can be seen for other environmental parameters in the ANFIS-FCM model by increasing the number of rules and cluster models.
Additionally, the parameters of the most accurate ANN network models in predicting environmental impacts for soybean production are shown in Table 7. The results of MAEP, RMSE, and R for the neural networks were calculated. Feed-forward backpropagation neural networks with the Levenberg–Marquardt training algorithm for ANN models were used. Sigmoid “tansig” and “purelin” linear functions were used as activation functions in the hidden and output layers, respectively. The best ANN structures were 14-10-7-1, 14-11-6-1, 14-10-10-1, and 14-12-8-1 for human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources, respectively. It can be seen that the coefficient of determination values differ from 0.9863 to 0.9938 in the overall data, 0.9666 to 0.9977 for the testing, 0.9688 to 0.9929 for the validation, and 0.9945 to 0.9996 for the training in the ANN models.
According to the statistical indices shown in Figure 7, the calculated coefficients of determination (R2) to predict the environmental impacts obtained by the ANFIS-FCM models were higher than the ANN models. The R2 ranges for the ANFIS-FCM and ANN models were between 0.9967 to 0.9989 and 0.9269 to 0.9870, respectively. Two other parameters that were used to evaluate the accuracy of the model are RMSE and MAPE. The lower value of these parameters indicates higher model accuracy. The RMSE and MAPE values obtained in ANFIS-FCM were lower compared to the ANN model for all environmental indicators. The MAPE values for the ANFIS-FCM and ANN models were obtained at 3.71, 5.54, 2.18, and 2.26, and 6.35, 13.22, 7.51, and 4.76 for human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources, respectively. Additionally, results revealed the values of the RMSE were 5.35 × 10−5, 34.90, 18.57, and 186.98 in ANFIS-FCM and 1.09 × 10−4, 234.12, 63.84 and 858.51 in the ANN model for human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources, respectively.
In general, according to the results of the ANN and ANFIS-FCM models, it is concluded that the ANFIS-FCM model performed better than ANN in all aspects for the prediction of environmental impacts in soybean farms. Additionally, Figure 8 illustrates the environmental indicator prediction results in the ANFIS-FCM model versus actual environmental indicator data for climate change, ecosystem quality, human health, and resources. The prediction results show that it is fully consistent with the actual results. A more complete distinction between them can be seen in Figure 9. The range of calculated R2 for predicting all environmental parameters is very close to each other (Figure 9).

4. Discussion

The increase in population in recent years and its growing trend in future years has increased the need for agricultural and food products, and thus the agricultural production should be increased. This goal can lead to increases in GHG emissions, and the subsequent phenomenon of climate change, by increasing the consumption of inputs such as nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers, diesel fuel, and manure [43]. Nitrogen, as one of the most important nutrients for plant growth and higher yields, mainly by spreading manure and using chemical fertilizers in farmlands, leads to several important emissions that affect GW [27]. Amongst these emissions, nitrous oxide (N2O) has great importance due to its longevity in the atmosphere (more than 114 years) and its GWP (298 times higher than CO2). The main sources of N2O emissions in the soil are mainly due to agricultural activities, including nitrogen fertilizers applied in the soil, fossil fuel combustion, and some of the natural mechanisms that occur in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems [44]. Therefore, any strategy proposed to reduce the atmospheric concentration of GHG should be focused on the agricultural sector as an important source of their emissions.
In a similar study on the LCA of oilseeds production in Iran, Ardabil Province, the amount of CO2-eq emitted per ton of product for rapeseed, sunflower, and soybean was 2132, 2283, and 1549 kg, respectively. Moreover, the study reported that more than 70% of these emissions (GW) were due to electricity production, manure, and chemical fertilizers [45]. By comparing these results, it is clear that the GWP index for soybean production in Ardabil province is much higher than in Mazandaran, which is due to the higher consumption of these inputs and more intensive management to produce this product. In another study in South Korea [46], the amount of CO2-eq emitted from soybean production in conventional and organic farms was 1657.55 and 2045.11 kg ton−1, respectively. Like the present study, N2O emissions from the consumption of manure and chemical fertilizers and CO2 from fossil fuel combustion accounted for the largest share of total CO2-eq emitted from these farms. Manure, fuel, and fertilizer were the main contributors to GHG emissions and poor energy efficiency in Korean soybean production. To diminish these emissions, the authors proposed the optimal use of these inputs. Research to assess the LCA of farming systems in Switzerland [12] revealed that N2O and CO2 emitted from fertilizers and fossil fuels had the highest impact on GWP, respectively. Similar surveys on the LCA of soybean production in different parts of the world, such as the Northern Great Plains, USA [47], the U.S. Midwest [48], Southern Brazil [49], Mato Grosso State, Brazil [50], and Jilin Province, China [51], showed that the amount of CO2-eq emitted was calculated as 602 g kg−1, −11.4 to 22 kg kg−1, 0.734 kg kg−1, 0.186 kg kg−1, and 263 kg ton−1, respectively. Accordingly, although the emission of GHG in different agroecosystems varies depending on climatic and soil conditions, the type of management practices also has a significant effect on the amount of these emissions and their environmental impact. Hence, due to the role of diesel, and chemical fertilizers (as the most crucial environmental hotspots) in causing damage to the climate change category, improvement measures should focus on the consumption management of these inputs.
The findings revealed that in all scenarios, diesel and nitrogen fertilizer had the highest impacts on the resource category, respectively. In other words, these inputs are the main environmental hotspots in damage to this category (Figure 5). These results are consistent with the findings of Knudsen et al. [51] in Jilin Province, China. Based upon this study, the production of agro-chemicals and traction at farms, with about 73% and 27% of the total non-renewable energy used in soybean production (1710 MJ t−1), respectively, were the main contributors to the environmental burdens caused by this index. To improve the environmental profile of soybean production, they suggested a minimum consumption of nitrogen fertilizer and efficient management of manure by covering manure storage and providing adequate aeration, reducing nutrient losses and NH4 emissions. In Swiss farming systems, mechanization processes, i.e., soil cultivation and harvest, accompanied by mineral fertilizers, particularly N fertilizers, showed the highest demand for non-renewable energy resources. The reason why N fertilizers have the highest energy demand of all inorganic fertilizers is the high consumption of fossil fuels in the process of NH3 synthesis [12]. Depletion of abiotic resources refers to the use of resources such as minerals (e.g., phosphate rock) or fossil fuels, which reduces the access of future generations to these resources. Since these resources have inherent value for human beings and access to them in the future is economically and socially important [14], more monitoring and research are needed to properly manage and reduce the consumption of these valuable resources. In a similar study, the incompatibility of farm equipment and machines with the target product, as well as the use of old machinery on the farms, led to the high consumption of fossil fuel, i.e., diesel for peanut production. Therefore, it is possible to reduce diesel consumption and higher efficiency by replacing old machines with new and modern ones, as well as by conservation tillage (minimum or no-tillage), and, as a result, decrease its environmental impacts [52].
In terms of damage to ecosystem quality, chemical fertilizers were the main environmental hotspots due to their emissions. These results emphasize the importance of fertilizer consumption management in Mazandaran soybean farms. In this regard, Zortea et al. [49], Khanali et al. [53], Brentrup et al. [42], and Ntiamoah and Afrane [26] also noted the need for the efficient management of fertilizer in the production of soybean, rapeseed, wheat, and cocoa, respectively. Similarly, Matsuura et al. [54] attributed the impacts of human toxicity and freshwater eutrophication (as the impact categories affecting human health and ecosystem quality) in the soybean–sunflower production system to heavy metals and phosphate emitted from high phosphorus fertilizers consumption in soybean cultivation. These results reflect the importance of optimizing the usage of fertilizers for the cleaner production of these products. However, due to the sharing of some resources, such as the biological stabilization of nitrogen by soybean and more efficient use of land, the soybean–sunflower cropping system had better environmental performance than the sum of monocultures. As the results of this study showed, the agricultural sector, through the use of chemical fertilizers, especially phosphorus, is one of the anthropogenic sources for the release of heavy metals into the environment. By emitting these pollutants into water and soil, not only are natural ecosystems damaged, but they also endanger human health by entering the food chain [55]. Apart from being an important anthropogenic source for the release of heavy metals, phosphorus is vital as an important nutrient for crop production [56]. In addition, most countries in the world (more than 90%) do not have significant reserves of phosphate rock as the main source of production of most phosphate fertilizers, considering that no element can be replaced instead of phosphorus in biochemical processes [57], so it is important to manage the consumption of this non-renewable resource. Hence, to achieve sustainable agriculture, biofertilizers and renewable inputs can be used to improve soil fertility and minimize environmental hazards [58]. These inputs can maintain long-term soil fertility and stability through mechanisms such as biological nitrogen fixation, conversion of insoluble phosphorus in the available form for plants, and increased access to macro- and micronutrients in the rhizosphere [59]. Plant-growth-promoting microbes, such as plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and plant-growth-promoting fungi (PGPF), are examples of these biofertilizers.
According to the present study, the use of agrochemicals (herbicides and chemical fertilizers) and the burning of diesel fuel in farm machinery were the main contributors to the environmental burdens caused by sugarcane growth and harvesting in Mexico. In this study, the use of NPK fertilizers in farms had a significant contribution to the endpoint categories (climate change, ecosystem quality, human health, and resources). For dealing with this problem and to correctly estimate the amounts of fertilizer used on farms, they proposed an artificial-intelligence-based decision support system. Furthermore, they suggested the presence of agricultural experts due to the difficulty of interpreting soil test results for farmers [60]. In a similar study in Mazandaran Province, high consumption of nitrogen fertilizers and diesel fuel were the main contributors to the environmental burdens of rapeseed production in the area. They revealed that the integration of legumes, such as beans, in rotation with rapeseed could be a management strategy to reduce dependence on chemical fertilizers and thus produce more environmentally friendly rapeseed in the region [61]. Pulses increase soil productivity by reducing soil pathogens, decreasing soil erosion, and biological stabilization of nitrogen, thereby improving crop yields in rotation. In addition, pulses are environmentally friendly products due to their reduced use of inputs such as irrigation and agrochemicals, i.e., pesticides and fertilizers. Legume-based cropping systems enhance the sustainability of production systems by increasing soil biodiversity, soil health and quality, crop productivity, soil restoration, and food security [62,63].
By comparing the statistical parameter MAPE, it can be concluded that the proposed model predicts the environmental parameter climate change better than other parameters with 2.1% MAPE. The use of two artificial intelligence simulation models, ANN and ANFIS-FCM, showed that the use of these models could predict the impacts of reducing chemical fertilizers and fuel consumption on the number of emissions of pollutants and categories of environmental damage in soybean production. These forecasts can predict the best levels of agriculture inputs according to damage categories to be used by farmers. In addition, the predicted results can help to formulate different programs in farms for the future so that the optimization of emissions of pollutants and energy consumption does not cause harm to performance.

5. Conclusions

In the current study, the life-cycle assessment method was used to predict environmental impacts from soybean cultivation in different scenarios using developing models based on ANFIS-FCM and ANN. Based on the result obtained, the total environmental impact of soybean production in the studied area was in the range of 293.87–503.73 mPt ton−1, the lowest and highest of which were related to the R-S and W-S scenarios, respectively. Out of these values, about 43–47% was related to the human health damage category, which was mainly due to the consumption of diesel and chemical fertilizers. According to the results, ANFIS-FCM was chosen as a better model than ANN models due to the higher accuracy of its statistical indicators. Additionally, the RMSE and MAPE values achieved in ANFIS-FCM were lower compared to the ANN model for all soybean cultivation environmental prediction performances. Generally, the results of this study are important for the environmental burden control of soybean production. However, the results showed that soybean cultivation after rapeseed (R-S) has the smallest environmental impacts compared to the W-S and F-S scenarios. In addition, the ANFIS-FCM model can be a more useful tool than ANN to predict high-precision environmental indicators for agricultural production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.K. and A.M.; methodology, F.M.K. and A.M.; software, F.M.K. and A.M.; validation, Z.T.S. and H.P.; formal analysis, F.M.K.; investigation, H.P.; resources, M.V.; data curation, M.V.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.K.; writing—review and editing, H.P., A.M. and M.V.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, H.P. and M.N.; project administration, Z.T.S. and H.P.; funding acquisition, Z.T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is extracted from the results of a Ph.D. thesis at Tarbiat Modares University and received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets obtained and analyzed in the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This study is part of a Ph.D. thesis. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Department of Agronomy at Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. We also would like to thank the farmers, honorable officials of Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, and the Agricultural Jihad Organization of Mazandaran Province for fruitful cooperation during the data collection for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

ANNsArtificial neural networksm3Cubic meter
ANFISAdaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systemm2Square meter
AIArtificial intelligencemgMilligram
CCarbonmPtMilli point
CVCross-validationMJMega joule
CCIClimate change indicatorMTMetric ton
CuCopperMLMachine learning
CrChromiumMAPEMean absolute percentage error
CdCadmiumMFsMembership functions
C6H6BenzeneNCNumber of clusters
CO2Carbon dioxideNO3Nitrate
COCarbon monoxideNH3Ammonia
CH4MethaneN2ODinitrogen monoxide
CFCarbon footprintNOXNitrogen oxides
DALYDisability-adjusted life yearsNiNickel
EIAEnvironmental impact assessmentNMVOCNon-methane volatile organic compound
eqEquivalentsPAHPolycyclic hydrocarbons
FCMFuzzy C-means clustering algorithmPbLead
FISFuzzy inference systemsPPhosphorus
FUFunctional unitPO4−3Phosphate
F-SFallow–SoybeanPDFPotentially Disappeared Fraction
GHGGreenhouse gasesPGPRPlant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria
GWGlobal warmingPGPFPlant-growth-promoting fungi
GWPGlobal warming potentialR2Determination coefficient
gGramR-SRapeseed–Soybean
haHectareRMSERoot means square error
HCHydrocarbonsSO2Sulfur dioxide
HgMercurySeSelenium
IPCCIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeTCPTechnical Cooperation Project
ISOInternational Organization for StandardizationTJTerajoule
kWhKilowatt-hourW-SWheat–Soybean
kgKilogramyrYear
LCALife-cycle assessmentZnZinc
LCILife-cycle inventoryμmMicrometer
LCIALife-cycle impact assessmentPDFPotentially Disappeared Fraction of Species

References

  1. Samadi, S.H.; Ghobadian, B.; Nosrati, M. Prediction of Higher Heating Value of Biomass Materials Based on Proximate Analysis Using Gradient Boosted Regression Trees Method. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 2021, 43, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A.; Rafiee, S.; Mohtasebi, S.S.; Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H.; Chau, K. Integration of Artificial Intelligence Methods and Life Cycle Assessment to Predict Energy Output and Environmental Impacts of Paddy Production. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631–632, 1279–1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kaab, A.; Sharifi, M.; Mobli, H.; Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A.; Chau, K. Combined Life Cycle Assessment and Artificial Intelligence for Prediction of Output Energy and Environmental Impacts of Sugarcane Production. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 664, 1005–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Safa, M.; Samarasinghe, S. Determination and Modelling of Energy Consumption in Wheat Production Using Neural Networks: “A Case Study in Canterbury Province, New Zealand”. Energy 2011, 36, 5140–5147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Muller, A.; Jawtusch, J.; Gattinger, A. Mitigating Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture; Diakonisches Werk der EKD e.V. for Brot für die Welt: Stuttgart, Germany, 2011; pp. 1–88. [Google Scholar]
  6. IPCC Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (accessed on 17 August 2020).
  7. Mansouri Daneshvar, M.R.; Ebrahimi, M.; Nejadsoleymani, H. An Overview of Climate Change in Iran: Facts and Statistics. Environ. Syst. Res. 2019, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Karimi, V.; Karami, E.; Keshavarz, M. Climate Change and Agriculture: Impacts and Adaptive Responses in Iran. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hu, A.H.; Chen, C.-H.; Huang, L.H.; Chung, M.-H.; Lan, Y.-C.; Chen, Z. Environmental Impact and Carbon Footprint Assessment of Taiwanese Agricultural Products: A Case Study on Taiwanese Dongshan Tea. Energies 2019, 12, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Čuček, L.; Klemeš, J.J.; Kravanja, Z. A Review of Footprint Analysis Tools for Monitoring Impacts on Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 34, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chomkhamsri, K.; Wolf, M.A.; Pant, R. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook: Review Schemes for Life Cycle Assessment. In Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Management; Finkbeiner, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 107–117. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nemecek, T.; Dubois, D.; Huguenin-Elie, O.; Gaillard, G. Life Cycle Assessment of Swiss Farming Systems: I. Integrated and Organic Farming. Agric. Syst. 2011, 104, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. ISO 14040I; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  14. Brentrup, F.; Küsters, J.; Kuhlmann, H.; Lammel, J. Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems Using the Life Cycle Assessment Methodology: I. Theoretical Concept of a LCA Method Tailored to Crop Production. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 20, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bjørn, A.; Owsianiak, M.; Molin, C.; Laurent, A. Main Characteristics of LCA. In Life Cycle Assessment; Hauschild, M.Z., Rosenbaum, R.K., Olsen, S.I., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  16. Elhami, B.; Khanali, M.; Akram, A. Combined Application of Artificial Neural Networks and Life Cycle Assessment in Lentil Farming in Iran. Inf. Process. Agric. 2017, 4, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mousavi-Avval, S.H.; Rafiee, S.; Sharifi, M.; Hosseinpour, S.; Shah, A. Combined Application of Life Cycle Assessment and Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System for Modeling Energy and Environmental Emissions of Oilseed Production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Romeiko, X.X.; Guo, Z.; Pang, Y.; Lee, E.K.; Zhang, X. Comparing Machine Learning Approaches for Predicting Spatially Explicit Life Cycle Global Warming and Eutrophication Impacts from Corn Production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Satari Yuzbashkandi, S.; Khalilian, S. On Projecting Climate Change Impacts on Soybean Yield in Iran: An Econometric Approach. Environ. Process. 2020, 7, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Iran Ministry of Agriculture. Annual Agricultural Statistics; Ministry of Agriculture Planning and Economic Deputy: Tehran, Iran, 2019; Volume 1, Available online: https://dpe.maj.ir/ (accessed on 10 March 2020).
  21. Financial Tribune Iran. FAO to Kick-Start Joint Soybean Program. 2017. Available online: https://financialtribune.com/articles/economy-domestic-economy/66734/iran-fao-to-kick-start-joint-soybean-program (accessed on 18 June 2020).
  22. FAO. FAO Assists Iran to Boost Oils Seed Production and Reach Self-Sufficiency. 2017. Available online: http://www.fao.org/neareast/news/view/en/c/896554/ (accessed on 14 June 2020).
  23. Yousefi, H.; Noorollahi, Y.; Peirow, S. Status of Environmental Impact Assessment. Environ. Policy Law 2015, 45, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Khosravi, F.; Jha-Thakur, U.; Fischer, T.B. Evaluation of the Environmental Impact Assessment System in Iran. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 74, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. ISO 14044; Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  26. Ntiamoah, A.; Afrane, G. Environmental Impacts of Cocoa Production and Processing in Ghana: Life Cycle Assessment Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1735–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Durlinger, B.; Koukouna, E.; Broekema, R.; van Paassen, M.; Scholten, J. Agri-Footprint 3.0; Blonk Consultants: Gouda, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Eds.; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES): Hayama, Japan, 2006; Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm (accessed on 20 March 2020).
  29. Nemecek, T.; Kagi, T. Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Final Report Ecoinvent V2.0 No. 15a; Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ART, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories: Zurich, Switzerland, 2007; Volume 15. [Google Scholar]
  30. Khoshnevisan, B.; Rajaeifar, M.A.; Clark, S.; Shamahirband, S.; Anuar, N.B.; Mohd Shuib, N.L.; Gani, A. Evaluation of Traditional and Consolidated Rice Farms in Guilan Province, Iran, Using Life Cycle Assessment and Fuzzy Modeling. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 481, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Engineering ToolBox Combustion of Fuels and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Emission. 2009. Available online: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/nox-emission-combustion-fuels-d_1086.html (accessed on 17 November 2020).
  32. Majumdar, D.; Gajghate, D.G. Sectoral CO2, CH4, N2O and SO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption in Nagpur City of Central India. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 4170–4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ramachandra, T.V. Shwetmala Decentralised Carbon Footprint Analysis for Opting Climate Change Mitigation Strategies in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 5820–5833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cochran, W.G. Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1977; ISBN 0-471-16240-X. [Google Scholar]
  35. Humbert, S. Geographically Differentiated Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of Human Health. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jungbluth, N. Description of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods; ESU-Services Ltd.: Schaffhausen, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: http://esu-services.ch/address/tender/ (accessed on 15 June 2020).
  37. Hauschild, M.Z.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Life Cycle Impact Assessment; LCA Compendium—The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment, Illustrate; Hauschild, M.Z., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 978-94-017-9743-6. [Google Scholar]
  38. Humbert, S.; De Schryver, A.; Bengoa, X.; Margni, M.; Jolliet, O. IMPACT 2002+: User Guide, Draft for Version Q2.21; Quantis—Bibliothèque Cantonale et Universitaire: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jang, J.-S.R. ANFIS: Adaptive-Network-Based Fuzzy Inference System. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1993, 23, 665–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Agatonovic-Kustrin, S.; Beresford, R. Basic Concepts of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Modeling and Its Application in Pharmaceutical Research. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2000, 22, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Sajid, Z.; Khan, F.; Zhang, Y. Process Simulation and Life Cycle Analysis of Biodiesel Production. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 945–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brentrup, F.; Küsters, J.; Lammel, J.; Barraclough, P.; Kuhlmann, H. Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems Using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Methodology II: The Application to N Fertilizer Use in Winter Wheat Production Systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 20, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jaiswal, B.; Agrawal, M. Carbon Footprints of Agriculture Sector. In Carbon Footprints; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 81–99. ISBN 978-981-13-7915-4. [Google Scholar]
  44. Signor, D.; Cerri, C.E.P. Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Agricultural Soils: A Review. Pesqui. Agropecuária Trop. 2013, 43, 322–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dekamin, M.; Barmaki, M.; Kanooni, A.; Mosavi Meshkini, S.R. Cradle to Farm Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Oilseed Crops Production in Iran. Eng. Agric. Environ. Food 2018, 11, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, K.S.; Choe, Y.C. Environmental Performance of Organic Farming: Evidence from Korean Small-Holder Soybean Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 742–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Moeller, D.; Sieverding, H.L.; Stone, J.J. Comparative Farm-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Oilseed Feedstocks in the Northern Great Plains. BioPhys. Econ. Resour. Qual. 2017, 2, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Romeiko, X.X.; Lee, E.K.; Sorunmu, Y.; Zhang, X. Spatially and Temporally Explicit Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of Soybean Production in the U.S. Midwest. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 4758–4768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Zortea, R.B.; Maciel, V.G.; Passuello, A. Sustainability Assessment of Soybean Production in Southern Brazil: A Life Cycle Approach. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 13, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Raucci, G.S.; Moreira, C.S.; Alves, P.A.; Mello, F.F.C.; Frazão, L.D.A.; Cerri, C.E.P.; Cerri, C.C. Greenhouse Gas Assessment of Brazilian Soybean Production: A Case Study of Mato Grosso State. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Knudsen, M.T.; Yu-Hui, Q.; Yan, L.; Halberg, N. Environmental Assessment of Organic Soybean (Glycine Max.) Imported from China to Denmark: A Case Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1431–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nikkhah, A.; Khojastehpour, M.; Emadi, B.; Taheri-Rad, A.; Khorramdel, S. Environmental Impacts of Peanut Production System Using Life Cycle Assessment Methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Khanali, M.; Mousavi, S.A.; Sharifi, M.; Keyhani Nasab, F.; Chau, K. Life Cycle Assessment of Canola Edible Oil Production in Iran: A Case Study in Isfahan Province. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Matsuura, M.I.S.F.; Dias, F.R.T.; Picoli, J.F.; Lucas, K.R.G.; de Castro, C.; Hirakuri, M.H. Life-Cycle Assessment of the Soybean-Sunflower Production System in the Brazilian Cerrado. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 492–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Ali, H.; Khan, E.; Ilahi, I. Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Hazardous Heavy Metals: Environmental Persistence, Toxicity, and Bioaccumulation. J. Chem. 2019, 2019, 6730305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Gupta, D.K.; Chatterjee, S.; Datta, S.; Veer, V.; Walther, C. Role of Phosphate Fertilizers in Heavy Metal Uptake and Detoxification of Toxic Metals. Chemosphere 2014, 108, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ohtake, H.; Tsuneda, S. Phosphorus Recovery and Recycling; Springer: Singapore, 2019; ISBN 978-981-10-8030-2. [Google Scholar]
  58. Verma, J.P.; Yadav, J.; Tiwari, K.N.; Kumar, A. Effect of Indigenous Mesorhizobium spp. and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria on Yields and Nutrients Uptake of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under Sustainable Agriculture. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 51, 282–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mahdi, S.S.; Hassan, G.I.; Samoon, S.A.; Rather, H.A.; Dar, S.A.; Zehra, B. Bio-Fertilizers in Organic Agriculture. J. Phytol. 2010, 2, 42–54. [Google Scholar]
  60. Meza-Palacios, R.; Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A.; Morales-Mendoza, L.F.; Pérez-Gallardo, J.R.; Rico-Contreras, J.O.; Avarado-Lassman, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Cane Sugar Production: The Environmental Contribution to Human Health, Climate Change, Ecosystem Quality and Resources in México. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2019, 54, 668–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mousavi-Avval, S.H.; Rafiee, S.; Sharifi, M.; Hosseinpour, S.; Notarnicola, B.; Tassielli, G.; Renzulli, P.A.; Khanali, M. Use of LCA Indicators to Assess Iranian Rapeseed Production Systems with Different Residue Management Practices. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 80, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rawat, A.K.; Tripathi, U.K. Advances in Agronomy; Rawat, D.A.K., Ed.; AkiNik Publications: Delhi, India, 2019; Volume 7, ISBN 9789353357207. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zulfiqar, U.; Ahmad, M.; Valipour, M.; Ishfaq, M.; Maqsood, M.F.; Iqbal, R.; Ali, M.F.; Roy, R.; El Sabagh, A. Evaluating Optimum Limited Irrigation and Integrated Nutrient Management Strategies for Wheat Growth, Yield and Quality. Hydrology 2023, 10, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Location of the studied area in the north of Iran.
Figure 1. Location of the studied area in the north of Iran.
Sustainability 15 06326 g001
Figure 2. The diagram of cradle-to-farm-gate system boundaries of soybean production.
Figure 2. The diagram of cradle-to-farm-gate system boundaries of soybean production.
Sustainability 15 06326 g002
Figure 3. Damage groups and the linked midpoint categories in the IMPACT2002+ method.
Figure 3. Damage groups and the linked midpoint categories in the IMPACT2002+ method.
Sustainability 15 06326 g003
Figure 4. The structure of ANFIS.
Figure 4. The structure of ANFIS.
Sustainability 15 06326 g004
Figure 5. The contribution of On-Farm and Off-Farm emissions to damage categories of soybean production under different scenarios.
Figure 5. The contribution of On-Farm and Off-Farm emissions to damage categories of soybean production under different scenarios.
Sustainability 15 06326 g005
Figure 6. The weighted environmental damages of soybean production (FU = 1 ton) in different cultivation scenarios.
Figure 6. The weighted environmental damages of soybean production (FU = 1 ton) in different cultivation scenarios.
Sustainability 15 06326 g006
Figure 7. Comparison between R2 and MAPE in ANN and ANFIS-FCM models.
Figure 7. Comparison between R2 and MAPE in ANN and ANFIS-FCM models.
Sustainability 15 06326 g007
Figure 8. Prediction values versus actual data for (a) resources, (b) climate change, (c) ecosystem quality, and (d) human health.
Figure 8. Prediction values versus actual data for (a) resources, (b) climate change, (c) ecosystem quality, and (d) human health.
Sustainability 15 06326 g008aSustainability 15 06326 g008b
Figure 9. Comparison between observed and predicted values for (a) human health, (b) ecosystem quality, (c) climate change, and (d) resources.
Figure 9. Comparison between observed and predicted values for (a) human health, (b) ecosystem quality, (c) climate change, and (d) resources.
Sustainability 15 06326 g009aSustainability 15 06326 g009b
Table 1. Coefficients for computing the emissions caused by agrochemicals (fertilizers and biocides).
Table 1. Coefficients for computing the emissions caused by agrochemicals (fertilizers and biocides).
CharacteristicCoefficientEmission Result
A. Emissions of fertilizers
kg   N 2 O - N kg   N in   fertilizer   applied 0.01To air
kg   CO 2 - C kg   Urea 0.2To air
kg   NH 3 - N kg   N in   fertilizer   applied 0.1To air
kg   NO 3 - N kg   N in   fertilizer   applied 0.3To water
kg   P   emission kg   P in   fertilizer   applied 0.05To water
Indirect N2O from atmospheric deposition:
kg   N 2 O - N kg   N in   chemical   fertilizer   applied 0.001To air
Direct NOX emissions from fertilizers and soil:
kg   NO X kg   N 2 O from   fertilizers   and   soil 0.21To air
Conversion of emissions:
Conversion from kg CO2-C to kg CO2 44 12
Conversion from kg N2O-N to kg N2O 44 28
Conversion from kg NH3-N to kg NH3 17 14
Conversion from kg NO3-N to kg NO3 62 14
Conversion from kg P2O5 to kg P 62 142
B. Emissions from biocides
kg   active   ingredient kg   biocide 0.09To air
kg   active   ingredient kg   biocide 0.01To water
kg   active   ingredient kg   biocide 0.90To soil
Table 2. Coefficients for calculating the On-Farm emissions of heavy metals in soil associated with the application of chemical fertilizers in different cultivation scenarios of soybean.
Table 2. Coefficients for calculating the On-Farm emissions of heavy metals in soil associated with the application of chemical fertilizers in different cultivation scenarios of soybean.
CharacteristicHeavy Metal (mg)
CdCuZnPbNiCrHg
mg   Heavy   metal kg   N in   fertilizer   applied 6.026.0203.054.920.977.90.1
mg   Heavy   metal kg   P 2 O 5 in   fertilizer   applied 39.590.5839.067.088.3543.00.3
mg   Heavy   metal kg   K 2 O in   fertilizer   applied 0.14.86.20.82.55.80.0
Table 3. Emission factors for air emissions from fuel combustion.
Table 3. Emission factors for air emissions from fuel combustion.
Emissiong MJ−1 DieselKerosene
CO274.571.50 t TJ−1
SO22.41 × 10−20.005 MT MT−1
Pb--
CH43.08 × 10−310 kg TJ−1
C6H61.74 × 10−4-
Cd2.39 × 10−7-
Cr1.19 × 10−6-
Cu4.06 × 10−5-
N2O2.86 × 10−30.6 kg TJ−1
Ni1.67 × 10−6-
Zn2.39 × 10−5-
Benzo(a)pyrene7.16 × 10−7-
NH34.77 × 10−4-
Se2.39 × 10−7-
PAH7.85 × 10−5-
HC, as NMVOC6.80 × 10−2-
NOX1.063.00 g kg−1
CO1.50 × 10−162.00 g kg−1
Particulates, <2.5 μm1.07 × 10−1-
Table 4. LCI of agricultural inputs (per FU = 1 ton) and seed yield of soybean annual production under different cultivation scenarios in Mazandaran province, Iran.
Table 4. LCI of agricultural inputs (per FU = 1 ton) and seed yield of soybean annual production under different cultivation scenarios in Mazandaran province, Iran.
InventoryFallow–SoybeanRapeseed–SoybeanWheat–Soybean
A. Inputs (Off-Farm)Unit
1. Seedkg25.6831.5132.37
2. Agricultural machinerykg4.613.184.31
3. Fossil fuelskg
(a) Diesel71.6639.0479.67
(b) Lubricant1.351.091.87
(c) Kerosene-10.5310.50
4. ElectricitykWh27.525.8411.44
5. Biocides:kg
(a) Insecticide
Indoxacarb0.040.030.02
Diazinon0.380.34-
Chlorpyrifos-0.080.09
Cypermethrin0.240.190.13
Thiodicarb-0.380.05
Profenofos--0.31
Fenitrothion-0.19-
(b) Herbicide
Imazethapyr-0.04-
Haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl-0.19-
Trifluralin--0.14
Bentazone sodium0.12--
Paraquat--0.07
6. Polyethylenekg0.840.360.07
7. Chemical fertilizerskg
(a) Nitrogen fertilizer
Urea (N: 46-P2O5: 0-K2O: 0-S: 0)50.2525.0339.37
Ammonium sulfate (21-0-0-24)-3.75-
(b) Phosphate fertilizer
Diammonium phosphate (18-46-0)18.876.4518.89
Single superphosphate (0-16-0-12)31.73--
Superphosphate triple (0-46-0)-16.6629.47
(c) Potassium fertilizer
Potassium sulfate (0-0-52-18)-2.084.31
(d) Sulfur fertilizer
Bentonite sulfur 70% (0-0-0-70-30)-5.5513.83
Granular sulfur 90% (0-0-0-90-0)5.864.843.12
B. Output
Soybean yieldkg ha−12950.002853.332308.32
C. On-Farm
1. Emissions in air:
a. Emissions from chemical fertilizers(kg)
1. NH3 emitted from nitrogenous fertilizers 3.221.632.61
2. N2O
N2O emitted from fertilizer 4.17 × 10−12.12 × 10−13.38 × 10−1
N2O released from atmospheric deposition of fertilizers 4.17 × 10−22.12 × 10−23.38 × 10−2
3. NOX emitted from N2O of fertilizers and soil 9.62 × 10−24.89 × 10−27.81 × 10−2
4. CO2 released from urea 3.69 × 10+11.84 × 10+12.89 × 10+1
b. Emissions from biocides(kg)
1. Emissions from insecticide
Indoxacarb 5.00 × 10−44.00 × 10−43.00 × 10−4
Diazinon 2.03 × 10−21.83 × 10−2-
Chlorpyrifos -3.10 × 10−33.40 × 10−3
Cypermethrin 8.50 × 10−37.00 × 10−34.50 × 10−3
Thiodicarb -2.71 × 10−23.50 × 10−3
Profenofos --1.27 × 10−2
Fenitrothion -8.50 × 10−3-
2. Emissions from herbicide -
Imazethapyr -4.00 × 10−4-
Haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl -1.80 × 10−3-
Trifluralin --5.90 × 10−3
Bentazone 5.00 × 10−3--
Paraquat --1.30 × 10−3
c. Emissions from fossil fuels(kg)
1. Diesel
CO2 3.58 × 10+21.95 × 10+23.98 × 10+2
SO2 1.16 × 10−16.31 × 10−21.29 × 10−1
CH4 1.48 × 10−28.06 × 10−31.64 × 10−2
C6H6 8.36 × 10−44.55 × 10−49.29 × 10−4
Cd 1.15 × 10−66.26 × 10−71.28 × 10−6
Cr 5.72 × 10−63.11 × 10−66.36 × 10−6
Cu 1.95 × 10−41.06 × 10−42.17 × 10−4
N2O 1.37 × 10−27.49 × 10−31.53 × 10−2
Ni 8.02 × 10−64.37 × 10−68.92 × 10−6
Zn 1.15 × 10−46.26 × 10−51.28 × 10−4
Benzo(a)pyrene 3.44 × 10−61.87 × 10−63.82 × 10−6
NH3 2.29 × 10−31.25 × 10−32.55 × 10−3
Se 1.15 × 10−66.26 × 10−71.28 × 10−6
PAH 3.77 × 10−42.05 × 10−44.19 × 10−4
HC, as NMVOC 3.27 × 10−11.78 × 10−13.63 × 10−1
NOX 5.092.775.66
CO 7.21 × 10−13.93 × 10−18.01 × 10−1
Particulates, <2.5 μm 5.14 × 10−12.80 × 10−15.71 × 10−1
2. Kerosene(kg)
CO2 -3.39 × 10+13.38 × 10+1
CO -6.53 × 10−16.51 × 10−1
SO2 -5.27 × 10−25.25 × 10−2
CH4 -4.74 × 10−34.73 × 10−3
N2O -2.84 × 10−42.84 × 10−4
NOX -3.16 × 10−23.15 × 10−2
2. Emissions in water:
a. Emissions from chemical fertilizers(kg)
NO3 3.52 × 10+11.79 × 10+12.86 × 10+1
P 3.00 × 10−12.32 × 10−14.86 × 10−1
b. Emissions from biocides(kg)
1. Emissions from insecticide
Indoxacarb 1.00 × 10−45.00 × 10−53.00 × 10−5
Diazinon 2.30 × 10−32.03 × 10−3-
Chlorpyrifos -3.40 × 10−43.70 × 10−4
Cypermethrin 9.00 × 10−47.80 × 10−45.00 × 10−4
Thiodicarb -3.01 × 10−33.90 × 10−4
Profenofos --1.41 × 10−3
Fenitrothion -9.40 × 10−4-
2. Emissions from herbicide
Imazethapyr -4.00 × 10−5-
Haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl -2.00 × 10−4-
Trifluralin --6.60 × 10−4
Bentazone 6.00 × 10−4--
Paraquat --1.50 × 10−4
3. Emissions in soil:
a. Emissions from chemical fertilizers(mg)
1. From N-fertilizer:
Cd 1.59 × 10+28.08 × 10+11.29 × 10+2
Cu 6.89 × 10+23.50 × 10+25.59 × 10+2
Zn 5.38 × 10+32.73 × 10+34.37 × 10+3
Pb 1.46 × 10+37.39 × 10+21.18 × 10+3
Ni 5.54 × 10+22.81 × 10+24.50 × 10+2
Cr 2.07 × 10+31.05 × 10+31.68 × 10+3
Hg 2.651.352.15
2. From P-fertilizer:
Cd 5.44 × 10+24.20 × 10+28.78 × 10+2
Cu 1.25 × 10+39.62 × 10+22.01 × 10+3
Zn 1.15 × 10+48.92 × 10+31.87 × 10+4
Pb 9.22 × 10+27.12 × 10+21.49 × 10+3
Ni 1.22 × 10+39.39 × 10+21.96 × 10+3
Cr 7.47 × 10+35.77 × 10+31.21 × 10+4
Hg 4.133.196.67
3. From K-fertilizer:
Cd -1.08 × 10−12.24 × 10−1
Cu -5.181.08 × 10+1
Zn -6.701.39 × 10+1
Pb -8.64 × 10−11.79
Ni -2.705.60
Cr -6.261.30 × 10+1
b. Emissions from biocides(kg)
1. Emissions from insecticide
Indoxacarb 5.40 × 10−34.30 × 10−32.90 × 10−3
Diazinon 2.03 × 10−11.83 × 10−1-
Chlorpyrifos -3.08 × 10−23.35 × 10−2
Cypermethrin 8.46 × 10−26.98 × 10−24.50 × 10−2
Thiodicarb -2.71 × 10−13.51 × 10−2
Profenofos --1.27 × 10−1
Fenitrothion -8.46 × 10−2-
2. Emissions from herbicide
Imazethapyr -3.80 × 10−3-
Haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl -1.83 × 10−2-
Trifluralin --5.94 × 10−2
Bentazone 4.97 × 10−2--
Paraquat --1.33 × 10−2
Table 5. The results of damage categories for producing 1 ton of soybean under different scenarios.
Table 5. The results of damage categories for producing 1 ton of soybean under different scenarios.
ScenariosHuman Health
(DALY)
Ecosystem Quality
(PDF × m2 × yr)
Climate Change
(kg CO2-eq)
Resources
(MJ Primary)
Fallow–Soybean (F-S)0.00151410.73794.507669.47
Rapeseed–Soybean (R-S)0.00091033.68563.555476.18
Wheat–Soybean (W-S)0.00161840.70880.618799.80
Table 6. The performance of ANFIS-FCM models for prediction of environmental impact.
Table 6. The performance of ANFIS-FCM models for prediction of environmental impact.
Environmental ImpactsModel NameNumber of ClustersNumber of Input MFNumber of Output MFNumber of RuleEpochsRMSER
TrainingTestingAll DataTrainingTestingAll Data
Human health (DALY)FCM22[222][2]254.43 × 10−55.35 × 10−55.70 × 10−50.99830.99960.9985
FCM33[333][3]325.17 × 10−56.26 × 10−43.47 × 10−40.99860.77650.9369
FCM44[444][4]424.20 × 10−56.34 × 10−43.51 × 10−40.99910.76800.9353
FCM55[555][5]5154.77 × 10−56.26 × 10−43.47 × 10−40.99880.77060.9365
FCM66[666][6]6154.96 × 10−52.23 × 10−31.27 × 10−30.99870.60350.6807
FCM77[777][7]722.86 × 10−54.51 × 10−32.49 × 10−40.99960.87500.9668
Ecosystem quality (PDF × m2 × yr)FCM22[222][2]21535.4745.7038.860.99930.99970.9996
FCM33[333][3]3531.2042.0234.830.99940.99980.9997
FCM44[444][4]4532.2361.9743.440.99940.99960.9995
FCM55[555][5]5527.681741.04958.420.99950.61180.7369
FCM66[666][6]6220.221741.50958.540.99970.61100.7367
FCM77[777][7]7220.981776.55977.830.99970.57310.7215
Climate change (kg CO2-eq)FCM22[222][2]21517.8520.1218.570.99940.99930.9994
FCM33[333][3]3215.1138.4324.630.99950.99870.9990
FCM44[444][4]42012.51110.5861.740.99970.98610.9938
FCM55[555][5]5210.062230.00123.010.99980.93560.9731
FCM66[666][6]611005.88523.28288.010.999990.63590.8614
FCM77[777][7]711006.27291.03160.240.99990.83950.9513
Resources (MJ primary)FCM22[222][2]2100178.50205.17186.980.99930.99930.9993
FCM33[333][3]32162.87302.96222.920.99940.99840.9990
FCM44[444][4]4110072.67902.58500.400.99990.98850.9954
FCM55[555][5]5110059.20477.53267.410.99990.99720.9987
FCM66[666][6]62128.0623,009.2112,662.900.99960.36240.4370
FCM77[777][7]715118.98616.83353.690.99970.99540.9978
Table 7. The performance of ANN models for prediction of environmental impact.
Table 7. The performance of ANN models for prediction of environmental impact.
Environmental ImpactsBest Topology of ANNEpochsRRSME
TrainingValidationTestingAll DataTrainingValidationTestingAll Data
Human health14-10-7-1110.99840.98590.98660.99385.69 × 10−52.17 × 10−41.33 × 10−41.09 × 10−4
Ecosystem quality14-11-6-190.99940.98540.96660.986331.97504.00325.66234.12
Climate change14-10-10-1130.99450.99290.98790.992957.2193.2457.0563.84
Resources14-12-8-1170.99960.96880.99770.9866141.132146.36500.88858.51
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mohammadi Kashka, F.; Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Z.; Pirdashti, H.; Motevali, A.; Nadi, M.; Valipour, M. Sustainable Systems Engineering Using Life Cycle Assessment: Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Agro-Environmental Footprint. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076326

AMA Style

Mohammadi Kashka F, Tahmasebi Sarvestani Z, Pirdashti H, Motevali A, Nadi M, Valipour M. Sustainable Systems Engineering Using Life Cycle Assessment: Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Agro-Environmental Footprint. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):6326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076326

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mohammadi Kashka, Faezeh, Zeinolabedin Tahmasebi Sarvestani, Hemmatollah Pirdashti, Ali Motevali, Mehdi Nadi, and Mohammad Valipour. 2023. "Sustainable Systems Engineering Using Life Cycle Assessment: Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Agro-Environmental Footprint" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 6326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076326

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop