Affiliation:
1. Plant Nutrition and Crop Production, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Landscape Architecture University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück Osnabrück Germany
2. Institute of Crop Science and Plant Breeding, Grass and Forage Science/Organic Agriculture Christian‐Albrechts‐University Kiel Kiel Germany
3. Department Fertilization and Soil Matter Dynamics Institute of Crop Science University of Hohenheim Stuttgart Germany
4. Thünen Institute of Climate‐Smart Agriculture Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries Braunschweig Germany
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundThere is a great need for simple and inexpensive methods to quantify ammonia emissions in multi‐plot field trials. However, methods that meet these criteria have to be thoroughly validated. In the calibrated passive sampling approach, acid traps placed in the center of quadratic plots absorb ammonia, enabling relative comparisons between plots. To quantify ammonia emissions, these acid trap samplings are scaled by means of a transfer coefficient (TC) obtained from simultaneous measurements with the dynamic tube method (DTM). However, dynamic tube measurements are also comparatively costly and time‐consuming.AimsOur objective was to assess the best practice for using calibrated passive sampling in multi‐plot field trials. One particular challenge in such experiments is to evaluate the influence of ammonia drift between plots.MethodsIn a series of eight multi‐plot field trials, acid traps and DTM were used simultaneously on all plots to measure ammonia emissions caused by different slurry application techniques. Data obtained by both methods were correlated, and the influence of the ubiquitous ammonia background on both methods was evaluated by comparing net values, including the subtraction of the background with gross values (no background subtraction). Finally, we provide recommendations for calculating a TC for calibrating relative differences between plots, based on simultaneous acid trap and dynamic tube measurements on selected plots.ResultsTreatment mean values obtained by both methods correlated well. For most field trials, R2 values between 0.6 and 0.8 were obtained. Ammonia background concentrations affected both methods. Drift between plots contributed to the background for the acid traps, whereas the contamination of the chamber system might have caused the background for the DTM. Treatments with low emissions were comparatively more affected by that background.ConclusionFor a robust application of calibrated passive sampling, we recommend calculating the TC based on a treatment with high ammonia emissions, reducing the relative influence of the ubiquitous ammonia background.
Subject
Plant Science,Soil Science
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献