Evaluation of calibrated passive sampling for quantifying ammonia emissions in multi‐plot field trials with slurry application

Author:

ten Huf Martin1ORCID,Reinsch Thorsten2,Kluß Christof2,Essich Christoph3,Ruser Reiner3ORCID,Buchen‐Tschiskale Caroline4ORCID,Pacholski Andreas4,Flessa Heinz4,Olfs Hans‐Werner1ORCID

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.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Plant Science,Soil Science

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3