 |
| Titel |
N2O fluxes measurements over a maize crop combining chamber and micrometeorological systems during the NitroCosmes Campaign |
| VerfasserIn |
Aurore Brut, Tiphaine Tallec, Valerie Le Dantec, Lilian Joly, Dominique Legain, Nicolas Dumelie, Joël Barrié, Eric Ceschia, Julien Cousin, Thomas Decarpenterie, Nicole Ferroni, Patrick Mordelet, Dominique Serça, Xavier Thomas, Bruno Mary, Raphael Noual, Bernard Marciel |
| Konferenz |
EGU General Assembly 2015
|
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| Digitales Dokument |
PDF |
| Erschienen |
In: GRA - Volume 17 (2015) |
| Datensatznummer |
250113988
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 EGU/EGU2015-14237.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| Agriculture is responsible for 13.5% of the greenhouse gases emissions at the global scale. It is a potent emitter of nitrous oxide (N2O) through nitrogen supplies into the soil by fertilizers, manure and other soil-enriching agents. However, the magnitude of these emissions is still highly uncertain due to their high spatial and temporal variability [1]. So, N2O flux monitoring is essential to detect seasonal peaks in production and to better quantify these emissions from local to global scale.
From May to September 2012, the NitroCosmes campaign involving CESBIO, GSMA, CNRM-GAME and Laboratoire d’Aérologie was held in southwestern France, at Lamasquère, an ICOS-level1 experimental site [2]. A full set-up including manual and automatic soil chambers, an Eddy Correlation (EC) tower (named Ecoflux), and a Relaxed Eddy Accumulation (REA) system was deployed to measure N2O fluxes above a maize field. The EC Ecoflux Station [3] and the REA system were both relying on an innovative and accurate Quantum Cascade Laser sensor (QCL), developed at GSMA. The results for EC measurements are encouraging since they show good agreement with the different chamber measurements. Moreover, peaks of emissions were observed after rain events or addition of fertilizer.
References should be listed as below
[1] R.L. Desjardins et al., 2010, Agr. and Forest Met., 150, 817-824.
[2] Béziat et al., 2009, Agr. and Forest Met., Volume 149, Issue 10, 1628–1645.
[3] Mappe et al., 2013, Review of scientific Instruments, 84, DOI:10.1063/1.4790376. |
|
|
|
|
|
|