“…The daily mean NH 3 concentration at the study site (0.50 μg N m -3 , 27 m height) was much lower than those found in some forests affected by NH 3 -rich air, e.g., the 2-year mean at a Douglas fir forest in The Netherlands (4.3 μg N m -3 ; Wyers and Erisman, 1998) and the summer-mean at a montane-subalpine forest in Colorado, USA (3.4 μg N m -3 ; Langford and Fehsen- feld, 1992), whereas it was similar to those of some rural forests, e.g., two field campaigns conducted in spring at a secondary broadleaf forest occasionally affected by animal husbandry activities in Indiana, USA (0.5-1.0 μg N m -3 ; Pryor et al, 2001), the 5year mean at a Norway spruce forest surrounded by agricultural lands in western Jutland, Denmark (0.66 μg N m -3 ; Andersen et al, 1999), and the 3-year mean at a Norway spruce forest in a forested rural area in Saxony, Germany (0.44 μg N m -3 ; Zimmermann et al, 2006). However, the daily mean NH 3 concentration was higher than that in fairly remote forests, e.g., the 2-year mean of a snowless season at a young larch forest in northernmost Hokkaido, Japan (0.31 μg N m -3 , 30 m height; Hayashi et al, 2009a) and the summer-mean at a remote hardwood forest in central USA (0.17 μg N m -3 ; . The site of the present study had the characteristics of a forested rural area with respect to its summer-mean NH 3 concentration, although the site was a subalpine forest affected little by direct human activities.…”