2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the effects of agricultural management on nitrous oxide emissions using flux measurements and the DNDC model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
40
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(92 reference statements)
7
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These results demonstrate that process‐based models, like DNDC, are better than the EF approach in quantifying N 2 O emissions, as well as their mitigation potentials, for cropping systems with diverse management practices. This conclusion is consistent with previous studies that also showed DNDC was more accurate than the IPCC EF methods in predicting N 2 O emissions from cropping systems (e.g., Uzoma et al, ). We note that the agreement between the simulations and observations in seasonal and annual N 2 O emissions could sometimes have resulted from compensating discrepancies between the simulated and observed daily N 2 O fluxes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…These results demonstrate that process‐based models, like DNDC, are better than the EF approach in quantifying N 2 O emissions, as well as their mitigation potentials, for cropping systems with diverse management practices. This conclusion is consistent with previous studies that also showed DNDC was more accurate than the IPCC EF methods in predicting N 2 O emissions from cropping systems (e.g., Uzoma et al, ). We note that the agreement between the simulations and observations in seasonal and annual N 2 O emissions could sometimes have resulted from compensating discrepancies between the simulated and observed daily N 2 O fluxes.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…However, with the assumption of a deep water pool located below the bottom of the modelled soil profile (50 cm) and above the drainage tiles (145 cm) to control the tile discharge flow, this soil depth (0-50 cm) should be deep enough to cover the most important biogeochemical processes while minimizing computing time . (4) DNDC will underestimate soil moisture if observed soil moisture remains above field capacity because DNDC uses a simple cascade (tipping bucket) water flow model that drains the profile to field capacity (Kröbel et al, 2010;Uzoma et al, 2015). Likewise, because DNDC does not include unsaturated flow and underestimates the rainfall loss caused by surface runoff and leaf interception, it may overestimate soil moisture at other times (Kiese et al, 2005;Tonitto et al, 2010).…”
Section: Strengths and Weaknessesmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…However, models are largely based on existing knowledge and the lack of a clear understanding of underlying mechanisms restricts their utility (Barton et al, 1999;Heinen, 2006;Chen et al, 2008). Validations with measurement data across soil, climate and land use are vital to improve model performance (Frolking et al, 1998;Li et al, 2005;Uzoma et al, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%