Soil COS Exchange: A Comparison of Three European Ecosystems

Kitz, Florian; Spielmann, Felix M.; Hammerle, Albin; Kolle, Olaf; Migliavacca, Mirco; Moreno, Gerardo; Ibrom, Andreas; Krasnov, Dmitrii; Noe, Steffen M.; Wohlfahrt, Georg

doi:10.1029/2019gb006202

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 90 publications

(123 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Abiotic oxic soil COS production has been observed at high soil temperature (Maseyk et al, 2014;Whelan and Rhew, 2015;Kitz et al, 2017Kitz et al, , 2020Spielmann et al, 2019aSpielmann et al, , 2020. However, photodegradation has also been proposed as an abiotic production mechanism in oxic soils (Whelan and Rhew, 2015;Kitz et al, 2017Kitz et al, , 2020. Abiotic COS production is still not well understood but was assumed to originate from biotic precursors (Meredith et al, 2018).…”

Section: Oxic Soil Cos Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Soil COS flux chamber measurements were conducted in 2015 at AT-NEU; in 2016 at DK-SOR, ES-LMA, and ET-JA; and in 2017 at IT-CRO (abbreviations as in Table 1). The aboveground vegetation was removed 1 d before the measurements if needed, and the fluxes were derived from concentration measurements using a quantum cascade laser (see Kitz et al, 2020. At AT-NEU, DK-SOR, ES-LMA, and IT-CRO, a random forest model was calibrated against the manual chamber measurements and then used to simulate half-hourly soil COS fluxes in Spielmann et al (2019a).…”

Section: Soil Cos Flux Determination At Selected Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These limitations are illustrated in the set of observations selected here. Aboveground vegetation had to be removed at some sites to not measure the plant contribution in addition to soil COS fluxes (Sun et al, 2018;Spielmann et al, 2019a;Kitz et al, 2020). Vegetation removal prior to the measurements might lead to artefacts in the observations.…”

Section: Soil Cos Flux Determination At Selected Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rate of uptake varies with soil type, temperature, and soil moisture (Kesselmeier et al, 1999;van Diest and Kesselmeier, 2008;Whelan et al, 2016). With high temperature or radiation, soils were also found to emit COS through thermal or photo degradation processes (Kitz et al, 2017(Kitz et al, , 2020Whelan and Rhew, 2015;Whelan et al, 2016Whelan et al, , 2018. Although such COS emissions can be large in some conditions, they have usually not been considered in atmospheric COS budgets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Global modelling of soil carbonyl sulfide exchanges

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Carbonyl sulfide (COS) is an atmospheric trace gas of interest for C cycle research because COS uptake by continental vegetation is strongly related to terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP), the largest and most uncertain flux in atmospheric CO2 budgets. However, to use atmospheric COS as an additional tracer of GPP, an accurate quantification of COS exchange by soils is also needed. At present, the atmospheric COS budget is unbalanced globally, with total COS flux estimates from oxic and anoxic soils that vary between −409 and −89 GgS yr−1. This uncertainty hampers the use of atmospheric COS concentrations to constrain GPP estimates through atmospheric transport inversions. In this study we implemented a mechanistic soil COS model in the ORCHIDEE (Organising Carbon and Hydrology In Dynamic Ecosystems) land surface model to simulate COS fluxes in oxic and anoxic soils. Evaluation of the model against flux measurements at seven sites yields a mean root mean square deviation of 1.6 pmol m−2 s−1, instead of 2 pmol m−2 s−1 when using a previous empirical approach that links soil COS uptake to soil heterotrophic respiration. However, soil COS model evaluation is still limited by the scarcity of observation sites and long-term measurement periods, with all sites located in a latitudinal band between 39 and 62∘ N and no observations during wintertime in this study. The new model predicts that, globally and over the 2009–2016 period, oxic soils act as a net uptake of −126 GgS yr−1 and anoxic soils are a source of +96 GgS yr−1, leading to a global net soil sink of only −30 GgS yr−1, i.e. much smaller than previous estimates. The small magnitude of the soil fluxes suggests that the error in the COS budget is dominated by the much larger fluxes from plants, oceans, and industrial activities. The predicted spatial distribution of soil COS fluxes, with large emissions from oxic (up to 68.2 pmol COS m−2 s−1) and anoxic (up to 36.8 pmol COS m−2 s−1) soils in the tropics, especially in India and in the Sahel region, marginally improves the latitudinal gradient of atmospheric COS concentrations, after transport by the LMDZ (Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique) atmospheric transport model. The impact of different soil COS flux representations on the latitudinal gradient of the atmospheric COS concentrations is strongest in the Northern Hemisphere. We also implemented spatiotemporal variations in near-ground atmospheric COS concentrations in the modelling of biospheric COS fluxes, which helped reduce the imbalance of the atmospheric COS budget by lowering soil COS uptake by 10 % and plant COS uptake by 8 % globally (with a revised mean vegetation budget of −576 GgS yr−1 over 2009–2016). Sensitivity analyses highlighted the different parameters to which each soil COS flux model is the most responsive, selected in a parameter optimization framework. Having both vegetation and soil COS fluxes modelled within ORCHIDEE opens the way for using observed ecosystem COS fluxes and larger-scale atmospheric COS mixing ratios to improve the simulated GPP, through data assimilation techniques.

show abstract

Section: Oxic Soil Cos Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soil Cos Flux Determination At Selected Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Soil Cos Flux Determination At Selected Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Global modelling of soil carbonyl sulfide exchanges

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Minor Comments: Note, I stopped providing minor comments because of the length of the manuscript. Line 70: remove "then" in COS is then hydrolyses C4 Line 77: mention that soils can be a sink or a source, and cite appropriate studies (cite appropriate studies e.g., Maseyk et al, 2014;Berkelahmmer et al, 2014;Kitz et al, 2020). Also mention the role of epiphytes in the OCS budget (and cite Kuhn et al, 2000;Gimeno et al, 2017 andRastogi et al, 2018) .…”

Section: C3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Maignan et al

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maignan et al., develop a parameterization for including OCS uptake within a wellknown land surface model (ORCHIDEE ). Since OCS has been proposed as a proxy for GPP (currently not observable at large scales), this work is an important step towards estimating global GPP. The authors do a very thorough job of combing the OCS literature for published values of leaf relative uptake (LRU) and validating modeled uptake at two temperate sites where OCS flux is measured. I think this work should eventually be published in Biogeosciences. However I am currently a little confused with regard to how the paper is framed. The authors pose their formulation of OCS flux C1

show abstract

Root and rhizosphere contribution to the net soil COS exchange

Kitz,

Wachter,

Spielmann

et al. 2023

Plant Soil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims Partitioning the measured net ecosystem carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange into gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration remains a challenge, which scientists try to tackle by using the properties of the trace gas carbonyl sulfide (COS). Its similar pathway into and within the leaf makes it a potential photosynthesis proxy. The application of COS as an effective proxy depends, among other things, on a robust inventory of potential COS sinks and sources within ecosystems. While the soil received some attention during the last couple of years, the role of plant roots is mostly unknown. In our study, we investigated the effects of live roots on the soil COS exchange. Methods An experimental setup was devised to measure the soil and the belowground plant parts of young beech trees observed over the course of 9 months. Results During the growing season, COS emissions were significantly lower when roots were present compared to chambers only containing soil, while prior to the growing season, with photosynthetically inactive trees, the presence of roots increased COS emissions. The difference in the COS flux between root-influenced and uninfluenced soil was fairly constant within each month, with diurnal variations in the COS flux driven primarily by soil temperature changes rather than the presence or absence of roots. Conclusion While the mechanisms by which roots influence the COS exchange are largely unknown, their contribution to the overall ground surface COS exchange should not be neglected when quantifying the soil COS exchange.

show abstract

Soil COS Exchange: A Comparison of Three European Ecosystems

Cited by 8 publications

References 90 publications

Global modelling of soil carbonyl sulfide exchanges

Global modelling of soil carbonyl sulfide exchanges

Review of Maignan et al

Root and rhizosphere contribution to the net soil COS exchange

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About