“…Applying a method which is described in full detail by Feig et al (2008) and Bargsten et al (2010), sub-samples (80 g) of the composite soil sample were sieved through a 2 mm mesh and were incubated (at soil temperatures of 15 and 25 • C) and fumigated (with zero and 58 ppb NO) over the full range of 0.05 to 0.6 gravimetric soil moisture (in steps of 0.002). These laboratory studies resulted in the determination of the so-called net potential soil NO flux as function of soil temperature and moisture.…”
Section: Soil No Emission From Laboratorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meixner, 1994;Meixner et al, 1997;Ludwig et al, 2001;Laville et al, 2009;Bargsten et al, 2010), NO 2 (e.g. Meixner, 1994;Eugster and Hesterberg, 1996;Hereid and Monson, 2001;Chaparro-Suarez et al, 2011;Breuninger et al, 2012), and O 3 (e.g. Zhang et al, 2002;Rummel et al, 2007;Stella et al, 2011a).…”
Abstract. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) plays an important role in atmospheric pollution, in particular for tropospheric ozone production. However, the removal processes involved in NO2 deposition to terrestrial ecosystems are still the subject of ongoing discussion. This study reports NO2 flux measurements made over a meadow using the eddy covariance method. The measured NO2 deposition fluxes during daytime were about a factor of two lower than a priori calculated fluxes using the Surfatm model without taking into account an internal (also called mesophyllic or sub-stomatal) resistance. Neither an underestimation of the measured NO2 deposition flux due to chemical divergence or an in-canopy NO2 source nor an underestimation of the resistances used to model the NO2 deposition explained the large difference between measured and modelled NO2 fluxes. Thus, only the existence of the internal resistance could account for this large discrepancy between model and measurements. The median internal resistance was estimated to be 300 s m−1 during daytime, but exhibited a large variability (100–800 s m−1). In comparison, the stomatal resistance was only around 100 s m−1 during daytime. Hence, the internal resistance accounted for 50–90% of the total leaf resistance to NO2. This study presents the first clear evidence and quantification of the internal resistance using the eddy covariance method; i.e. plant functioning was not affected by changes of microclimatological (turbulent) conditions that typically occur when using enclosure methods.
“…Applying a method which is described in full detail by Feig et al (2008) and Bargsten et al (2010), sub-samples (80 g) of the composite soil sample were sieved through a 2 mm mesh and were incubated (at soil temperatures of 15 and 25 • C) and fumigated (with zero and 58 ppb NO) over the full range of 0.05 to 0.6 gravimetric soil moisture (in steps of 0.002). These laboratory studies resulted in the determination of the so-called net potential soil NO flux as function of soil temperature and moisture.…”
Section: Soil No Emission From Laboratorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Meixner, 1994;Meixner et al, 1997;Ludwig et al, 2001;Laville et al, 2009;Bargsten et al, 2010), NO 2 (e.g. Meixner, 1994;Eugster and Hesterberg, 1996;Hereid and Monson, 2001;Chaparro-Suarez et al, 2011;Breuninger et al, 2012), and O 3 (e.g. Zhang et al, 2002;Rummel et al, 2007;Stella et al, 2011a).…”
Abstract. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) plays an important role in atmospheric pollution, in particular for tropospheric ozone production. However, the removal processes involved in NO2 deposition to terrestrial ecosystems are still the subject of ongoing discussion. This study reports NO2 flux measurements made over a meadow using the eddy covariance method. The measured NO2 deposition fluxes during daytime were about a factor of two lower than a priori calculated fluxes using the Surfatm model without taking into account an internal (also called mesophyllic or sub-stomatal) resistance. Neither an underestimation of the measured NO2 deposition flux due to chemical divergence or an in-canopy NO2 source nor an underestimation of the resistances used to model the NO2 deposition explained the large difference between measured and modelled NO2 fluxes. Thus, only the existence of the internal resistance could account for this large discrepancy between model and measurements. The median internal resistance was estimated to be 300 s m−1 during daytime, but exhibited a large variability (100–800 s m−1). In comparison, the stomatal resistance was only around 100 s m−1 during daytime. Hence, the internal resistance accounted for 50–90% of the total leaf resistance to NO2. This study presents the first clear evidence and quantification of the internal resistance using the eddy covariance method; i.e. plant functioning was not affected by changes of microclimatological (turbulent) conditions that typically occur when using enclosure methods.
“…also Kalma et al, 2000). Estimates for a and L* were derived from measurements published by Eugster (1994) and Eugster & Hesterberg (1996), respectively, from a litter meadow at comparable altitude in Switzerland. Ground heat flux G was estimated (Stull, 1988) to be 0.1R" when R" > 0 (daytime conditions), and 0.5R" when R" = 0.…”
Section: The Empirical éVapotranspiration Model By Primault (1962)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The term b rs indicates the radiation level where r c equals twice the minimum canopy resistance. Its value was also taken from Eugster & Hesterberg (1996) (Table 1). For global radiation values R s < 10 W m" 2 a maximum r c of 10 000 s m" 1 was defined (Wesely, 1989).…”
Section: The Empirical éVapotranspiration Model By Primault (1962)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where minimum resistance r cm j n was estimated from the value given for NO2 by Eugster & Hesterberg (1996) for relatively moist conditions, and was converted to a value for H2O by dividing it by the ratio of the two diffusion coefficients DH2C/A^02 =1.6 (Erisman et al, 1994). The term b rs indicates the radiation level where r c equals twice the minimum canopy resistance.…”
Section: The Empirical éVapotranspiration Model By Primault (1962)mentioning
The water balance during a period of one year ( 15 October 1990-15 October 1991 was determined at an experimental site in the Areuse River delta (Switzerland). The groundwater recharge rates were found to be 36 and 33% of total precipitation according to évapotranspiration estimates based on the Primault (1962) and the Penman-Monteith methods, respectively. Variations in the water storage were obtained by weekly measurements with a neutron probe. Observed hydraulic gradients indicated a zero-flux plane between depths of 0.55 and 1.02 m that separated the infiltration zone from the zone of évapotranspiration in all seasons.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.