TY  - JOUR
U1  - Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
A1  - ten Huf, Martin
A1  - Reinsch, Thorsten
A1  - Kluß, Christof
A1  - Essich, Christoph
A1  - Ruser, Reiner
A1  - Buchen-Tschiskale, Caroline
A1  - Pacholski, Andreas
A1  - Flessa, Heinz
A1  - Olfs, Hans-Werner
T1  - Evaluation of calibrated passive sampling for quantifying ammonia emissions in multi-plot field trialswith slurry application
JF  - Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
N2  - There is a great need for simple and inexpensive methods to quantify ammonia emissions in multi-plot field trials. However, methods that meet these criteria have to be thoroughly validated. In the calibrated passive sampling approach, acid traps placed in the center of quadratic plots absorb ammonia, enabling relative comparisons between plots. To quantify ammonia emissions, these acid trap samplings are scaled by means of a transfer coefficient (TC) obtained from simultaneous measurements with the dynamic tube method (DTM). However, dynamic tube measurements are also comparatively costly and time-consuming. Our objective was to assess the best practice for using calibrated passive sampling in multi-plot field trials. One particular challenge in such experiments is to evaluate the influence of ammonia drift between plots. In a series of eight multi-plot field trials, acid traps and DTM were used simultaneously on all plots to measure ammonia emissions caused by different slurry application techniques. Data obtained by both methods were correlated, and the influence of the ubiquitous ammonia background on both methods was evaluated by comparing net values, including the subtraction of the background with gross values (no background subtraction). Finally, we provide recommendations for calculating a TC for calibrating relative differences between plots, based on simultaneous acid trap and dynamic tube measurements on selected plots. Treatmentmean values obtained by bothmethods correlatedwell. For most field trials, R2 values between 0.6 and 0.8were obtained. Ammonia background concentrations affected both methods. Drift between plots contributed to the background for the acid traps, whereas the contamination of the chamber system might have caused the background for the DTM. Treatments with low emissions were comparatively more affected by that background. For a robust application of calibrated passive sampling, we recommend calculating the TC based on a treatment with high ammonia emissions, reducing the relative influence of the ubiquitous ammonia background.
Y1  - 2023
UN  - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:959-opus-61040
SN  - 1522-2624
SS  - 1522-2624
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202200333
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202200333
VL  - 186
IS  - 4
SP  - 451
EP  - 463
ER  -