4.3 Article

Understand distribution of carbon dioxide to interpret crop growth data: Australian grains free-air carbon dioxide enrichment experiment

期刊

CROP & PASTURE SCIENCE
卷 62, 期 10, 页码 883-891

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/CP11178

关键词

AGFACE; FACE; spatial variation; Australia

资金

  1. Grains Research and Development Corporation
  2. Victorian Department of Primary Industries
  3. University of Melbourne
  4. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important greenhouse gas, predicted to increase globally from currently 386 to 550 mu mol mol(-1) by 2050 and cause significant stimulation to plant growth. Consequently, in 2007 and 2008, Australian grains free-air carbon dioxide enrichment (AGFACE) facilities were established at Horsham (36 degrees 45'07 '' S lat., 142 degrees 06'52 '' E long., 127 m elevation) and Walpeup (35 degrees 07'20 '' S lat., 142 degrees 00'18 '' E long., 103 m elevation) in Victoria, Australia to investigate the effects of elevated CO2, water supply and nitrogen fertiliser on crop growth. Understanding the distribution patterns of CO2 inside AGFACE rings is crucial for the interpretation of the crop growth data. In the AGFACE system, the engineering performance goal was set as having at least 80% of the ring area with a CO2 concentration [CO2] at or above 90% of the target concentration at the ring-centre for 80% of the time. The [CO2] was highly variable near the ring-edge where CO2 is emitted and declined non-linearly with the distance downwind and wind speeds. Larger rings maintained the target [CO2] of 550 mu mol mol(-1) at the ring-centres better than the smaller rings. The spatial variation of [CO2] depended on ring size and the gap between fumigation and canopy heights but not on wind speeds. The variations in the inner 80% of the rings were found to be higher in smaller rings, implying that the larger rings had more areas of relatively uniform [CO2] to conduct experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据