4.7 Article

Development of a nitrous oxide routine for the SWAT model to assess greenhouse gas emissions from agroecosystems

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 131-143

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.11.013

关键词

Greenhouse gas emissions; SWAT; Nitrous oxide; pH; Denitrification; Nitrification; Soil carbon; Spatial distribution

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CBET-1360280]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1360424, 1360280, 1360345] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  5. Directorate For Engineering [1360395, 1360415] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agroecosystems, particularly nitrous oxide (N2O), are an increasing concern. To quantify N2O emissions from agroecosystems, which occur as a result of nitrogen (N) cycling, a new physically-based routine was developed for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to predict N2O flux during denitrification and an existing nitrification routine was modified to capture N2O flux during this process. The new routines predict N2O emissions by coupling the carbon (C) and N cycles with soil moisture/temperature and pH in SWAT. The model uses reduction functions to predict total denitrification (N-2+ N2O) and partitions N-2 from N2O using a ratio method. The modified SWAT nitrification routine likewise predicts N2O emissions using reduction functions. The new denitrification routine and modified nitrification routine were tested using GRACEnet data at University Park, Pennsylvania, and West Lafayette, Indiana. Results showed strong correlations between plot measurements of N2O flux and the model predictions for both test sites and suggest that N2O emissions are particularly sensitive to soil pH and soil N, and moderately sensitive to soil temperature/moisture and total soil C levels. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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