Repository logoRepository logo
GRO
  • GRO.data
  • GRO.plan
Help
  • English
  • Deutsch
Log In
New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
Publications
Researcher
Organizations
Other
  • Journals
  • Series
  • Events
  • Projects
  • Working Groups

Browsing by Author "Rode, Andreas"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Results Per Page
  • Sort Options
  • Some of the metrics are blocked by your 
    consent settings
    Evaluation of denitrification and decomposition from three biogeochemical models using laboratory measurements of N<sub>2</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>O and CO<sub>2</sub>
    (2021)
    Grosz, Balázs
    ;
    Well, Reinhard
    ;
    Dechow, Rene
    ;
    Köster, Jan Reent
    ;
    Khalil, Mohammad Ibrahim
    ;
    Merl, Simone
    ;
    Rode, Andreas
    ;
    Ziehmer, Bianca
    ;
    Matson, Amanda
    ;
    He, Hongxing
    Abstract. Biogeochemical models are essential for the prediction and management of nitrogen (N) cycling in agroecosystems, but the accuracy of the denitrification and decomposition sub-modules is critical. Current models were developed before suitable soil N2 flux data were available, which may have led to inaccuracies in how denitrification was described. New measurement techniques, using gas chromatography and isotope-ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), have enabled the collection of more robust N2, N2O and CO2 data. We incubated two arable soils – a silt-loam and a sand soil – for 34 and 58 d, respectively, with small field-relevant changes made to control factors during this period. For the silt-loam soil, seven treatments varying in moisture, bulk density and NO3- contents were included, with temperature changing during the incubation. The sandy soil was incubated with and without incorporation of litter (ryegrass), with temperature, water content and NO3- content changing during the incubation. The denitrification and decomposition sub-modules of DeNi, Coup and DNDC were tested using the data. No systematic calibration of the model parameters was conducted since our intention was to evaluate the general model structure or “default” model runs. Measured fluxes generally responded as expected to control factors. We assessed the direction of modeled responses to control factors using three categories: no response, a response in the same direction as measurements or a response in the opposite direction to measurements. DNDC responses were 14 %, 52 % and 34 %, respectively. Coup responses were 47 %, 19 % and 34 %, respectively. DeNi responses were 0 %, 67 % and 33 %, respectively. The magnitudes of the modeled fluxes were underestimated by Coup and DNDC and overestimated by DeNi for the sandy soil, while there was no general trend for the silt-loam soil. None of the models was able to determine litter-induced decomposition correctly. To conclude, the currently used sub-modules are not able to consistently simulate the denitrification and decomposition processes. For better model evaluation and development, we need to design better experiments, take more frequent measurements, use new or updated measurement techniques, address model complexity, add missing processes to the models, calibrate denitrifier microbial dynamics, and evaluate the anaerobic soil volume concept.

About

About Us
FAQ
ORCID
End User Agreement
Privacy policy
Cookie consent
Imprint

Contact

Team GRO.publications
support-gro.publications@uni-goettingen.de
Matrix Chat: #support_gro_publications
Feedback

Göttingen Research Online

Göttingen Research Online bundles various services for Göttingen researchers:

GRO.data (research data repository)
GRO.plan (data management planning)
GRO.publications (publication data repository)
Logo Uni Göttingen
Logo Campus Göttingen
Logo SUB Göttingen
Logo eResearch Alliance

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.