the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimating agricultural ammonia volatilization over Europe using satellite observations and simulation data
Abstract. Ammonia (NH3) is one of the most important gases emitted from agricultural practices. It affects air quality and the overall climate, and in turn influenced by long term climate trends as well as by short term fluctuations in local and regional meteorology. Previous studies have established the capability of the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) series of instruments aboard the Metop satellites to measure ammonia from space since 2007. In this study, we explore the interactions between atmospheric ammonia, land and meteorological variability, and long-term climate trends in Europe. We investigate the emission potential (Γsoil) of ammonia from the soil, which describes the soil – atmosphere ammonia exchange. Γsoil is generally calculated in-field or in laboratory experiments; here, and for the first time, we investigate a method which assesses it remotely using satellite data, reanalysis data products, and model simulations.
We focus on ammonia emission potential during March 2011, which marks the start of growing season in Europe. Our results show that Γsoil ranges from 2 × 103 to 9.5 × 104 (dimensionless) in a fertilized cropland, such as in the North European Plain, and is of the order of 10–102 in a non-fertilized soil (e.g. forest and grassland). These results agree with in-field measurements from the literature, suggesting that our method can be used in other seasons and regions in the world. However, some improvements are needed in the determination of mass transfer coefficient k (m s-1), which is a crucial parameter to derive Γsoil.
Using a climate model, we estimate the expected increase in ammonia columns by the end of the century based on the increase in skin temperature (T skin), under two different climate scenarios. Ammonia columns are projected to increase by up to 50 %, particularly in Eastern Europe, under the SSP2-4.5 scenario, and might even double (increase of 100 %) under the SSP5-8.5 scenario. The increase in skin temperature is responsible for a formation of new hotspots of ammonia in Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary, Moldova, parts of Romania, and Switzerland.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1817 KB)
-
Supplement
(1164 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1817 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1164 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1046', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Dec 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rimal Abeed, 30 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1046/egusphere-2022-1046-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rimal Abeed, 30 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1046', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jan 2023
The article has estimated ammonia emission potentials from agricultural land using satellite remote sensing data and a chemical transport model. The analysis was done across the European continent. Future implications of climate change on emission potentials are also analysed. I am not expressing my opinion about the article acceptance at this stage. The other reviewers might have an opinion in this regard. However, after reading the article, I have following major concerns.
- The study period seems to be only the month of March 2011 which marks the starts of growing season (Line 26-27). Since the equation (2-1) points a direct relationship between the ammonia emission potential (𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙) and the soil temperature. How much monthly skin temperature variations are there across the Europe? What are the fertilization practices in the region? What type of fertilizers are used in the region? How much NH3 content each fertilizer has? Are there any seasonal variations of fertilizer application rates? These aspects are missing in the article. If you consider all these aspects to its minimum, the logic behind one month simulation and drawing future changes (%) in 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 is not justified.
- Why did authors choose to assigned mass transfer coefficient (k) values to non-fertilized forests, shrublands and grasslands that ultimately resulted in 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 ranges of 10 – 102 in a non-fertilized soil. The justification given between lines (337-343) require some literature-based support to establish the linkage between SO2 and NH3k values over non- fertilized land-use.
- Any bias correction of SSP scenarios was done before analysing future climate change implications on 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙.?. If so, kindly mention it in the article.
- The study is based on number of assumptions e.g., assuming [𝑁𝐻3]𝑎𝑡𝑚 equals to [𝑁𝐻3]𝑐𝑜𝑙 (line 597). The questions raised above are also based on assumptions. So, it would be better to discuss the limitations of this analysis thoroughly in a separate sub-section.
Minor concerns
- Paragraph two (lines 52-56) is too short either expand it or merge it with adjacent paragraphs.
- There is no Result section it would be better to term section 3 as Results rather than “GEOS-Chem model simulation: validation and analysis”.
- Discussion and conclusion should be separate.
- The sentence structure and grammatical errors can be rectified by employing some professional services. I would highly recommend that.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1046-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rimal Abeed, 30 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1046/egusphere-2022-1046-AC2-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1046', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Dec 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rimal Abeed, 30 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1046/egusphere-2022-1046-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rimal Abeed, 30 Jun 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1046', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jan 2023
The article has estimated ammonia emission potentials from agricultural land using satellite remote sensing data and a chemical transport model. The analysis was done across the European continent. Future implications of climate change on emission potentials are also analysed. I am not expressing my opinion about the article acceptance at this stage. The other reviewers might have an opinion in this regard. However, after reading the article, I have following major concerns.
- The study period seems to be only the month of March 2011 which marks the starts of growing season (Line 26-27). Since the equation (2-1) points a direct relationship between the ammonia emission potential (𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙) and the soil temperature. How much monthly skin temperature variations are there across the Europe? What are the fertilization practices in the region? What type of fertilizers are used in the region? How much NH3 content each fertilizer has? Are there any seasonal variations of fertilizer application rates? These aspects are missing in the article. If you consider all these aspects to its minimum, the logic behind one month simulation and drawing future changes (%) in 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 is not justified.
- Why did authors choose to assigned mass transfer coefficient (k) values to non-fertilized forests, shrublands and grasslands that ultimately resulted in 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 ranges of 10 – 102 in a non-fertilized soil. The justification given between lines (337-343) require some literature-based support to establish the linkage between SO2 and NH3k values over non- fertilized land-use.
- Any bias correction of SSP scenarios was done before analysing future climate change implications on 𝛤𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙.?. If so, kindly mention it in the article.
- The study is based on number of assumptions e.g., assuming [𝑁𝐻3]𝑎𝑡𝑚 equals to [𝑁𝐻3]𝑐𝑜𝑙 (line 597). The questions raised above are also based on assumptions. So, it would be better to discuss the limitations of this analysis thoroughly in a separate sub-section.
Minor concerns
- Paragraph two (lines 52-56) is too short either expand it or merge it with adjacent paragraphs.
- There is no Result section it would be better to term section 3 as Results rather than “GEOS-Chem model simulation: validation and analysis”.
- Discussion and conclusion should be separate.
- The sentence structure and grammatical errors can be rectified by employing some professional services. I would highly recommend that.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1046-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rimal Abeed, 30 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2022/egusphere-2022-1046/egusphere-2022-1046-AC2-supplement.pdf
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
622 | 212 | 22 | 856 | 57 | 13 | 13 |
- HTML: 622
- PDF: 212
- XML: 22
- Total: 856
- Supplement: 57
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Camille Viatte
William C. Porter
Nikolaos Evangeliou
Cathy Clerbaux
Lieven Clarisse
Martin Van Damme
Pierre-François Coheur
Sarah Safieddine
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1817 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1164 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper