the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Quantifying agricultural N2O and CH4 emissions in the Netherlands using an airborne eddy covariance system
Abstract. This study reports on the first successful deployment of a new airborne eddy covariance (EC) setup to better characterize and quantify non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. The system was deployed aboard the DLR research aircraft Cessna Caravan to quantify growing-season emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in Friesland, an agricultural region in the Netherlands, in early summer 2023. The EC system consists of a commercial quantum cascade laser spectrometer, specifically adapted for airborne observations and providing 10 Hz data of N2O and CH4, and the meteorological measurement suite METPOD, delivering data of the vertical wind, horizontal winds, water vapor and temperature. Our measurements are a novelty for N2O, since they are the first implementation of quantifying agricultural emissions with airborne EC, combining the advantages of regional-scale coverage, while maintaining high spatial resolution and hence are well suited to capture the spatial complexity of this dominant emission sector. The system provides fluxes with minimal low- and high-frequency distortions, low detection limits, and total uncertainties (30−100 %) comparable to other airborne methods, despite the complexity of agricultural emissions. During measurements in Friesland, we identified clear N2O emission hotspots and hot-moments, with peak fluxes of 0.34 µg m−2 s−1 on the regional-scale after intensive precipitation following a relatively dry period. Single small-scale hotspot emissions were as high as 1 µg m−2 s−1. In contrast, CH4 fluxes showed less temporal variations around a mean flux of 1.62 µg m−2 s−1 throughout the three-week campaign. N2O emissions were relatively high compared to other agricultural regions worldwide, and preliminary comparisons with EDGAR v8.0 and the Dutch emission inventory Emissieregistratie suggest substantial underestimation of growing-season N2O emissions in current inventories and the lack of an appropriate annual cycle. Our results further document the urgent need for independent verification of reported N2O and CH4 emissions from agriculture, which is the most dominant anthropogenic sector of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions and is expected to become even more dominant in the future, with an increasing world population and food demand.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(7829 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 Sep 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3297', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Aug 2025
reply
The present study "Quantifying agricultural N2O and CH4 emissions in the Netherlands using an airborne eddy covariance system" describes in detail a measurement system and airborne eddy covariance method for quantifying CH4 and N2O fluxes over an agricultural region. The study is generally clearly presented and extremely detailed in methodology. Novel findings of N2O emissions from agriculture and comparison to inventories are also presented. The authors thoroughly consider uncertainties and potential biases in the measurements. I recommend publication following minor revisions.
Line 32: I believe the current IPCC recommendation for the GWP100 of biogenic CH4 is 27.
General comments/questions, largely for the purposes of improved clarity:
1: I assume that the choice of 90 s was at least partially made to capture all of the eddy scales based on ogives, analysis of the cospectral power, and/or integral timescale. I don't believe an explanation of this was explicitly given in the manuscript. It would be helpful to see in the text a description of what factors went into to choosing the 90 s windows.
2: I found it generally confusing what is meant by leg, vs Flight leg, vs flux segment. It would be useful if clear definitions were explicitly given and/or more consistency in the language were used. e.g. Do these terms always refer to the flight leg, or sometimes to the 90 s intervals as it seemed?
3. The authors mention that spatial homogeneity is required for eddy covariance, but the flux variations over a leg seem to indicate non-homogeneity. I would assume the condition of homogeneity is only necessary over the 90 s windows use for the flux calculations. Does the overlapping windows further loosen this condition? Some discussion of this in the text would be useful.
4. Are the LODs calculated for each 90 s segment (i.e. N represents the number of observations per 90 s flux interval)? If so, are these simply averaged over the flight? If, rather, N is the entire leg, wouldn't this calculation of LOD underestimate the ability of the instrumentation to distinguished spatially-resolved fluxes? In general I think more clarification is needed to contextualize the LODs reported.
5. It would be helpful to have a figure on the flux divergence calculation in the Appendix.
6. Authors mention recent studies utilizing the continuous wavelet transform method, which is often thought of as better for obtaining higher spatial resolution. Is there a reason that the authors used the moving window method instead?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3297-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
268 | 80 | 6 | 354 | 10 | 11 |
- HTML: 268
- PDF: 80
- XML: 6
- Total: 354
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1