Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5494
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5494
14 Sep 2026
 | 14 Sep 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).

Ammonia measurements over multiple fertilisation campaigns using eddy covariance and the integrated horizontal flux method

Sina Kukowski, Björn Kemmann, Pascal Wintjen, Paul Schmidt, Hans-Peter Piepho, Jeremy Rüffer, Jens-Kristian Jüdt, Melanie Saul, Hannah Götze, Andreas Pacholski, Heinz Flessa, and Christian Brümmer

Abstract. Quantifying field-scale ammonia emissions following nitrogen fertilisation remains challenging, and estimates may differ substantially between measurement methods. We compared quantum cascade laser-based eddy covariance (QCL-EC) with the integrated horizontal flux method using Adapted Low-cost Passive High Absorption (ALPHA) samplers (ALPHA-IHF) during eight urea fertilisation campaigns in winter wheat (2021–2023).

Both approaches identified post-fertilisation emission periods and captured similar dynamics, but paired interval estimates differed. Only 62% of intervals yielded ALPHA-IHF flux estimates, mainly because irregular or weak concentration profiles prevented robust calculation. QCL and ALPHA concentrations were positively correlated, but QCL concentrations were, on average, 31% higher, whereas QCL-EC emission estimates were 23% lower than ALPHA-IHF estimates. Median campaign emission factors were 1.6% for QCL-EC and 3.2% for ALPHA-IHF, respectively. QCL-based estimates were more precise, and differences between the methods varied with short-term ammonia concentration variability, air temperature, friction velocity and ALPHA profile quality.

The contrasting results show that concentration-level patterns do not translate directly into flux estimates and that differences between methods vary with field conditions. QCL-EC resolved short-term net exchange but required turbulence-based quality filtering, whereas ALPHA-IHF yielded time-integrated emission estimates only when the fitted concentration profile met the quality criteria. Without an independent reference, systematic over- or underestimation could not be assigned to either method. Assessments of fertiliser-induced emissions must consider method-specific data coverage and differences in flux representation. The greater precision of QCL-based estimates and high temporal resolution of QCL-EC make it promising for detecting subtle emission differences under low-emission conditions, while improved concentration precision and resolution of weak gradients could broaden ALPHA-IHF applicability.

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.
Share
Sina Kukowski, Björn Kemmann, Pascal Wintjen, Paul Schmidt, Hans-Peter Piepho, Jeremy Rüffer, Jens-Kristian Jüdt, Melanie Saul, Hannah Götze, Andreas Pacholski, Heinz Flessa, and Christian Brümmer

Status: open (until 20 Oct 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Sina Kukowski, Björn Kemmann, Pascal Wintjen, Paul Schmidt, Hans-Peter Piepho, Jeremy Rüffer, Jens-Kristian Jüdt, Melanie Saul, Hannah Götze, Andreas Pacholski, Heinz Flessa, and Christian Brümmer
Sina Kukowski, Björn Kemmann, Pascal Wintjen, Paul Schmidt, Hans-Peter Piepho, Jeremy Rüffer, Jens-Kristian Jüdt, Melanie Saul, Hannah Götze, Andreas Pacholski, Heinz Flessa, and Christian Brümmer
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 14 Sep 2026
Download
Short summary
Measuring ammonia from fertilised fields is difficult, and different methods give different results. We compared two methods during eight fertilisation campaigns and compared concentrations and emissions. Both captured the timing of emissions, but one measured 31% higher concentrations while estimating 23% lower emissions. The other did not yield usable results for 38% of measurement periods. Method choice and data gaps must therefore be considered when assessing agricultural ammonia emissions.
Share