More Like this

1. FLUXNET-CH₄: a global, multi-ecosystem dataset and analysis of methane seasonality from freshwater wetlands

   https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3607-2021  

   Delwiche, Kyle B. ; Knox, Sara Helen ; Malhotra, Avni ; Fluet-Chouinard, Etienne ; McNicol, Gavin ; Feron, Sarah ; Ouyang, Zutao ; Papale, Dario ; Trotta, Carlo ; Canfora, Eleonora ; et al ( January 2021 , Earth System Science Data)

   Abstract. Methane (CH4) emissions from natural landscapes constituteroughly half of global CH4 contributions to the atmosphere, yet largeuncertainties remain in the absolute magnitude and the seasonality ofemission quantities and drivers. Eddy covariance (EC) measurements ofCH4 flux are ideal for constraining ecosystem-scale CH4emissions due to quasi-continuous and high-temporal-resolution CH4flux measurements, coincident carbon dioxide, water, and energy fluxmeasurements, lack of ecosystem disturbance, and increased availability ofdatasets over the last decade. Here, we (1) describe the newly publisheddataset, FLUXNET-CH4 Version 1.0, the first open-source global dataset ofCH4 EC measurements (available athttps://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet-ch4-community-product/, last access: 7 April 2021). FLUXNET-CH4includes half-hourly and daily gap-filled and non-gap-filled aggregatedCH4 fluxes and meteorological data from 79 sites globally: 42freshwater wetlands, 6 brackish and saline wetlands, 7 formerly drainedecosystems, 7 rice paddy sites, 2 lakes, and 15 uplands. Then, we (2) evaluate FLUXNET-CH4 representativeness for freshwater wetland coverageglobally because the majority of sites in FLUXNET-CH4 Version 1.0 arefreshwater wetlands which are a substantial source of total atmosphericCH4 emissions; and (3) we provide the first global estimates of theseasonal variability and seasonality predictors of freshwater wetlandCH4 fluxes. Our representativeness analysis suggests that thefreshwater wetland sites in the dataset cover global wetland bioclimaticattributes (encompassing energy, moisture, and vegetation-relatedparameters) in arctic, boreal, and temperate regions but only sparselycovermore »humid tropical regions. Seasonality metrics of wetland CH4emissions vary considerably across latitudinal bands. In freshwater wetlands(except those between 20∘ S to 20∘ N) the spring onsetof elevated CH4 emissions starts 3 d earlier, and the CH4emission season lasts 4 d longer, for each degree Celsius increase in meanannual air temperature. On average, the spring onset of increasing CH4emissions lags behind soil warming by 1 month, with very few sites experiencingincreased CH4 emissions prior to the onset of soil warming. Incontrast, roughly half of these sites experience the spring onset of risingCH4 emissions prior to the spring increase in gross primaryproductivity (GPP). The timing of peak summer CH4 emissions does notcorrelate with the timing for either peak summer temperature or peak GPP.Our results provide seasonality parameters for CH4 modeling andhighlight seasonality metrics that cannot be predicted by temperature or GPP(i.e., seasonality of CH4 peak). FLUXNET-CH4 is a powerful new resourcefor diagnosing and understanding the role of terrestrial ecosystems andclimate drivers in the global CH4 cycle, and future additions of sitesin tropical ecosystems and site years of data collection will provide addedvalue to this database. All seasonality parameters are available athttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4672601 (Delwiche et al., 2021).Additionally, raw FLUXNET-CH4 data used to extract seasonality parameterscan be downloaded from https://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet-ch4-community-product/ (last access: 7 April 2021), and a completelist of the 79 individual site data DOIs is provided in Table 2 of this paper.« less
2. Greenhouse gas flux measurements at the zero curtain, North Slope, Alaska, 2012-2021

   https://doi.org/10.18739/A2ZG6G80B  

   Zona, Donatella ( January 2021 )

   Abstract

   Climate change is affecting the Arctic at an unprecedented rate, potentially releasing substantial amounts of greenhouse gases (CO2 (carbon dioxide) and CH4 (Methane)) from tundra ecosystems. Measuring greenhouse gas emissions in the Arctic, particularly outside of the summer period, is very challenging due to extreme weather conditions. This research project provided the first annual balance of both CH4 and CO2 fluxes in a total of five sites spanning a 300Km transect across the North Slope of Alaska (three sites in Barrow, one site in Aquasuk, and one site in Ivotuk). The results from the continuous year-round CH4 fluxes across these sites showed how cumulative emissions for the cold season accounted on average for 50% of the annual budget (Zona et al., 2016), a notably higher contribution than previously modelled, and also higher than observed in boreal Alaska. The analysis of the cold period CH4 fluxes suggested that the presence of an unfrozen soil layer in the fall and early winter was a major control on cold season CH4 emissions (Zona et al., 2016). We also cross-compared all instruments measuring ecosystem scale CO2 and CH4 fluxes operating at our sites, which allowed us to make recommendation of the best performing instruments under these extreme weather conditions. The best performing instruments were closed path analyzers and intermittently heated sonic anemometers which had the highest final data cover. A continuously heated anemometer increased data coverage relative to non-heated anemometers, but resulted in an overestimation of the fluxes (Goodrich et al., 2016). We developed an intermittent heating strategy that was only activated when the data quality was low, and appeared to be the preferable method to prevent icing while avoiding biases to the measurements. Closed and open-path analyzers showed good agreement, but data coverage was much greater when using closed-path analyzers, especially during winter (Goodrich et al., 2016). Given the importance of vegetation on greenhouse gas emissions, we also investigated the role of different vegetation types under a broad range of environmental conditions on the CH4 emissions. We found that vegetation type can be a very useful tool to describe the spatial variability in CH4 emissions over the landscape (McEwing et al., 2015), and that just two vegetation types were able to explain about 50% of the variability in CH4 fluxes across ecosystems even hundreds of kilometers apart (Davidson et al., 2016a). To upscale these plot scale fluxes we completed high resolution vegetation maps in each of our tower sites (Davidson et al., 2016b), which are the finest resolution maps currently available from these sites, and also contributed to larger scale mapping effort (Walker et al., 2016). The soil microbial analysis from soil cores collected across our sites showed an association between overall microbial diversity and latitude, with a higher diversity found in the northerly site and lower diversity in the southerly site, contrary to current knowledge (Wagner et al., accepted). We also measured CH4 and CO2 concentrations in the soil, which showed to be orders of magnitude higher than in the atmosphere (Arndt et al., 2016). Our results contributed to model development (Xu et al., 2016; Kobayashi et al., 2016; Liljedahl et al., 2016; Luus et al., 2017), and to a wide variety of other projects as shown by the hundreds of download of our data from Ameriflux. Overall, this grant resulted in the publication of 25 peer reviewed journal articles, including in high impact factor journals such as PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America), and Nature Climate Change, in addition to five more in review and in preparation, and supported the research of seven PhD students, two master students, and ten undergraduate students.
   More>>
3. FLUXNET-CH ₄ Synthesis Activity: Objectives, Observations, and Future Directions

   https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0268.1  

   Knox, Sara H. ; Jackson, Robert B. ; Poulter, Benjamin ; McNicol, Gavin ; Fluet-Chouinard, Etienne ; Zhang, Zhen ; Hugelius, Gustaf ; Bousquet, Philippe ; Canadell, Josep G. ; Saunois, Marielle ; et al ( December 2019 , Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society)

   This paper describes the formation of, and initial results for, a new FLUXNET coordination network for ecosystem-scale methane (CH 4 ) measurements at 60 sites globally, organized by the Global Carbon Project in partnership with other initiatives and regional flux tower networks. The objectives of the effort are presented along with an overview of the coverage of eddy covariance (EC) CH 4 flux measurements globally, initial results comparing CH 4 fluxes across the sites, and future research directions and needs. Annual estimates of net CH 4 fluxes across sites ranged from −0.2 ± 0.02 g C m –2 yr –1 for an upland forest site to 114.9 ± 13.4 g C m –2 yr –1 for an estuarine freshwater marsh, with fluxes exceeding 40 g C m –2 yr –1 at multiple sites. Average annual soil and air temperatures were found to be the strongest predictor of annual CH 4 flux across wetland sites globally. Water table position was positively correlated with annual CH 4 emissions, although only for wetland sites that were not consistently inundated throughout the year. The ratio of annual CH 4 fluxes to ecosystem respiration increased significantly with mean site temperature. Uncertainties in annual CH 4more »estimates due to gap-filling and random errors were on average ±1.6 g C m –2 yr –1 at 95% confidence, with the relative error decreasing exponentially with increasing flux magnitude across sites. Through the analysis and synthesis of a growing EC CH 4 flux database, the controls on ecosystem CH 4 fluxes can be better understood, used to inform and validate Earth system models, and reconcile differences between land surface model- and atmospheric-based estimates of CH 4 emissions.« less
4. Monthly gridded data product of northern wetland methane emissions based on upscaling eddy covariance observations

   https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1263-2019  

   Peltola, Olli ; Vesala, Timo ; Gao, Yao ; Räty, Olle ; Alekseychik, Pavel ; Aurela, Mika ; Chojnicki, Bogdan ; Desai, Ankur R. ; Dolman, Albertus J. ; Euskirchen, Eugenie S. ; et al ( January 2019 , Earth System Science Data)

   Abstract. Natural wetlands constitute the largest and most uncertain sourceof methane (CH4) to the atmosphere and a large fraction of them are found in the northern latitudes. These emissions are typically estimated using process (“bottom-up”) or inversion (“top-down”) models. However, estimates from these two types of models are not independent of each other since the top-down estimates usually rely on the a priori estimation of these emissions obtained with process models. Hence, independent spatially explicit validation data are needed. Here we utilize a random forest (RF) machine-learning technique to upscale CH4 eddy covariance flux measurements from 25 sites to estimate CH4 wetland emissions from the northern latitudes (north of 45∘ N). Eddy covariance datafrom 2005 to 2016 are used for model development. The model is then used to predict emissions during 2013 and 2014. The predictive performance of the RF model is evaluated using a leave-one-site-out cross-validation scheme. The performance (Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency =0.47) is comparable to previous studies upscaling net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide and studies comparing process model output against site-level CH4 emission data. The global distribution of wetlands is one major source of uncertainty for upscaling CH4. Thus, three wetland distribution maps are utilized in the upscaling. Dependingmore »on the wetland distribution map, the annual emissions for the northern wetlands yield 32 (22.3–41.2, 95 % confidence interval calculated from a RF model ensemble), 31 (21.4–39.9) or 38 (25.9–49.5) Tg(CH4) yr−1. To further evaluate the uncertainties of the upscaled CH4 flux data products we also compared them against output from two process models (LPX-Bern and WetCHARTs), and methodological issues related to CH4 flux upscaling are discussed. The monthly upscaled CH4 flux data products are available athttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2560163 (Peltola et al., 2019).« less
5. Phosphorus availability and leaching losses in annual and perennial cropping systems in an upper US Midwest landscape

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8sf7m0cpx  

   Hussain, Mir Zaman ; Hamilton, Stephen ; Robertson, G. Philip ; Basso, Bruno ( January 2021 )

   Abstract

   Excessive phosphorus (P) applications to croplands can contribute to eutrophication of surface waters through surface runoff and subsurface (leaching) losses. We analyzed leaching losses of total dissolved P (TDP) from no-till corn, hybrid poplar (Populus nigra X P. maximowiczii), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus), native grasses, and restored prairie, all planted in 2008 on former cropland in Michigan, USA. All crops except corn (13 kg P ha−1 year−1) were grown without P fertilization. Biomass was harvested at the end of each growing season except for poplar. Soil water at 1.2 m depth was sampled weekly to biweekly for TDP determination during March–November 2009–2016 using tension lysimeters. Soil test P (0–25 cm depth) was measured every autumn. Soil water TDP concentrations were usually below levels where eutrophication of surface waters is frequently observed (> 0.02 mg L−1) but often higher than in deep groundwater or nearby streams and lakes. Rates of P leaching, estimated from measured concentrations and modeled drainage, did not differ statistically among cropping systems across years; 7-year cropping system means ranged from 0.035 to 0.072 kg P ha−1 year−1 with large interannual variation. Leached P was positively related to STP, which decreased over the 7 years in all systems. These results indicate that both P-fertilized and unfertilized cropping systems may leach legacy P from past cropland management.
   

   Methods

   Experimental details The Biofuel Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) is located at the W.K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) (42.3956° N, 85.3749° W; elevation 288 m asl) in southwestern Michigan, USA. This site is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (www.glbrc.org) and is a Long-term Ecological Research site (www.lter.kbs.msu.edu). Soils are mesic Typic Hapludalfs developed on glacial outwash54 with high sand content (76% in the upper 150 cm) intermixed with silt-rich loess in the upper 50 cm55. The water table lies approximately 12–14 m below the surface. The climate is humid temperate with a mean annual air temperature of 9.1 °C and annual precipitation of 1005 mm, 511 mm of which falls between May and September (1981–2010)56,57. The BCSE was established as a randomized complete block design in 2008 on preexisting farmland. Prior to BCSE establishment, the field was used for grain crop and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) production for several decades. Between 2003 and 2007, the field received a total of ~ 300 kg P ha−1 as manure, and the southern half, which contains one of four replicate plots, received an additional 206 kg P ha−1 as inorganic fertilizer. The experimental design consists of five randomized blocks each containing one replicate plot (28 by 40 m) of 10 cropping systems (treatments) (Supplementary Fig. S1; also see Sanford et al.58). Block 5 is not included in the present study. Details on experimental design and site history are provided in Robertson and Hamilton57 and Gelfand et al.59. Leaching of P is analyzed in six of the cropping systems: (i) continuous no-till corn, (ii) switchgrass, (iii) miscanthus, (iv) a mixture of five species of native grasses, (v) a restored native prairie containing 18 plant species (Supplementary Table S1), and (vi) hybrid poplar. Agronomic management Phenological cameras and field observations indicated that the perennial herbaceous crops emerged each year between mid-April and mid-May. Corn was planted each year in early May. Herbaceous crops were harvested at the end of each growing season with the timing depending on weather: between October and November for corn and between November and December for herbaceous perennial crops. Corn stover was harvested shortly after corn grain, leaving approximately 10 cm height of stubble above the ground. The poplar was harvested only once, as the culmination of a 6-year rotation, in the winter of 2013–2014. Leaf emergence and senescence based on daily phenological images indicated the beginning and end of the poplar growing season, respectively, in each year. Application of inorganic fertilizers to the different crops followed a management approach typical for the region (Table 1). Corn was fertilized with 13 kg P ha−1 year−1 as starter fertilizer (N-P-K of 19-17-0) at the time of planting and an additional 33 kg P ha−1 year−1 was added as superphosphate in spring 2015. Corn also received N fertilizer around the time of planting and in mid-June at typical rates for the region (Table 1). No P fertilizer was applied to the perennial grassland or poplar systems (Table 1). All perennial grasses (except restored prairie) were provided 56 kg N ha−1 year−1 of N fertilizer in early summer between 2010 and 2016; an additional 77 kg N ha−1 was applied to miscanthus in 2009. Poplar was fertilized once with 157 kg N ha−1 in 2010 after the canopy had closed. Sampling of subsurface soil water and soil for P determination Subsurface soil water samples were collected beneath the root zone (1.2 m depth) using samplers installed at approximately 20 cm into the unconsolidated sand of 2Bt2 and 2E/Bt horizons (soils at the site are described in Crum and Collins54). Soil water was collected from two kinds of samplers: Prenart samplers constructed of Teflon and silica (http://www.prenart.dk/soil-water-samplers/) in replicate blocks 1 and 2 and Eijkelkamp ceramic samplers (http://www.eijkelkamp.com) in blocks 3 and 4 (Supplementary Fig. S1). The samplers were installed in 2008 at an angle using a hydraulic corer, with the sampling tubes buried underground within the plots and the sampler located about 9 m from the plot edge. There were no consistent differences in TDP concentrations between the two sampler types. Beginning in the 2009 growing season, subsurface soil water was sampled at weekly to biweekly intervals during non-frozen periods (April–November) by applying 50 kPa of vacuum to each sampler for 24 h, during which the extracted water was collected in glass bottles. Samples were filtered using different filter types (all 0.45 µm pore size) depending on the volume of leachate collected: 33-mm dia. cellulose acetate membrane filters when volumes were less than 50 mL; and 47-mm dia. Supor 450 polyethersulfone membrane filters for larger volumes. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) in water samples was analyzed by persulfate digestion of filtered samples to convert all phosphorus forms to soluble reactive phosphorus, followed by colorimetric analysis by long-pathlength spectrophotometry (UV-1800 Shimadzu, Japan) using the molybdate blue method60, for which the method detection limit was ~ 0.005 mg P L−1. Between 2009 and 2016, soil samples (0–25 cm depth) were collected each autumn from all plots for determination of soil test P (STP) by the Bray-1 method61, using as an extractant a dilute hydrochloric acid and ammonium fluoride solution, as is recommended for neutral to slightly acidic soils. The measured STP concentration in mg P kg−1 was converted to kg P ha−1 based on soil sampling depth and soil bulk density (mean, 1.5 g cm−3). Sampling of water samples from lakes, streams and wells for P determination In addition to chemistry of soil and subsurface soil water in the BCSE, waters from lakes, streams, and residential water supply wells were also sampled during 2009–2016 for TDP analysis using Supor 450 membrane filters and the same analytical method as for soil water. These water bodies are within 15 km of the study site, within a landscape mosaic of row crops, grasslands, deciduous forest, and wetlands, with some residential development (Supplementary Fig. S2, Supplementary Table S2). Details of land use and cover change in the vicinity of KBS are given in Hamilton et al.48, and patterns in nutrient concentrations in local surface waters are further discussed in Hamilton62. Leaching estimates, modeled drainage, and data analysis Leaching was estimated at daily time steps and summarized as total leaching on a crop-year basis, defined from the date of planting or leaf emergence in a given year to the day prior to planting or emergence in the following year. TDP concentrations (mg L−1) of subsurface soil water were linearly interpolated between sampling dates during non-freezing periods (April–November) and over non-sampling periods (December–March) based on the preceding November and subsequent April samples. Daily rates of TDP leaching (kg ha−1) were calculated by multiplying concentration (mg L−1) by drainage rates (m3 ha−1 day−1) modeled by the Systems Approach for Land Use Sustainability (SALUS) model, a crop growth model that is well calibrated for KBS soil and environmental conditions. SALUS simulates yield and environmental outcomes in response to weather, soil, management (planting dates, plant population, irrigation, N fertilizer application, and tillage), and genetics63. The SALUS water balance sub-model simulates surface runoff, saturated and unsaturated water flow, drainage, root water uptake, and evapotranspiration during growing and non-growing seasons63. The SALUS model has been used in studies of evapotranspiration48,51,64 and nutrient leaching20,65,66,67 from KBS soils, and its predictions of growing-season evapotranspiration are consistent with independent measurements based on growing-season soil water drawdown53 and evapotranspiration measured by eddy covariance68. Phosphorus leaching was assumed insignificant on days when SALUS predicted no drainage. Volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations in leachate for each crop-year and for the entire 7-year study period were calculated as the total dissolved P leaching flux (kg ha−1) divided by the total drainage (m3 ha−1). One-way ANOVA with time (crop-year) as the fixed factor was conducted to compare total annual drainage rates, P leaching rates, volume-weighted mean TDP concentrations, and maximum aboveground biomass among the cropping systems over all seven crop-years as well as with TDP concentrations from local lakes, streams, and groundwater wells. When a significant (α = 0.05) difference was detected among the groups, we used the Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test to make pairwise comparisons among the groups. In the case of maximum aboveground biomass, we used the Tukey–Kramer method to make pairwise comparisons among the groups because the absence of poplar data after the 2013 harvest resulted in unequal sample sizes. We also used the Tukey–Kramer method to compare the frequency distributions of TDP concentrations in all of the soil leachate samples with concentrations in lakes, streams, and groundwater wells, since each sample category had very different numbers of measurements.
   

   Other

   Individual spreadsheets in “data table_leaching_dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen.xls” 1.    annual precip_drainage 2.    biomass_corn, perennial grasses 3.    biomass_poplar 4.    annual N leaching _vol-wtd conc 5.    Summary_N leached 6.    annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc 7.    growing season length 8.    correlation_nh4 VS no3 9.    correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Each spreadsheet is described below along with an explanation of variates. Note that ‘nan’ indicate data are missing or not available. First row indicates header; second row indicates units 1. Spreadsheet: annual precip_drainage Description: Precipitation measured from nearby Kellogg Biological Station (KBS) Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Weather station, over 2009-2016 study period. Data shown in Figure 1; original data source for precipitation (https://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/7). Drainage estimated from SALUS crop model. Note that drainage is percolation out of the root zone (0-125 cm). Annual precipitation and drainage values shown here are calculated for growing and non-growing crop periods. Variate    Description year    year of the observation crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” precip_G    precipitation during growing period (milliMeter) precip_NG    precipitation during non-growing period (milliMeter) drainage_G    drainage during growing period (milliMeter) drainage_NG    drainage during non-growing period (milliMeter)      2. Spreadsheet: biomass_corn, perennial grasses Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass and restored prairie plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2.   Variate    Description year    year of the observation date    day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 station    stations (S1, S2 and S3) of samplings within the plot. For more details, refer to link (https://data.sustainability.glbrc.org/protocols/156) species    plant species that are rooted within the quadrat during the time of maximum biomass harvest. See protocol for more information, refer to link (http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datatables/36) For maize biomass, grain and whole biomass reported in the paper (weed biomass or surface litter are excluded). Surface litter biomass not included in any crops; weed biomass not included in switchgrass and miscanthus, but included in grass mixture and prairie. fraction    Fraction of biomass biomass_plot    biomass per plot on dry-weight basis (Grams_Per_SquareMeter) biomass_ha    biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying column biomass per plot with 0.01 3. Spreadsheet: biomass_poplar Description: Maximum aboveground biomass measurements from poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Data shown in Figure 2. Note that poplar biomass was estimated from crop growth curves until the poplar was harvested in the winter of 2013-14. Variate    Description year    year of the observation method    methods of poplar biomass sampling date    day of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 diameter_at_ground    poplar diameter (milliMeter) at the ground diameter_at_15cm    poplar diameter (milliMeter) at 15 cm height biomass_tree    biomass per plot (Grams_Per_Tree) biomass_ha    biomass (megaGrams_Per_Hectare) by multiplying biomass per tree with 0.01 4. Spreadsheet: annual N leaching_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) of nitrate (no3) and dissolved organic nitrogen (don) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen leached and volume-wtd mean N concentration shown in Figure 3a and Figure 3b, respectively. Note that ammonium (nh4) concentration were much lower and often undetectable (<0.07 milliGrams_N_Per_Liter). Also note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, data from some replicates are missing.    Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year    year of the observation replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 no3 leached    annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached    annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd no3 conc.    Volume-weighted mean no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) vol-wtd don conc.    Volume-weighted mean don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) 5. Spreadsheet: summary_N leached Description: Summary of total amount and forms of N leached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) and the percent of applied N lost to leaching over the seven years for corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for nitrogen amount leached shown in Figure 4a and percent of applied N lost shown in Figure 4b. Note the fraction of unleached N includes in harvest, accumulation in root biomass, soil organic matter or gaseous N emissions were not measured in the study. Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” no3 leached    annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) don leached    annual leaching rates of don (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) N unleached    N unleached (kiloGrams_N_Per_Hectare) in other sources are not studied % of N applied N lost to leaching    % of N applied N lost to leaching 6. Spreadsheet: annual DOC leachin_vol-wtd conc Description: Annual leaching rate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) and volume-weighted mean N concentrations (milliGrams_Per_Liter) of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the leachate samples collected from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2016. Data for DOC leached and volume-wtd mean DOC concentration shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b, respectively. Note that in 2009 and 2010 crop-years, water samples were not available for DOC measurements.     Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” crop-year    year of the observation replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 doc leached    annual leaching rates of nitrate (kiloGrams_Per_Hectare) vol-wtd doc conc.    volume-weighted mean doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter) 7. Spreadsheet: growing season length Description: Growing season length (days) of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2009-2015. Date shown in Figure S2. Note that growing season is from the date of planting or emergence to the date of harvest (or leaf senescence in case of poplar).   Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year    year of the observation growing season length    growing season length (days) 8. Spreadsheet: correlation_nh4 VS no3 Description: Correlation of ammonium (nh4+) and nitrate (no3-) concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples from corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data shown in Figure S3. Note that nh4+ concentration in the leachates was very low compared to no3- and don concentration and often undetectable in three crop-years (2013-2015) when measurements are available. Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” date    date of the observation (mm/dd/yyyy) replicate    each crop has four replicated plots, R1, R2, R3 and R4 nh4 conc    nh4 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3 conc    no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter)   9. Spreadsheet: correlations_don VS no3_doc VS don Description: Correlations of don and nitrate concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter); and doc (milliGrams_Per_Liter) and don concentrations (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) in the leachate samples of corn, switchgrass, miscanthus, native grass, restored prairie and poplar plots in Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center (GLBRC) Biomass Cropping System Experiment (BCSE) during 2013-2015. Data of correlation of don and nitrate concentrations shown in Figure S4 a and doc and don concentrations shown in Figure S4 b. Variate    Description crop    “corn” “switchgrass” “miscanthus” “nativegrass” “restored prairie” “poplar” year    year of the observation don    don concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) no3     no3 concentration (milliGrams_N_Per_Liter) doc    doc concentration (milliGrams_Per_Liter)
   More>>