Response to 'The European nitrogen cycle: Response to Schulze et al, Global Change Biology (2010) 16, pp. 1451-1469'

E.D. Schulze, S. Luyssaert, P. Ciais

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Winniwarter and colleagues present alternative estimates for several of the nitrogen (N) fluxes provided by Schulze and colleagues. They reason that numeric discrepancies between largely dependent estimates and lack of detail in Schulze's estimates urges caution in interpreting these numbers. In this reply we provide methodological details enhancing the transparency of Schulze's estimates and argue that convergence between land- and atmosphere-based estimates should be reached before individual estimates can be rejected. Only for the nitrous oxide and NOx fluxes a balance between atmosphere and land-based estimates has been reached. Convergence between independent estimates has not been reached yet for NO-, NH3- and N-deposition estimates. As stated by Schulze and colleagues these N-fluxes remain potentially biased and therefore come with a large uncertainty, irrespective of the reported precision.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2758-2761
Number of pages4
JournalGlobal Change Biology
Volume17
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2011

Keywords

  • Ammonia
  • Europe
  • Nitric oxides
  • Nitrogen cycle
  • Nitrous oxide

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Response to 'The European nitrogen cycle: Response to Schulze et al, Global Change Biology (2010) 16, pp. 1451-1469''. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this