Top‐Down Constraints on Methane Point Source Emissions From Animal Agriculture and Waste Based on New Airborne Measurements in the U.S. Upper Midwest
Agriculture and waste are thought to account for half or more of the U.S. anthropogenic methane source. However, current bottom‐up inventories contain inherent uncertainties from extrapolating limited in situ measurements to larger scales. Here, we employ new airborne methane measurements over the U...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences 2020-01, Vol.125 (1), p.n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | n/a |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences |
container_volume | 125 |
creator | Yu, Xueying Millet, Dylan B. Wells, Kelley C. Griffis, Timothy J. Chen, Xin Baker, John M. Conley, Stephen A. Smith, Mackenzie L. Gvakharia, Alexander Kort, Eric A. Plant, Genevieve Wood, Jeffrey D. |
description | Agriculture and waste are thought to account for half or more of the U.S. anthropogenic methane source. However, current bottom‐up inventories contain inherent uncertainties from extrapolating limited in situ measurements to larger scales. Here, we employ new airborne methane measurements over the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest, among the most intensive agricultural regions in the world, to quantify emissions from an array of key agriculture and waste point sources. Nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region and two sugar processing plants were measured, with multiple revisits during summer (August 2017), winter (January 2018), and spring (May–June 2018). We compare the top‐down fluxes with state‐of‐science bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal population and management practices. Top‐down point source emissions are consistent with bottom‐up estimates for beef concentrated animal feeding operations but moderately lower for dairies (by 37% on average) and significantly lower for sugar plants (by 80% on average). Swine facility results are more variable. The assumed bottom‐up seasonality for manure methane emissions is not apparent in the aircraft measurements, which may be due to on‐site management factors that are difficult to capture accurately in national‐scale inventories. If not properly accounted for, such seasonal disparities could lead to source misattribution in top‐down assessments of methane fluxes.
Plain Language Summary
Key agricultural methane sources are quantified using new airborne measurements in the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest. Measurements spanned multiple seasons and targeted nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region along with two sugar processing plants. Compared with bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal and management data, top‐down fluxes agree well with bottom‐up estimates for beef but are lower for dairies and sugar plants and suggest a possible mismatch in the timing of emissions.
Key Points
We used aircraft measurements to quantify methane emissions from key agricultural point sources in the Upper Midwest during three seasons
Top‐down methane fluxes are consistent with bottom‐up values for beef facilities but reveal a mismatch for dairies and sugar plants
These discrepancies point to potential spatial and temporal misattribution of e |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2019JG005429 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7894054</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2492278013</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4832-62f0896395923a3d7c934ed4c43e2716bbd22c6aa5dd0421f5e4c042201d03e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ks1uEzEUhUcIRKvSHWtkwYYFCf6bH2-Q0tAGqgYQTcXScjw3jasZe7BniLrjEdjxfjwJN0qJCgu8sXX96dx7jm6WPWV0zChXrzll6nxGaS65epAdclaoUaUK9nD_zsVBdpzSDcVTYYmxx9mBEAWToigOs5-L0P36_uNt2HgyDT710TjfJxI8mUO_Nh7Ip4AVchmGaIGcti4lhyA5i6ElE-9a05DJdXR2aPohAjG-Jl9M6oGcmAT1VukDbMjExWWIKDcHk5BrYdvGedKvgVyNL8fkqusgkrmrN5D6J9mjlWkSHN_dR9ni7HQxfTe6-Dh7P51cjKysBB8VfEXRr1C54sKIurRKSKillQJ4yYrlsubcFsbkdU0lZ6scpMUH5lZTAeIoe7OT7YZlC7XFoaJpdBfRVrzVwTj99493a30dvumyUhJTR4HnO4GQeqeTdT3YtQ3eg-01yysmS4XQy7suMXwd0J3GFC00DcYbhqS5VJyXFWUC0Rf_oDcYvMcIkGKM8VyyCqlXO8rGkFKE1X5iRvV2MfT9xUD82X2Xe_jPGiAgdsDGNXD7XzF9Pvs84yzPufgNIMjCkg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2411125418</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Top‐Down Constraints on Methane Point Source Emissions From Animal Agriculture and Waste Based on New Airborne Measurements in the U.S. Upper Midwest</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Yu, Xueying ; Millet, Dylan B. ; Wells, Kelley C. ; Griffis, Timothy J. ; Chen, Xin ; Baker, John M. ; Conley, Stephen A. ; Smith, Mackenzie L. ; Gvakharia, Alexander ; Kort, Eric A. ; Plant, Genevieve ; Wood, Jeffrey D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xueying ; Millet, Dylan B. ; Wells, Kelley C. ; Griffis, Timothy J. ; Chen, Xin ; Baker, John M. ; Conley, Stephen A. ; Smith, Mackenzie L. ; Gvakharia, Alexander ; Kort, Eric A. ; Plant, Genevieve ; Wood, Jeffrey D.</creatorcontrib><description>Agriculture and waste are thought to account for half or more of the U.S. anthropogenic methane source. However, current bottom‐up inventories contain inherent uncertainties from extrapolating limited in situ measurements to larger scales. Here, we employ new airborne methane measurements over the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest, among the most intensive agricultural regions in the world, to quantify emissions from an array of key agriculture and waste point sources. Nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region and two sugar processing plants were measured, with multiple revisits during summer (August 2017), winter (January 2018), and spring (May–June 2018). We compare the top‐down fluxes with state‐of‐science bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal population and management practices. Top‐down point source emissions are consistent with bottom‐up estimates for beef concentrated animal feeding operations but moderately lower for dairies (by 37% on average) and significantly lower for sugar plants (by 80% on average). Swine facility results are more variable. The assumed bottom‐up seasonality for manure methane emissions is not apparent in the aircraft measurements, which may be due to on‐site management factors that are difficult to capture accurately in national‐scale inventories. If not properly accounted for, such seasonal disparities could lead to source misattribution in top‐down assessments of methane fluxes.
Plain Language Summary
Key agricultural methane sources are quantified using new airborne measurements in the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest. Measurements spanned multiple seasons and targeted nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region along with two sugar processing plants. Compared with bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal and management data, top‐down fluxes agree well with bottom‐up estimates for beef but are lower for dairies and sugar plants and suggest a possible mismatch in the timing of emissions.
Key Points
We used aircraft measurements to quantify methane emissions from key agricultural point sources in the Upper Midwest during three seasons
Top‐down methane fluxes are consistent with bottom‐up values for beef facilities but reveal a mismatch for dairies and sugar plants
These discrepancies point to potential spatial and temporal misattribution of emissions used for atmospheric inverse modeling</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-8953</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-8961</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2019JG005429</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33614366</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Agricultural management ; Agricultural wastes ; Agriculture ; Airborne sensing ; Airborne wastes ; Animal population ; Animal populations ; Anthropogenic factors ; Balances (scales) ; Beef ; Belts ; Corn ; Corn belt ; Dairies ; Emission measurements ; Environmental impact ; Environmental protection ; Estimates ; Factory farming ; Feeding ; Fluxes ; In situ measurement ; Intensive farming ; Inventories ; Methane ; Methods ; Protection ; Saccharides ; Seasonal variations ; Seasonality ; Sugar ; Swine ; Water pollution</subject><ispartof>Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences, 2020-01, Vol.125 (1), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2019. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><rights>2020. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4832-62f0896395923a3d7c934ed4c43e2716bbd22c6aa5dd0421f5e4c042201d03e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4832-62f0896395923a3d7c934ed4c43e2716bbd22c6aa5dd0421f5e4c042201d03e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3076-125X ; 0000-0002-2111-5144 ; 0000-0001-6422-2882 ; 0000-0002-7937-9839 ; 0000-0003-1260-4744 ; 0000-0002-9380-5136 ; 0000-0003-3025-6878 ; 0000-0003-4940-7541 ; 0000000330256878 ; 0000000279379839 ; 0000000349407541 ; 0000000293805136 ; 000000033076125X ; 0000000312604744 ; 0000000164222882 ; 0000000221115144</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2019JG005429$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2019JG005429$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,1427,27903,27904,45553,45554,46387,46811</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33614366$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1581479$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xueying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millet, Dylan B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wells, Kelley C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffis, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conley, Stephen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Mackenzie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gvakharia, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kort, Eric A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plant, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Jeffrey D.</creatorcontrib><title>Top‐Down Constraints on Methane Point Source Emissions From Animal Agriculture and Waste Based on New Airborne Measurements in the U.S. Upper Midwest</title><title>Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences</title><addtitle>J Geophys Res Biogeosci</addtitle><description>Agriculture and waste are thought to account for half or more of the U.S. anthropogenic methane source. However, current bottom‐up inventories contain inherent uncertainties from extrapolating limited in situ measurements to larger scales. Here, we employ new airborne methane measurements over the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest, among the most intensive agricultural regions in the world, to quantify emissions from an array of key agriculture and waste point sources. Nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region and two sugar processing plants were measured, with multiple revisits during summer (August 2017), winter (January 2018), and spring (May–June 2018). We compare the top‐down fluxes with state‐of‐science bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal population and management practices. Top‐down point source emissions are consistent with bottom‐up estimates for beef concentrated animal feeding operations but moderately lower for dairies (by 37% on average) and significantly lower for sugar plants (by 80% on average). Swine facility results are more variable. The assumed bottom‐up seasonality for manure methane emissions is not apparent in the aircraft measurements, which may be due to on‐site management factors that are difficult to capture accurately in national‐scale inventories. If not properly accounted for, such seasonal disparities could lead to source misattribution in top‐down assessments of methane fluxes.
Plain Language Summary
Key agricultural methane sources are quantified using new airborne measurements in the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest. Measurements spanned multiple seasons and targeted nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region along with two sugar processing plants. Compared with bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal and management data, top‐down fluxes agree well with bottom‐up estimates for beef but are lower for dairies and sugar plants and suggest a possible mismatch in the timing of emissions.
Key Points
We used aircraft measurements to quantify methane emissions from key agricultural point sources in the Upper Midwest during three seasons
Top‐down methane fluxes are consistent with bottom‐up values for beef facilities but reveal a mismatch for dairies and sugar plants
These discrepancies point to potential spatial and temporal misattribution of emissions used for atmospheric inverse modeling</description><subject>Agricultural management</subject><subject>Agricultural wastes</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Airborne sensing</subject><subject>Airborne wastes</subject><subject>Animal population</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Anthropogenic factors</subject><subject>Balances (scales)</subject><subject>Beef</subject><subject>Belts</subject><subject>Corn</subject><subject>Corn belt</subject><subject>Dairies</subject><subject>Emission measurements</subject><subject>Environmental impact</subject><subject>Environmental protection</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Factory farming</subject><subject>Feeding</subject><subject>Fluxes</subject><subject>In situ measurement</subject><subject>Intensive farming</subject><subject>Inventories</subject><subject>Methane</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Protection</subject><subject>Saccharides</subject><subject>Seasonal variations</subject><subject>Seasonality</subject><subject>Sugar</subject><subject>Swine</subject><subject>Water pollution</subject><issn>2169-8953</issn><issn>2169-8961</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9ks1uEzEUhUcIRKvSHWtkwYYFCf6bH2-Q0tAGqgYQTcXScjw3jasZe7BniLrjEdjxfjwJN0qJCgu8sXX96dx7jm6WPWV0zChXrzll6nxGaS65epAdclaoUaUK9nD_zsVBdpzSDcVTYYmxx9mBEAWToigOs5-L0P36_uNt2HgyDT710TjfJxI8mUO_Nh7Ip4AVchmGaIGcti4lhyA5i6ElE-9a05DJdXR2aPohAjG-Jl9M6oGcmAT1VukDbMjExWWIKDcHk5BrYdvGedKvgVyNL8fkqusgkrmrN5D6J9mjlWkSHN_dR9ni7HQxfTe6-Dh7P51cjKysBB8VfEXRr1C54sKIurRKSKillQJ4yYrlsubcFsbkdU0lZ6scpMUH5lZTAeIoe7OT7YZlC7XFoaJpdBfRVrzVwTj99493a30dvumyUhJTR4HnO4GQeqeTdT3YtQ3eg-01yysmS4XQy7suMXwd0J3GFC00DcYbhqS5VJyXFWUC0Rf_oDcYvMcIkGKM8VyyCqlXO8rGkFKE1X5iRvV2MfT9xUD82X2Xe_jPGiAgdsDGNXD7XzF9Pvs84yzPufgNIMjCkg</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Yu, Xueying</creator><creator>Millet, Dylan B.</creator><creator>Wells, Kelley C.</creator><creator>Griffis, Timothy J.</creator><creator>Chen, Xin</creator><creator>Baker, John M.</creator><creator>Conley, Stephen A.</creator><creator>Smith, Mackenzie L.</creator><creator>Gvakharia, Alexander</creator><creator>Kort, Eric A.</creator><creator>Plant, Genevieve</creator><creator>Wood, Jeffrey D.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>American Geophysical Union (AGU)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3076-125X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2111-5144</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6422-2882</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7937-9839</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1260-4744</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9380-5136</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-6878</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4940-7541</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000330256878</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000279379839</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000349407541</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000293805136</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/000000033076125X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000312604744</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000164222882</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000221115144</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Top‐Down Constraints on Methane Point Source Emissions From Animal Agriculture and Waste Based on New Airborne Measurements in the U.S. Upper Midwest</title><author>Yu, Xueying ; Millet, Dylan B. ; Wells, Kelley C. ; Griffis, Timothy J. ; Chen, Xin ; Baker, John M. ; Conley, Stephen A. ; Smith, Mackenzie L. ; Gvakharia, Alexander ; Kort, Eric A. ; Plant, Genevieve ; Wood, Jeffrey D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4832-62f0896395923a3d7c934ed4c43e2716bbd22c6aa5dd0421f5e4c042201d03e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Agricultural management</topic><topic>Agricultural wastes</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Airborne sensing</topic><topic>Airborne wastes</topic><topic>Animal population</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Anthropogenic factors</topic><topic>Balances (scales)</topic><topic>Beef</topic><topic>Belts</topic><topic>Corn</topic><topic>Corn belt</topic><topic>Dairies</topic><topic>Emission measurements</topic><topic>Environmental impact</topic><topic>Environmental protection</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Factory farming</topic><topic>Feeding</topic><topic>Fluxes</topic><topic>In situ measurement</topic><topic>Intensive farming</topic><topic>Inventories</topic><topic>Methane</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Protection</topic><topic>Saccharides</topic><topic>Seasonal variations</topic><topic>Seasonality</topic><topic>Sugar</topic><topic>Swine</topic><topic>Water pollution</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xueying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Millet, Dylan B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wells, Kelley C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffis, Timothy J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conley, Stephen A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, Mackenzie L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gvakharia, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kort, Eric A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Plant, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Jeffrey D.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yu, Xueying</au><au>Millet, Dylan B.</au><au>Wells, Kelley C.</au><au>Griffis, Timothy J.</au><au>Chen, Xin</au><au>Baker, John M.</au><au>Conley, Stephen A.</au><au>Smith, Mackenzie L.</au><au>Gvakharia, Alexander</au><au>Kort, Eric A.</au><au>Plant, Genevieve</au><au>Wood, Jeffrey D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Top‐Down Constraints on Methane Point Source Emissions From Animal Agriculture and Waste Based on New Airborne Measurements in the U.S. Upper Midwest</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences</jtitle><addtitle>J Geophys Res Biogeosci</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>125</volume><issue>1</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>2169-8953</issn><eissn>2169-8961</eissn><abstract>Agriculture and waste are thought to account for half or more of the U.S. anthropogenic methane source. However, current bottom‐up inventories contain inherent uncertainties from extrapolating limited in situ measurements to larger scales. Here, we employ new airborne methane measurements over the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest, among the most intensive agricultural regions in the world, to quantify emissions from an array of key agriculture and waste point sources. Nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region and two sugar processing plants were measured, with multiple revisits during summer (August 2017), winter (January 2018), and spring (May–June 2018). We compare the top‐down fluxes with state‐of‐science bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal population and management practices. Top‐down point source emissions are consistent with bottom‐up estimates for beef concentrated animal feeding operations but moderately lower for dairies (by 37% on average) and significantly lower for sugar plants (by 80% on average). Swine facility results are more variable. The assumed bottom‐up seasonality for manure methane emissions is not apparent in the aircraft measurements, which may be due to on‐site management factors that are difficult to capture accurately in national‐scale inventories. If not properly accounted for, such seasonal disparities could lead to source misattribution in top‐down assessments of methane fluxes.
Plain Language Summary
Key agricultural methane sources are quantified using new airborne measurements in the U.S. Corn Belt and Upper Midwest. Measurements spanned multiple seasons and targeted nine of the largest concentrated animal feeding operations in the region along with two sugar processing plants. Compared with bottom‐up estimates informed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology and site‐level animal and management data, top‐down fluxes agree well with bottom‐up estimates for beef but are lower for dairies and sugar plants and suggest a possible mismatch in the timing of emissions.
Key Points
We used aircraft measurements to quantify methane emissions from key agricultural point sources in the Upper Midwest during three seasons
Top‐down methane fluxes are consistent with bottom‐up values for beef facilities but reveal a mismatch for dairies and sugar plants
These discrepancies point to potential spatial and temporal misattribution of emissions used for atmospheric inverse modeling</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>33614366</pmid><doi>10.1029/2019JG005429</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3076-125X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2111-5144</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6422-2882</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7937-9839</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1260-4744</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9380-5136</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3025-6878</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4940-7541</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000330256878</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000279379839</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000349407541</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000293805136</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/000000033076125X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000312604744</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000164222882</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000000221115144</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2169-8953 |
ispartof | Journal of geophysical research. Biogeosciences, 2020-01, Vol.125 (1), p.n/a |
issn | 2169-8953 2169-8961 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7894054 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Free Content; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Agricultural management Agricultural wastes Agriculture Airborne sensing Airborne wastes Animal population Animal populations Anthropogenic factors Balances (scales) Beef Belts Corn Corn belt Dairies Emission measurements Environmental impact Environmental protection Estimates Factory farming Feeding Fluxes In situ measurement Intensive farming Inventories Methane Methods Protection Saccharides Seasonal variations Seasonality Sugar Swine Water pollution |
title | Top‐Down Constraints on Methane Point Source Emissions From Animal Agriculture and Waste Based on New Airborne Measurements in the U.S. Upper Midwest |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T03%3A54%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Top%E2%80%90Down%20Constraints%20on%20Methane%20Point%20Source%20Emissions%20From%20Animal%20Agriculture%20and%20Waste%20Based%20on%20New%20Airborne%20Measurements%20in%20the%20U.S.%20Upper%20Midwest&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geophysical%20research.%20Biogeosciences&rft.au=Yu,%20Xueying&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=125&rft.issue=1&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=2169-8953&rft.eissn=2169-8961&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2019JG005429&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2492278013%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2411125418&rft_id=info:pmid/33614366&rfr_iscdi=true |