Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T15:40:53.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three Years of Δ14CO2 Observations from Maize Leaves in the Netherlands and Western Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2016

D Bozhinova ,
S W L Palstra ,
M K van der Molen ,
M C Krol ,
H A J Meijer  and
W Peters
D Bozhinova
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Meteorology and Air Quality group, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands.
S W L Palstra
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, the Netherlands.
M K van der Molen
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Meteorology and Air Quality group, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands.
M C Krol
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Meteorology and Air Quality group, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands. Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, the Netherlands.
H A J Meijer
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, the Netherlands.
W Peters*
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Meteorology and Air Quality group, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, the Netherlands. University of Groningen, Centre for Isotope Research, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, the Netherlands.
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Atmospheric Δ14CO2 measurements are useful to investigate the regional signals of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, despite the currently scarce observational network for Δ14CO2. Plant samples are an easily attainable alternative, which have been shown to work well as a qualitative measure of the atmospheric Δ14CO2 signals integrated over the time a plant has grown. Here, we present the 14C analysis results for 89 individual maize (Zea mays) plant samples from 51 different locations that were gathered in the Netherlands in the years 2010 to 2012, and from western Germany and France in 2012. We describe our sampling strategy and results, and include a comparison to a model simulation of the Δ14CO2 that would be accumulated in each plant over a growing season. Our model simulates the Δ14CO2 signatures in good agreement with observed plant samples, resulting in a root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of 3.30‰. This value is comparable to the measurement uncertainty, but still relatively large (20–50%) compared to the total signal. It is also comparable to the spread in Δ14CO2 values found across multiple plants from a single site, and to the spread found when averaging across larger regions. We nevertheless find that both measurements and model capture the large-scale (>100 km) regional Δ14CO2 gradients, with significant observation-model correlations in all three countries in which we collected samples. The modeled plant results suggest that the largest gradients found in the Netherlands and Germany are associated with emissions from energy production and road traffic, while in France, the 14CO2 enrichment from nuclear sources dominates in many samples. Overall, the required model-based interpretation of plant samples adds additional uncertainty to the already relatively large measurement uncertainty in Δ14CO2, and we suggest that future fossil fuel monitoring efforts should prioritize other strategies such as direct atmospheric sampling of CO2 and Δ14CO2.

Keywords

radiocarbon in plantsmodern atmosphereexperimentalmodelinganthropogenic CO emissions
Type
Research Article
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 58 , Supplement 3 , September 2016 , pp. 459 - 478
Copyright
© 2016 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aerts-Bijma, AT, Meijer, HAJ, van der Plicht, J. 1997. AMS sample handling in Groningen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123(1–4):221–225.Google Scholar
Aerts-Bijma, AT, van der Plicht, J, Meijer, HAJ. 2001. Automatic AMS sample combustion and CO2 collection. Radiocarbon 43(2A):293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baydoun, R, Samad, OE, Nsouli, B, Younes, G. 2015. Measurement of radiocarbon content in leaves near a cement factory in Mount Lebanon. Radiocarbon 57(1):153–159.Google Scholar
Bozhinova, D, Combe, M, Palstra, SWL, Meijer, HAJ, Krol, MC, Peters, W. 2013. The importance of crop growth modeling to interpret the ∆14CO2 signature of annual plants. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 27(3):792–803.Google Scholar
Bozhinova, D, van der Molen, MK, van der Velde, IR, Krol, MC, van der Laan, S, Meijer, HAJ, Peters, W. 2014. Simulating the integrated summertime ∆14 CO2 signature from anthropogenic emissions over Western Europe. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 14:7273–7290.Google Scholar
Ciais, P, Paris, JD, Marland, G, Peylin, P, Piao, SL, Levin, I, Pregger, T, Scholz, Y, Friedrich, R, Rivier, L, Houwelling, S, Schulze, ED. 2010. The European carbon balance. Part 1: fossil fuel emissions. Global Change Biology 16(5):1395–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontugne, M, Maro, D, Baron, Y, Hatté, C, Hebert, D, Douville, E. 2004. 14C sources and distribution in the vicinity of La Hague nuclear reprocessing plant: Part I—terrestrial environment. Radiocarbon 46(2):827–830.Google Scholar
Graven, HD, Gruber, N. 2011. Continental-scale enrichment of atmospheric 14CO2 from the nuclear power industry: potential impact on the estimation of fossil fuel-derived CO2 . Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11(12):339–349.Google Scholar
Graven, HD, Guilderson, TP, Keeling, RF. 2012. Observations of radiocarbon in CO2 at seven global sampling sites in the Scripps flask network: analysis of spatial gradients and seasonal cycles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117(D2):D02303.Google Scholar
Hsueh, DY, Krakauer, NY, Randerson, JT, Xu, X, Trumbore, SE, Southon, JR. 2007. Regional patterns of radiocarbon and fossil fuel-derived CO2 in surface air across North America. Geophysical Research Letters 34(2):L02816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I, Karstens, U. 2007. Inferring high-resolution fossil fuel CO2 records at continental sites from combined 14CO2 and CO observations. Tellus 59(2):245–250.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B, Schmidt, M, Sartorius, H. 2003. A novel approach for independent budgeting of fossil fuel CO2 over Europe by 14CO2 observations. Geophysical Research Letters 30(23):2194.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Naegler, T, Kromer, B, Diehl, M, Francey, RJ, Gomez-Pelaez, AJ, Steele, LP, Wagenbach, D, Weller, R, Worthy, DE. 2010. Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2 . Tellus B 62(1):26–46.Google Scholar
Levin, I, Kromer, B, Hammer, S. 2013. Atmospheric ∆14CO2 trend in Western European background air from 2000 to 2012. Tellus B 65:20092.Google Scholar
Miller, JB, Lehman, SJ, Montzka, SA, Sweeney, C, Miller, BR, Karion, A, Wolak, C, Dlugokencky, EJ, Southon, J, Turnbull, JC, Tans, PP. 2012. Linking emissions of fossil fuel CO2 and other anthropogenic trace gases using atmospheric 14CO2 . Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 117(D8):D08302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mook, WG, van der Plicht, J. 1999. Reporting 14C activities and concentrations. Radiocarbon 41(3):227–239.Google Scholar
Palstra, SWL, Karstens, U, Streurman, H, Meijer, HAJ. 2008. Wine ethanol 14C as a tracer for fossil fuel CO2 emissions in Europe: measurements and model comparison. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 113:D21305.Google Scholar
Park, J, Hong, W, Park, G, Sung, K, Lee, K, Kim, Y, Kim, J, Choi, H, Kim, G, Woo, H. 2013. A comparison of distribution maps of ∆14C of 2010 and 2011 in Korea. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):841–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, W, Krol, MC, van der Werf, GR, Houweling, S, Jones, CD, Hughes, J, Schaefer, K, Masarie, KA, Jacobson, AR, Miller, JB, Cho, CH, Ramonet, M, Schmidt, M, Ciattaglia, L, Apadula, F, Helta, D, Meinhardt, F, di Sarra, AG, Piacentino, S, Sferlazzo, D, Aalto, T, Hatakka, J, Strom, J, Haszpra, L, Meijer, HAJ, van der Laan, S, Neubert, REM, Jordan, A, Rodo, X, Morgui, JA, Vermeulen, AT, Popa, E, Rozanski, K, Zimnoch, M, Manning, AC, Leuenberger, M, Uglietti, C, Dolman, AJ, Ciais, P, Heimann, M, Tans, PP. 2010. Seven years of recent European net terrestrial carbon dioxide exchange constrained by atmospheric observations. Global Change Biology 16(14):1317–1337.Google Scholar
Riley, W, Hsueh, D, Randerson, J, Fischer, ML, Hatch, JG, Pataki, DE, Wang, W, Goulden, ML. 2008. Where do fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions from California go? An analysis based on radiocarbon observations and an atmospheric transport model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 113:G04002.Google Scholar
Sakurai, H, Tokanai, F, Kato, K, Takahashi, Y, Sato, T, Kikuchi, S, Inui, E, Arai, Y, Masuda, K, Miyahara, H, Mundia, C, Tavera, W. 2013. Latest 14C concentrations of plant leaves at high altitudes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres: vertical stability of local Suess effect. Radiocarbon 55(2–3):1573–1579.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M, Polach, H. 1977. Discussion: reporting of 14C data. Radiocarbon 19(3):355–363.Google Scholar
Turnbull, J, Rayner, P, Miller, J, Naegler, T, Ciais, P, Cozic, A. 2009. On the use of 14CO2 as a tracer for fossil fuel CO2: quantifying uncertainties using an atmospheric transport model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 114:D22302.Google Scholar
Turnbull, J, Karion, A, Fischer, ML, Faloona, I, Guilderson, T, Lehman, SJ, Miller, BR, Miller, JB, Montzka, S, Sherwood, T, Saripalli, S, Sweeney, C, Tans, PP. 2011. Assessment of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic trace gas emissions from airborne measurements over Sacramento, California in spring 2009. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11:705–721.Google Scholar
Turnbull, JC, Keller, ED, Baisden, T, Brailsford, G, Bromley, T, Norris, M, Zondervan, A. 2014a. Atmospheric measurement of point source fossil CO2 emissions. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 14:5001–5014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, JC, Sweeney, C, Karion, A, Newberger, T, Lehman, SJ, Tans, PP, Davis, KJ, Lauvaux, T, Miles, NL, Richardson, SJ, Cambaliza, MO, Shepson, PB, Gurney, K, Patarasuk, R, Razlivanov, I. 2014b. Towards quantification and source sector identification of fossil fuel CO2 emissions from an urban area: results from the INFLUX experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 120(1):292–312.Google Scholar
van der Laan, S, Karstens, U, Neubert, REM, van der Laan-Luijkx, IT, Meijer, HAJ. 2010. Observation-based estimates of fossil fuel-derived CO2 emissions in the Netherlands using 14C, CO and 222Radon. Tellus B 62(5):389–402.Google Scholar
van der Plicht, J, Wijma, S, Aerts-Bijma, AT, Pertuisot, MH, Meijer, HAJ. 2000. Status report: the Groningen AMS facility. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172(1–4):58–65.Google Scholar
van der Velde, IR, Miller, JB, Schaefer, K, van der Werf, GR, Krol, MC, Peters, W. 2014. Terrestrial cycling of 13CO2 by photosynthesis, respiration, and biomass burning in SiBCASA. Biogeosciences 11:6553–6571.Google Scholar
Vogel, F, Hammer, S, Steinhof, A, Kromer, B, Levin, I. 2010. Implication of weekly and diurnal 14C calibration on hourly estimates of CO-based fossil fuel CO2 at a moderately polluted site in southwestern Germany. Tellus B 62(5):512–520.Google Scholar
Vogel, FR, Tiruchittampalam, B, Theloke, J, Kretschmer, R, Gerbig, C, Hammer, S, Levin, I. 2013. Can we evaluate a fine-grained emission model using high-resolution atmospheric transport modelling and regional fossil fuel CO2 observations? Tellus B 65:18681.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bozhinova supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Bozhinova supplementary material(File)
File 58.2 KB