Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 302

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dry deposition of reactive nitrogen to European ecosystems: a comparison of inferential models across the NitroEurope network

Open access
Flechard, C. R., Nemitz, E., Smith, R. I., Fowler, D., Vermeulen, A. T., Bleeker, A., Erisman, J. W., Simpson, D., Zhang, L., Tang, Y. S., Sutton, M. A.·2011·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Abstract

Abstract. Inferential models have long been used to determine pollutant dry deposition to ecosystems from measurements of air concentrations and as part of national and regional atmospheric chemistry and transport models, and yet models still suffer very large uncertainties. An inferential network of 55 sites throughout Europe for atmospheric reactive nitrogen (Nr) was established in 2007, providing ambient concentrations of gaseous NH3, NO2, HNO3 and HONO and aerosol NH4+ and NO3− as part of the NitroEurope Integrated Project. Network results providing modelled inorganic Nr dry deposition to the 55 monitoring sites are presented, using four existing dry deposition routines, revealing inter-model differences and providing ensemble average deposition estimates. Dry deposition is generally largest over forests in regions with large ambient NH3 concentrations, exceeding 30–40 kg N ha−1 yr−1 over parts of the Netherlands and Belgium, while some remote forests in Scandinavia receive less than 2 kg N ha−1 yr−1. Turbulent Nr deposition to short vegetation ecosystems is generally smaller than to forests due to reduced turbulent exchange, but also because NH3 inputs to fertilised, agricultural systems are limited by the presence of a substantial NH3 source in the vegetation, leading to periods of emission as well as deposition. Differences between models reach a factor 2–3 and are often greater than differences between monitoring sites. For soluble Nr gases such as NH3 and HNO3, the non-stomatal pathways are responsible for most of the annual uptake over many surfaces, especially the non-agricultural land uses, but parameterisations of the sink strength vary considerably among models. For aerosol NH4+ and NO3− discrepancies between theoretical models and field flux measurements lead to much uncertainty in dry deposition rates for fine particles (0.1–0.5 μm). The validation of inferential models at the ecosystem scale is best achieved by comparison with direct long-term micrometeorological Nr flux measurements, but too few such datasets are available, especially for HNO3 and aerosol NH4+ and NO3−.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/acp-11-2703-2011

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 302

Metadata

Authors
Flechard, C. R., Nemitz, E., Smith, R. I., Fowler, D., Vermeulen, A. T., Bleeker, A., Erisman, J. W., Simpson, D., Zhang, L., Tang, Y. S., & Sutton, M. A.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2011-03-23
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
2703-2728
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2062639723
Cited by
302
References
0
FWCI
12.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dry deposition of reactive nitrogen to European ecosystems: a comparison of inferential models across the NitroEurope network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-11-2703-2011
The paper
Flechard, C. R., Nemitz, E., Smith, R. I., Fowler, D., Vermeulen, A. T., Bleeker, A., Erisman, J. W., Simpson, D., Zhang, L., Tang, Y. S., & Sutton, M. A. (2011). Dry deposition of reactive nitrogen to European ecosystems: a comparison of inferential models across the NitroEurope network. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2703-2011

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.