MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771616992 · doi:10.2134/jeq2017.02.0084

Applicability of Eddy Covariance to Estimate Methane Emissions from Grazing Cattle

2017· article· en· W2771616992 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Coates, M. A. Benvenutti, Thomas K. Flesch, E. Charmley, S. M. McGinn, Deli Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsGrazingEddy covarianceEnvironmental sciencePastureAtmospheric sciencesBeef cattleFootprintFlux (metallurgy)Hydrology (agriculture)Animal scienceEcologyEcosystemChemistryBiologyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grazing systems represent a significant source of enteric methane (CH 4 ), but available techniques for quantifying herd scale emissions are limited. This study explores the capability of an eddy covariance (EC) measurement system for long‐term monitoring of CH 4 emissions from grazing cattle. Measurements were made in two pasture settings: in the center of a large grazing paddock, and near a watering point where animals congregated during the day. Cattle positions were monitored through time‐lapse images, and this information was used with a Lagrangian stochastic dispersion model to interpret EC fluxes and derive per‐animal CH 4 emission rates. Initial grazing paddock measurements were challenged by the rapid movement of cattle across the measurement footprint, but a feed supplement placed upwind of the measurements helped retain animals within the footprint, allowing emission estimates for 20% of the recorded daytime fluxes. At the water point, >50% of the flux measurement periods included cattle emissions. Overall, cattle emissions for the paddock site were higher (253 g CH 4 m −2 adult equivalent [AE] −1 d −1 , SD = 75) and more variable than emissions at the water point (158 g CH 4 AE −1 d −1 , SD = 34). Combining results from both sites gave a CH 4 production of 0.43 g kg −1 body weight, which is in range of other reported emissions from grazing animals. With an understanding of animal behavior to allow the most effective use of tower placement, the combination of an EC measurement platform and a Lagrangian stochastic model could have practical applications for long‐term monitoring of fluxes in grazing environments. Core Ideas Grazing systems contribute significantly to GHG emissions from agriculture. EC fluxes, images, and a footprint analysis were used to estimate cattle emissions. Daytime estimates were easier to capture while cattle congregated near a water point. With some simplifications, EC may be viable option for in situ monitoring of cattle. Atmospheric Pollutants and Trace Gases

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207