Comparison of measured and EF5-r-derived N2O fluxes from a spring-fed river

There is considerable uncertainty in the estimates of indirect N₂O emissions as defined by the intergovernmental panel on climate change's (IPCC) methodology. Direct measurements of N₂O yields and fluxes in aquatic river environments are sparse and more data are required to determine the role that rivers play in the global N₂O budget. The objectives of this research were to measure the N₂O fluxes from a spring‐fed river, relate these fluxes to the dissolved N₂O concentrations and NO₃‐N loading of the river, and to try and define the indirect emission factor (EF5‐r) for the river. Gas bubble ebullition was observed at the river source with bubbles containing 7.9 μL N₂O L^?1. River NO₃‐N and dissolved N₂O concentrations ranged from 2.5 to 5.3 mg L^?1 and 0.4 to 1.9 μg N₂O‐N L^?1, respectively, with N₂O saturation reaching 404%. Floating headspace chambers were used to sample N₂O fluxes. N₂O‐N fluxes were significantly related to dissolved N₂O‐N concentrations (r²=30.6) but not to NO₃‐N concentrations. The N₂O‐N fluxes ranged from 38–501 μg m^?2 h^?1, averaging 171 μg m^?2 h^?1 (±SD 85) overall. The measured N₂O‐N fluxes equated to an EF5‐r of only 6.6% of that calculated using the IPCC methodology, and this itself was considered to be an overestimate because of the degassing of antecedent dissolved N₂O present in the groundwater that fed the river.