Publikasjoner
NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.
2021
Forfattere
Mette ThomsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
https://youtu.be/ngVWWIkiU5s
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Populærvitenskapelig – Bruk av fangvekster og jorddekke i grønnsaks produksjon (del 2)
Mette Thomsen
Forfattere
Mette ThomsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Živa Fišer Giovanna Aronne Tsipe Aavik Meleksen Akin Paraskevi Alizoti Filippos Aravanopoulos Gianluigi Bacchetta Manica Balant Dalibor Ballian Oz Barazani Andrea Francesca Bellia Nadine Bernhardt Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat Adrian Bugeja Douglas Michael Burkart Dušica Ćalić André Carapeto Tor Carlsen Silvia Castro Guy Colling Joana Cursach Sara Cvetanoska Cvetanka Cvetkoska Renata Ćušterevska Laura Daco Kalina Danova Aida Dervishi Gordana Djukanović Snežana Dragićević Andreas Ensslin Marianne Evju Giuseppe Fenu Ana Francisco Pedro Pablo Gallego Marta Galloni Anatolie Ganea Birgit Gemeinholzer Peter Glasnović Sandrine Godefroid Mette Thomsen Melinda Halassy Aveliina Helm Marko Hyvärinen Jasmin Joshi Amra Kazić Michael Kiehn Marcin Klisz Anneleen Kool Olav Skarpaas Goran Zdunic Elke ZippelSammendrag
Even though plants represent an essential part of our lives offering exploitational, supporting and cultural services, we know very little about the biology of the rarest and most threatened plant species, and even less about their conservation status. Rapid changes in the environment and climate, today more pronounced than ever, affect their fitness and distribution causing rapid species declines, sometimes even before they had been discovered. Despite the high goals set by conservationists to protect native plants from further degradation and extinction, the initiatives for the conservation of threatened species in Europe are scattered and have not yielded the desired results. The main aim of this Action is to improve plant conservation in Europe through the establishment of a network of scientists and other stakeholders who deal with different aspects of plant conservation, from plant taxonomy, ecology, conservation genetics, conservation physiology and reproductive biology to protected area's managers, not forgetting social scientists, who are crucial when dealing with the general public. in situ plant conservation, ex situ plant conservation, conservation genetics, red lists of threatened plant species, citizen science
Forfattere
Mette ThomsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Mette ThomsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Mette ThomsenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Current forage production on tile drained peat soil is challenged by low drainage efficiency and large GHG emissions. Alternative methods need to be evaluated to sustain agricultural usage while protecting peat C and N stocks. Peat inversion is a valid method when the peat layer is less than 1.5 m deep and lies on top of a self-draining mineral soil. The peat body is covered by the underlying mineral soil while maintaining connectivity to the self-draining subsoil through tilted mineral soil layers. We studied the effect of inversion of previously tile drained peat with forage production on dry matter yield (DMY), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and peat degradation. The field experiment was carried out in adjacent fields with inverted and tile drained nutrient poor peat in Western Norway during 2014-2018. At both fields the surface was slightly graded towards open ditches surrounding the field. The thickness of the mineral cover layer of the inverted peat varied between 80-100 cm on top of the graded surface (upper site) and 40-50 cm closer to the ditches (lower site). Coarse silt and fine sand dominated the texture of the cover layer and content of organic matter was very low (0.5 % tot. C). The texture was finer (higher content of silt and clay) at the lower site compared to the upper site. Mean DMY for 4 ley years at the inverted (upper site) and tile drained peat was 12.2 and 10.3 t ha-1 y-1, respectively. Mean methane emissions in tile drained peat were 200, 140, 209 and 55 kg CH4-C ha-1 in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively, whereas the CH4 exchange in inverted peat was small. In inverted peat, we found up to 50 vol% CH4 in the soil air close to the buried peat, which strongly decreased towards the soil surface at both inverted sites. Nitrous oxide emissions in fertilized tile drained peat were 4.3, 9.5, 9.8 and 5.3 kg N2O-N ha-1 in 2015-2018, respectively. In inverted peat (upper site) N2O emissions were 3.6, 3.6, 8.5 and 2.7 kg N2O-N ha-1 these years. In lower site, measured in 2017 and 2018, the emissions were 10.3 and 4.5 kg N2O-N ha-1, respectively for the two years. N2O-emissions were small in unfertilized plots both at tile drained and inverted peat. Depth profiles of N2O in soil air indicated that N2O is produced in the mineral layer and not in the buried peat. Continuously monitored O2 profiles showed O2-concentrations of 0-5 vol% in the top of the buried peat and much higher concentrations (5-20 vol %) in the tile drained peat. Dark chamber measurements in 2018 showed a CO2-flux of 1.43, 1.49 and 2.35 kg ha-1 h-1 CO2-C after 1.st cut and 1.4, 1.25 and 2.01 kg ha-1 h-1 CO2-C after 2.cut in inverted upper site, inverted lower site and tile drained peat, respectively. The larger respiration measured at tile drained peat most probably derives from larger heterotrophic respiration, as the mass of roots was lower in tile drained than in inverted peat. Results from this field experiment suggest that inversion of tile drained peat reduces the CH4 emissions and degradation of the peat. N2O emissions is fertilizer induced in both tile drained and inverted nutrient poor peat, and is determined by soil and weather conditions at the time of fertilization. The large variation in emissions between years can be explained by different weather conditions. 2017 was a wet year and 2018 a very dry year.
Forfattere
Erik Kristoffer Arnesen Jøran Sture Hjelmesæth Liv Elin Torheim Kirsten Bjørklund Holven Kari Hege Mortensen Audun KorsæthSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag