Kelsey Greub
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Kelsey Greub has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Cassie Seuferling
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville Arkansas USA
1 shared publication - Diego Della Lunga
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville Arkansas USA
1 shared publication - Jonathan B. Brye
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
1 shared publication - Kristofor R. Brye
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences University of Arkansas Fayetteville Arkansas USA
1 shared publication - Lisa S. Wood
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
1 shared publication - Mike Daniels
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 2 July 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Agriengineering
- Vol. 7 (7) , 213
Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas-Flux-Determination Models and Calculation in Southeast Arkansas Cotton Production
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions evaluations from agroecosystems are critical, particularly as technology improves. Consistent GHG measurement methods are essential to the evaluation of GHG emissions. The objective of the study was to evaluate potential differences in gas-flux-determination (GFD) options and carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes and growing-season-long emissions estimates from furrow-irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in southeast Arkansas. Four GFD methods were evaluated [i.e., linear (L) or exponential (E) regression models, with negative fluxes (WNF) included in the dataset or replacing negative fluxes (RNF)] over the 2024 growing season using a LI-COR field-portable chamber and gas analyzers. Exponential regression models were influenced by abnormal CO2 and N2O gas concentration data points, indicating the use of caution with E models. Season-long CH4 emissions differed (p < 0.05) between the WNF (−0.51 kg ha−1 season−1 for L and−0.54 kg ha−1 season−1 for E) and RNF (0.01 kg ha−1 season−1 for L and E) GFD methods, concluding that RNF options over-estimate CH4 emissions. Gas concentration measurements following chamber closure should remain under 300 s, with one concentration measurement obtained per second. The choice of GFD method needs careful consideration to result in accurate GHG fluxes and season-long emission estimates.
- 2 July 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Agriengineering
- Vol. 7 (7) , 213
Open AccessEvaluation of Greenhouse Gas-Flux-Determination Models and Calculation in Southeast Arkansas Cotton Production
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions evaluations from agroecosystems are critical, particularly as technology improves. Consistent GHG measurement methods are essential to the evaluation of GHG emissions. The objective of the study was to evaluate potential differences in gas-flux-determination (GFD) options and carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) fluxes and growing-season-long emissions estimates from furrow-irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in southeast Arkansas. Four GFD methods were evaluated [i.e., linear (L) or exponential (E) regression models, with negative fluxes (WNF) included in the dataset or replacing negative fluxes (RNF)] over the 2024 growing season using a LI-COR field-portable chamber and gas analyzers. Exponential regression models were influenced by abnormal CO2 and N2O gas concentration data points, indicating the use of caution with E models. Season-long CH4 emissions differed (p < 0.05) between the WNF (−0.51 kg ha−1 season−1 for L and−0.54 kg ha−1 season−1 for E) and RNF (0.01 kg ha−1 season−1 for L and E) GFD methods, concluding that RNF options over-estimate CH4 emissions. Gas concentration measurements following chamber closure should remain under 300 s, with one concentration measurement obtained per second. The choice of GFD method needs careful consideration to result in accurate GHG fluxes and season-long emission estimates.