Weak lensing of Type Ia Supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey

We consider the effects of weak gravitational lensing on observations of 196 spectroscopically confirmed Type Ia Supernovae (SNe Ia) from years 1 to 3 of the Dark Energy Survey (DES). We simultaneously measure both the angular correlation function and the non-Gaussian skewness caused by weak lensing. This approach has the advantage of being insensitive to the intrinsic dispersion of SNe Ia magnitudes. We model the amplitude of both effects as a function of σ8, and find σ8 =1.2+0.9−0.8⁠. We also apply our method to a subsample of 488 SNe from the Joint Light-curve Analysis (JLA; chosen to match the redshift range we use for this work), and find σ8 =0.8+1.1−0.7⁠. The comparable uncertainty in σ8 between DES–SN and the larger number of SNe from JLA highlights the benefits of homogeneity of the DES–SN sample, and improvements in the calibration and data analysis

Evaluation of three field-based methods for quantifying soil carbon

Citation: Izaurralde, Roberto C., Charles W. Rice, Lucian Wielopolski, Michael H. Ebinger, James B. Reeves Iii, Allison M. Thomson, Ronny Harris, et al. “Evaluation of Three Field-Based Methods for Quantifying Soil Carbon.” PLOS ONE 8, no. 1 (January 31, 2013): e55560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055560.Three advanced technologies to measure soil carbon (C) density (g C mˉ²) are deployed in the field and the results compared against those obtained by the dry combustion (DC) method. The advanced methods are: a) Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), b) Diffuse Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (DRIFTS), and c) Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS). The measurements and soil samples were acquired at Beltsville, MD, USA and at Centro International para el Mejoramiento del Maı´z y el Trigo (CIMMYT) at El Bata´n, Mexico. At Beltsville, soil samples were extracted at three depth intervals (0–5, 5–15, and 15–30 cm) and processed for analysis in the field with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. The INS instrument determined soil C density to a depth of 30 cm via scanning and stationary measurements. Subsequently, soil core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for soil bulk density (kg mˉ³), C concentration (g kgˉ¹) by DC, and results reported as soil C density (kg mˉ²). Results from each technique were derived independently and contributed to a blind test against results from the reference (DC) method. A similar procedure was employed at CIMMYT in Mexico employing but only with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. Following conversion to common units, we found that the LIBS, DRIFTS, and INS results can be compared directly with those obtained by the DC method. The first two methods and the standard DC require soil sampling and need soil bulk density information to convert soil C concentrations to soil C densities while the INS method does not require soil sampling. We conclude that, in comparison with the DC method, the three instruments (a) showed acceptable performances although further work is needed to improve calibration techniques and (b) demonstrated their portability and their capacity to perform under field conditions