|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 efflux|
Yuste, Jorge Curiel
Grunzweig, Jose M
Soil CO2 efflux
|Citation:||Pumpanen J, Kolari P, Ilvesniemi H, Minkkinen K, Vesala T, Niinistö S, Lohila A, Larmola T, Morero M, Pihlatie M, Janssens I, Yuste JC, Grunzweig JM, Reth S, Subke J, Savage K, Kutsch W, Ostreng G, Ziegler W, Anthoni P, Lindroth A & Hari P (2004) Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 efflux, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 123 (3-4), pp. 159-176.|
|Abstract:||Twenty chambers for measurement of soil CO2 efflux were compared against known CO2 fluxes ranging from 0.32 to 10.01 molCO2 m−2 s−1 and generated by a specially developed calibration tank. Chambers were tested on fine and coarse homogeneous quartz sand with particle sizes of 0.05–0.2 and 0.6 mm, respectively. The effect of soil moisture on chamber measurementswas tested by wetting the fine quartz sand to about25%volumetricwater content. Non-steady-state through-flow chambers either underestimated or overestimated fluxes from−21 to+33% depending on the type of chamber and the method of mixing air within the chamber’s headspace. However, when results of all systems tested were averaged, fluxes were within 4% of references. Non-steady-state on-through-flow chambers underestimated or overestimated fluxes from –35 to +6%.On average, the underestimation was about 13–14% on fine sand and 4% on coarse sand. When the length of the measurement period was increased, the underestimation increased due to the rising concentration within the chamber headspace, which reduced the diffusion gradient within the soil. Steady-state through-flow chambers worked almost equally well in all sand types used in this study. They overestimated the fluxes on average by 2–4%. Overall, the reliability of the chambers was not related to the measurement principle per se. Even the same chambers, with different collar designs, showed highly variable results. The mixing of air within the chamber can be a major source of error. Excessive turbulence inside the chamber can cause mass flow of CO2 from the soil into the chamber. The chamber headspace concentration also affects the flux by altering the concentration gradient between the soil and the chamber.|
|Rights:||The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.|
|Pumpanen et al 2004 AFM.pdf||323 kB||Adobe PDF||Under Embargo until 31/12/2999 Request a copy|
Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.