Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils

Authors :
Radosław Juszczak
Benjamin Wolf
Annika Nordbo
Giuseppe Benanti
Stephanie K. Jones
Mohamed Helmy
Roland Klefoth
Raquel Lobo-do-Vale
Jukka Pumpanen
Terhi Rasilo
Ana Paula Rosa
Hermanni Aaltonen
Sara Vicca
Michael Giebels
Peter Schreiber
Jesper Riis Christiansen
Mari Pihlatie
Jatta Sheehy
Janne Korhonen
Dominique Serça
Department of Physics
Department of Forest Sciences
Ecosystem processes (INAR Forest Sciences)
Micrometeorology and biogeochemical cycles
Forest Ecology and Management
Department of Physics [Helsinki]
Falculty of Science [Helsinki]
University of Helsinki-University of Helsinki
Division of Biomass & Ecosystem Science
University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet (KU)
Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR)
Faculty of Forestry [Vancouver] (UBC Faculty of Forestry)
University of British Columbia (UBC)
Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI)
Department of Forest Sciences [Helsinki]
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry [Helsinki]
School of Biology and Environmental Science
University College Dublin [Dublin] (UCD)
Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF)
Leibniz Association
MTT Agrifood Research Finland
Plant Production Research
Department of Plant Sciences
University of California [Davis] (UC Davis)
University of California-University of California
Scottish Agricultural College
University of Edinburgh
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)
Meteorology Department
Poznan University of Life Sciences
Agronomy Institute
Technical University of Lisbon
Centre for Environmental Biology
Universidade de Lisboa (ULISBOA)
University of Hamburg
Institute of Botany and Landscape Ecology
Universität Greifswald - University of Greifswald
Laboratoire d'aérologie (LAERO)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées (OMP)
Météo France-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Météo France-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3)
Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées
Research Group of Plant and Vegetation Ecology
University of Antwerpa
Institut für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung - Atmosphärische Umweltforschung (IMK-IFU)
Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT)
Source :
Agricultural and forest meteorology, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Elsevier Masson, 2013, 171-172, pp.124-136. ⟨10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008⟩, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 171-172 (2013), Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 171-172, 124-136
Publication Year :
2013

Abstract

International audience; The static chamber method (non-flow-through-non-steady-state chambers) is the most common method to measure fluxes of methane (CH4) from soils. Laboratory comparisons to quantify errors resulting from chamber design, operation and flux calculation methods are rare. We tested fifteen chambers against four flux levels (FL) ranging from 200 to 2300 μg CH4 m−2 h−1. The measurements were conducted on a calibration tank using three quartz sand types with soil porosities of 53% (dry fine sand, S1), 47% (dry coarse sand, S2), and 33% (wetted fine sand, S3). The chambers tested ranged from 0.06 to 1.8 m in height, and 0.02 to 0.195 m3 in volume, 7 of them were equipped with a fan, and 1 with a vent-tube. We applied linear and exponential flux calculation methods to the chamber data and compared these chamber fluxes to the reference fluxes from the calibration tank. The chambers underestimated the reference fluxes by on average 33% by the linear flux calculation method (Rlin), whereas the chamber fluxes calculated by the exponential flux calculation method (Rexp) did not significantly differ from the reference fluxes (p < 0.05). The flux under- or overestimations were chamber specific and independent of flux level. Increasing chamber height, area and volume significantly reduced the flux underestimation (p < 0.05). Also, the use of non-linear flux calculation method significantly improved the flux estimation; however, simultaneously the uncertainty in the fluxes was increased. We provide correction factors, which can be used to correct the under- or overestimation of the fluxes by the chambers in the experiment.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
01681923
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Agricultural and forest meteorology, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Elsevier Masson, 2013, 171-172, pp.124-136. ⟨10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008⟩, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 171-172 (2013), Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 171-172, 124-136
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....9d699f8c0b2714eb235a91b77fe96dc2
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008⟩