Plant and Soil

, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 133–142

A comparison of field methods for measuring soil carbon dioxide evolution: Experiments and simulation

  • J. I. Freijer
  • W. Bouten


Three widely used methods for measuring total soil CO2 evolution are evaluated, including the dynamic CO2 absorption method, the static CO2 absorption method and the closed chamber method. The study covers laboratory experiments. numerical experiments with a simulation model and field measurements. The results are used to perform an error analysis. The aim of this error analysis is to indicate the impact of each method on the CO2 dynamics during the measurement, and to select the most suitable method for frequent field usage.

Laboratory experiments and simulation results show that the dynamic CO2 absorption method has the potential to absorb all CO2 evolving at the soil surface. The results also prove that the method has only a minor impact on the CO2 concentration-depth gradient and the CO2 efflux. The static CO2 absorption method underestimates the soil CO2 evolution, because the absorption velocity is too low, due to slow diffusion processes. Measurements with the closed-chamber method are based on an increasing concentration with time under a closed cover. However, the accumulation of gas alters the concentration gradient in the soil profile and thus causes a rapidly decreasing efflux during the measurement. A commonly used mathematical procedure, which corrects for the altered concentration gradient, does not yield the exact surface efflux, because the effect of increasing storage in the soil profile is not incorporated. Field measurements of CO2 evolution, using the closed-chamber method and the dynamic CO2 absorption method confirm the trends that have been predicted by the simulation model. The results of this study indicate that the dynamic CO2 absorption method is accurate. As it is cheap and simple, it is suitable for the study of temporal and spatial dynamics of CO2 evolution from the soil.

Key words

closed chamber method CO2 absorption method CO2 surface efflux gas dynamics respiration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson J P E 1982 Soil Respiration. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Agronomy Monograph no. 9. Ed. A LPage. pp 831–871. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  2. Bouten W, DeVré F M, Verstraten J M and Duysings J J H M 1984 Carbon dioxide in the soil atmosphere: Simulation model parameter estimation from field measurements. In Hydrochemical Balances of Freshwater Systems. IAHS Publication no. 150. Ed. EEriksson, pp 23–30. IAHS Press, Wallingford, Oxfordshire.Google Scholar
  3. DeJong E and Schappert H J V 1972 Calculation of soil respiration and activity from CO2 profiles in the soil. Soil Science 113, 328–333.Google Scholar
  4. Duysings J J H M, Verstraten J M, Bouten W, Tietema A and Oostroom M 1991 Hydrochemical budgets of a forest ecosystem in the Netherlands. J. Ecol. Submitted.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards N T 1975 Effects of temperature and moisture on carbon dioxide evolution in a mixed deciduous forest floor. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 39, 361–365.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards N T and Ross-Todd B M 1983 Soil carbon dynamics in a mixed deciduous forest following clear-cutting with and without residue removal. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. J. 47, 1014–1021.Google Scholar
  7. Garret H E and Cox G S 1973 Carbon dioxide evolution from the floor of an oak-hickory forest. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 37, 641–644.Google Scholar
  8. Hutchinson G L and Mosier A R 1981 Improved soil cover method for field measurement of nitrous oxide fluxes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 311–316.Google Scholar
  9. Jury W A, Letey J and Collins T 1982 Analysis of chamber methods used for measuring nitrous oxide production in the field. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 250–256.Google Scholar
  10. Magnusson T 1989 A method for equilibration chamber sampling and gas chromatographic analysis of the soil atmosphere. Plant and Soil 120, 39–47.Google Scholar
  11. Matthias A D, Blackmer A M and Bremner J M 1980 A simple chamber technique for field measurement of emissions of nitrous oxide from soils. J. Environ. Qual. 9, 251–256.Google Scholar
  12. Reinke J J, Adriano D C and McLeod K W 1981 Effects of litter alteration on carbon dioxide evolution from a South Carolina pine forest floor. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45, 620–623.Google Scholar
  13. Rolston D E 1986 Gas Flux. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Agronomy Monograph no. 9. Ed. AKlute. pp 1103–1119. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  14. Tacket J L 1968 Theory and application of gas chromatography in soil aeriation research. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32, 346–350.Google Scholar
  15. Witkamp M and van derDrift J 1961 Breakdown of forest litter in relation to environmental factors. Plant and Soil 15, 295–311.Google Scholar
  16. Witkamp M 1966a Decomposition of leaf litter in relation to environment, microflora and microbial respiration. Ecology 47, 194–201.Google Scholar
  17. Witkamp M 1966b Rates of carbon dioxide evolution from the forest floor. Ecology 47, 492–494.Google Scholar
  18. Witkamp M 1969 Cycles of temperature and carbon dioxide evolution from litter and soil. Ecology 50, 922–924.Google Scholar
  19. Witkamp M and Frank M L 1969 Evolution of CO2 from litter, humus and subsoil of a pine stand. Pedobiologia 9, 358–365.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. I. Freijer
    • 1
  • W. Bouten
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical Geography and Soil ScienceUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations