Bulletin of Volcanology

, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp 76–90 | Cite as

Comparative soil CO2 flux measurements and geostatistical estimation methods on Masaya volcano, Nicaragua

  • Jennifer L. Lewicki
  • Deborah Bergfeld
  • Carlo Cardellini
  • Giovanni Chiodini
  • Domenico Granieri
  • Nick Varley
  • Cynthia Werner
Research Article


We present a comparative study of soil CO2 flux (\(F_{{\rm CO}_2 }\)) measured by five groups (Groups 1–5) at the IAVCEI-CCVG Eighth Workshop on Volcanic Gases on Masaya volcano, Nicaragua. Groups 1–5 measured \(F_{{\rm CO}_2 }\) using the accumulation chamber method at 5-m spacing within a 900 m2 grid during a morning (AM) period. These measurements were repeated by Groups 1–3 during an afternoon (PM) period. Measured \(F_{{\rm CO}_2 }\) ranged from 218 to 14,719 g m−2 day−1. The variability of the five measurements made at each grid point ranged from ±5 to 167%. However, the arithmetic means of fluxes measured over the entire grid and associated total CO2 emission rate estimates varied between groups by only ±22%. All three groups that made PM measurements reported an 8–19% increase in total emissions over the AM results. Based on a comparison of measurements made during AM and PM times, we argue that this change is due in large part to natural temporal variability of gas flow, rather than to measurement error. In order to estimate the mean and associated CO2 emission rate of one data set and to map the spatial \(F_{{\rm CO}_2 }\) distribution, we compared six geostatistical methods: arithmetic and minimum variance unbiased estimator means of uninterpolated data, and arithmetic means of data interpolated by the multiquadric radial basis function, ordinary kriging, multi-Gaussian kriging, and sequential Gaussian simulation methods. While the total CO2 emission rates estimated using the different techniques only varied by ±4.4%, the \(F_{{\rm CO}_2 }\) maps showed important differences. We suggest that the sequential Gaussian simulation method yields the most realistic representation of the spatial distribution of \(F_{{\rm CO}_2 }\), but a variety of geostatistical methods are appropriate to estimate the total CO2 emission rate from a study area, which is a primary goal in volcano monitoring research.


Carbon dioxide Soil gas Accumulation chamber method Geostatistics Masaya volcano Volcano monitoring Emission rates 



J. Lewicki was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098 and NASA grant NA-11318 (University of South Florida). C. Werner was supported by the GeoNet Project sponsored by the following New Zealand governmental agencies: Earthquake Commission (EQC), Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited (GNS), and Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST). D. Bergfeld was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey as a National Research Council Post-Doctoral Associate. N. Varley received funding from the Universidad de Colima (FRABA 169/03). We acknowledge the Eighth Field Workshop on Volcanic Gases, sponsored by the Commission on the Chemistry of Volcanic Gases and the International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior for the opportunity to make comparative soil CO2 flux measurements on Masaya volcano. We are grateful to G.E. Hilley for insightful discussions and H. Shinohara, W.C. Evans, D. Thomas, P. Hsieh, and C. Doughty for constructive reviews


  1. Bergfeld D, Goff F, Janik CJ (2001) Elevated carbon dioxide flux at the Dixie Valley geothermal field, Nevada; relations between surface phenomena and the geothermal reservoir. Chem Geol 177:43–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burton M, Oppenheimer C, Horrocks L, Francis P (2000) Remote sensing of CO2 and H2O emission rates from Masaya volcano, Nicaragua. Geology 28:915–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carapezza ML, Granieri D (2004) CO2 soil flux at Vulcano (Italy): comparison of active and passive methods. Appl Geochem 19:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardellini C, Chiodini G, Frondini F (2003) Application of stochastic simulation to CO2 flux from soil: mapping and quantification of gas release. J Geophys Res 108:2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiodini G, Cioni GR, Guidi M, Raco B, Marini L (1998) Soil CO2 flux measurements in volcanic and geothermal areas. Appl Geochem 13:543–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiodini G, Cardellini C, Frondini F, Granieri D, Marini L, Ventura G (2001) CO2 degassing and energy release at Solfatara Volcano, Campi Flegrei, Italy. J Geophys Res 106:16213–16221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delmelle P, Stix J, Baxter P, Garcia-Alvarez J, Barquero J (2002) Atmospheric dispersion, environmental effects and potential health hazard associated with the low-altitude gas plume of Masaya volcano, Nicaragua. Bull Volcanol 64:423–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delmelle P et al (1999) Origin, effects of Masaya volcano’s continued unrest probed in Nicaragua. Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union) 80:575,581Google Scholar
  9. Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1998) GSLIB, geostatistical software library and users guide. Oxford Univ Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffell H, Oppenheimer C, Burton M (2001) Volcanic gas emission rates measured by solar occulation spectroscopy. Geophys Res Lett 28:3131–3134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans WC, Sorey ML, Kennedy BM, Stonestrom DA, Rogie JD, Shuster DL (2001) High CO2 emissions through porous media: transport mechanisms and implications for flux measurement and fractionation. Chem Geol 177:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrar CD, Sorey ML, Evans WC, Howle JF, Kerr BD, Kennedy BM, King Y, Southon JR (1995) Forest-killing diffuse CO2 emission at Mammoth Mountain as a sign of magmatic unrest. Nature 376:675–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finney DJ (1941) On the distribution of a variate whose logorithm is normally distributed. J Royal Statis Soc Suppl 7:144–161Google Scholar
  14. Fornberg B, Driscoll TA, Wright G, Charles R (2002) Observations on the behavior of radial basis function approximations near boundaries. Comp Math Appl 43:473–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerlach T, Doukas M, McGee K, Kessler R (2001) Soil efflux and total emission rates of magmatic CO2 at the Horseshoe Lake tree kill, Mammoth Mountain, California. Chem Geol 177:101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giammanco S, Gurrieri S, Valenza M (1997) Soil CO2 degassing along tectonic structures on Mount Etna (Sicily); the Pernicana fault. Appl Geochem 12:429–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Goovaerts P (2001) Geostatistical modeling of uncertainty in soil science. Geoderma 103:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardy RL (1971) Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. J Geophys Res 76:1905–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horrocks L, Burton M, Francis P (1999) Stable gas plume composition measured by OP-FTIR spectroscopy at Masaya Volcano, Nicaragua, 1998–1999. Geophys Res Lett 26:3497–3500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewicki JL, Connor C, St-Amand K, Stix J, Spinner W (2003a) Self- potential, soil CO2 flux, and temperature on Masaya volcano, Nicaragua. Geophys Res Lett 30:1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewicki JL, Evans WC, Hilley GE, Sorey ML, Rogie JD, Brantley SL (2003b) Shallow soil CO2 flow along the San Andreas and Calaveras faults, CA. J Geophys Res 108:2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pérez N, Salazar J, Saballos A, Álvarez J, Segura F, Hernández P, Notsu K (2000) Diffuse degassing of CO2 from Masaya caldera, Central America. Eos Trans AGU, Fall Meet SupplGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogie JD, Kerrick DM, Sorey ML, Chiodini G, Galloway DL (2001) Dynamics of carbon dioxide emission at Mammoth Mountain, California. Earth Planet Sci Lett 188:535–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saito H, Goovaerts P (2000) Geostatistical interpolation of positively skewed and censored data in a dioxin-contaminated site. Environ Sci Technol 34:4228–4235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salazar JM, Hernández PA, Pérez NM, Melián G, Alvarez J, Segura F, Notsu K (2001) Diffuse emission of carbon dioxide from Cerro Negro volcano, Nicaragua, Central America. Geophys Res Lett 28:4275–4278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611Google Scholar
  29. Sichel HS (1952) New methods in the statistical evaluation of mine sampling. London Inst Mining Met Trans 61:261–288Google Scholar
  30. St-Amand K (1999) The distribution and origin of radon, CO2, and SO2 gases and multifractal behavior of SO2 at Masaya volcano, Nicaragua. Master’s thesis, Université de MontréalGoogle Scholar
  31. Stoiber RE, Williams SN, Huebert BJ (1986) Sulfur and halogen gases at Masaya caldera complex, Nicaragua: total flux and variations with time. J Geophys Res 91:12215–12231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wardell LJ, Delmelle P, Fischer T, Lewicki JL, Malavassi E, Stix J, Strauch W (2003) Volcanic gas workshop fosters international focus on state of the art measurement techniques. Eos (Transactions, American Geophysical Union) 84(47):519Google Scholar
  33. Watson DF (1992) Contouring: a guide to the display and analysis of spatial data. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Welles JM, Demetriades-Shah TH, McDermitt DK (2001) Considerations for measuring ground CO2 effluxes with chambers. Chem Geol 177:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Werner CA, Brantley SL, Boomer K (2000) CO2 emissions related to the Yellowstone volcanic system 2: statistical sampling, total degassing, and transport mechanisms. J Geophys Res 105:10831–10846CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Lewicki
    • 1
  • Deborah Bergfeld
    • 2
  • Carlo Cardellini
    • 3
  • Giovanni Chiodini
    • 4
  • Domenico Granieri
    • 4
  • Nick Varley
    • 5
  • Cynthia Werner
    • 6
  1. 1.Earth Sciences DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyMenlo ParkUSA
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Scienze della TerraUniversità di PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  4. 4.Osservatorio VesuvianoIstituto Nazionale di Geofisica e VulcanologiaNaplesItaly
  5. 5.Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ColimaColima
  6. 6.Institute of Geological and Nuclear SciencesTaupoNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations