Biogeochemistry

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 21–45

Net Ecosystem Exchange of Carbon dioxide in a Temperate Poor Fen: a Comparison of Automated and Manual Chamber Techniques

  • Elizabeth H. Burrows
  • Jill L. Bubier
  • Andrew Mosedale
  • George W. Cobb
  • Patrick M. Crill
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10533-004-6334-6

Cite this article as:
Burrows, E.H., Bubier, J.L., Mosedale, A. et al. Biogeochemistry (2005) 76: 21. doi:10.1007/s10533-004-6334-6

Abstract

We used five analytical approaches to compare net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon dioxide (CO2) from automated and manual static chambers in a peatland, and found the methods comparable. Once per week we sampled manually from 10 collars with a closed chamber system using a LiCor 6200 portable photosynthesis system, and simulated four photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) levels using shrouds. Ten automated chambers sampled CO2 flux every 3 h with a LiCor 6252 infrared gas analyzer. Results of the five comparisons showed (1) NEE measurements made from May to August, 2001 by the manual and automated chambers had similar ranges: −10.8 to 12.7 μmol CO2 m−2 s−1 and −17.2 to 13.1 μmol CO2 m−2 s−1, respectively. (2) When sorted into four PAR regimes and adjusted for temperature (respiration was measured under different temperature regimes), mean NEE did not differ significantly between the chambers (p < 0.05). (3) Chambers were not significantly different in regression of ln( − respiration) on temperature. (4) But differences were found in the PAR vs. NEE relationship with manual chambers providing higher maximum gross photosynthesis estimates (GPmax), and slower uptake of CO2 at low PAR (α) even after temperature adjustment. (5) Due to the high variability in chamber characteristics, we developed an equation that includes foliar biomass, water table, temperature, and PAR, to more directly compare automated and manual NEE. Comparing fitted parameters did not identify new differences between the chambers. These complementary chamber techniques offer a unique opportunity to assess the variability and uncertainty in CO2 flux measurements.

Keywords

Automated chambers Chamber comparison CO2 flux Fen Net ecosystem CO2 exchange Wetland 

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth H. Burrows
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jill L. Bubier
    • 1
  • Andrew Mosedale
    • 4
  • George W. Cobb
    • 4
  • Patrick M. Crill
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Environmental Studies Program, Department of Earth and EnvironmentMount Holyoke CollegeSouth HadleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Bioresource EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Complex Systems Research Center, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans and SpaceUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsMount Holyoke CollegeSouth HadleyUSA
  5. 5.Department of Geology and GeochemistryUniversity of StockholmStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations