Plant and Soil

, Volume 346, Issue 1–2, pp 145–151

Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology: Implications for soil respiration studies

Regular Article

Abstract

Soil respiration is the largest C-flux component in the terrestrial carbon (C) cycle, yet in many biomes this flux and its environmental responses are still poorly understood. Several methodological techniques exist to measure this flux, but mostly there remain comparability uncertainties. For example, the closed static chamber (CSC) and the closed dynamic chamber (CDC) systems are widely used, but still require a rigorous comparison. A major issue with the CSC approach is the generally long manual gas sampling periods causing a potential underestimation of the calculated fluxes due to an asymptotic increase in headspace CO2 concentrations. However, shortening the sampling periods of the static chamber approach might provide comparable results to the closed dynamic chamber system. We compared these two different chamber systems using replicated CSC cover boxes and a Li-Cor 8100 CDC system under field conditions, and performed tests on both, mineral and peat soil. Whereas the automated CDC system calculated fluxes during the first two minutes, the CSC approach considered either all seven manual sampling points taken over 75 min, or only the first three sampling points over 15 min. Although flux variation was fairly large, there were considerable and statistically significant differences between the calculated fluxes considering the two chamber systems, yet this depended on soil type and the number of CSC sampling time points. The cover-box approach underestimated the chamber-based fluxes by 30% for combined samples, 21% for mineral and 39% for peat soils when calculated over 75 min but was comparable over the first 15 min. The chamber flux comparison demonstrates that the CSC approach can provide CO2 flux measurements comparable to the CDC system when sampling at an appropriate initial frequency, preventing flux underestimation due to a build up of CO2 headspace concentrations.

Keywords

Soil respiration Static chamber Closed dynamic chamber Chamber comparison Gas sampling CO2 headspace concentration 

References

  1. Bubier J, Moore T, Savage K, Crill P (2005) A comparison of methane flux in a boreal landscape between a dry and a wet year. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 19:GB1023, doi:10.1029/2004GB002351
  2. Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdel IJ (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle deedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:750–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davidson EA, Savagea K, Verchot LV, Navarro R (2002) Minimizing artifacts and biases in chamber-based measurements of soil respiration. Agr Forest Meteorol 113:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Forbich I, Kutzbach L, Hormann A, Wilmking M (2010) A comparison of linear and exponential regression for estimating diffusive CH4 fluxes by closed-chambers in peatlands. Soil Biol Biochem 42:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Giardina CP, Ryan MG (2000) Evidence that decomposition rates of organic carbon in mineral soil do not vary with temperature. Nature 404:858–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goulden ML, Munger JW, Fan SM, Daube BC, Wolfy SC (1996) Exchange of carbon dioxide by deciduous forest: response of interannual climate variability. Science 271:1576–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gao F, Yates SR (1998) Laboratory study of closed and dynamic flux chambers: experimental results and implications for field application. J Geoph Res 103(D20):26, 115–125Google Scholar
  8. Heinemeyer A, Ridgway KP, Edwards EJ, Benham DG, Young JPW, Fitter AH (2003) Impact of soil warming and shading on colonization and community structure of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in roots of a native grassland community. Global Change Biol 10:52–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heinemeyer A, Croft S, Garnett MH, Gloor M, Holden J, Lomas MR, Ineson P (2010) The MILLENNIA peat cohort model, predicting past, present and future soil carbon budgets and fluxes under changing climates in peatlands. Climate Res 45:207–226, Special Issue: Climate Change and the British UplandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinemeyer A, Di Bene C, Lloyd AR, Tortorella D, Baxter R, Huntley B, Gelsomino A, Ineson P (2011) Soil respiration: implications of the plant-soil continuum and collar insertion depth on measurement and modelling of soil CO2 efflux rates in three ecosystems. Eur J Soil Sci 62:82–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Healy RW, Striegl RG, Russell TF, Hutchinson GL, Livingston GP (1996) Numerical evaluation of static-chamber measurements of soil-atmosphere gas exchange: identification of physical processes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:740–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holland EA, Robertson GP, Greenberg J, Groffman PM, Boone RD, Gosz JR (1999) Soil CO2, N2O, and CH4 exchange. In: Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Bledsoe CS, Sollins P (eds) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–201Google Scholar
  13. Liang N, Nakadai T, Hirano T, Qu L, Koike T, Fujinuma Y, Inoue G (2004) In situ comparison of four approaches to estimating soil CO2 efflux in a northern larch (Larix kaempferi Sarg.) forest. Agr Forest Meteorol 123:97–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Longdoz B, Yernaux M, Aubinet M (2000) Soil CO2 efflux measurements in a mixed forest: impact of chamber distances, spatial variability and seasonal evolution. Global Change Biol 6:907–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Massmann WJ, Sommerfeld RA, Mosier AR, Zeller KF, Hehn TJ, Rochelle SG (1997) A model investigation of turbulence-driven pressure-pumping effects on the rate of diffusion of CO2, N2O and CH4 through layered snowpacks. J Geophys Res 102:18, 851–18 863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norman JM, Kucharik CJ, Gower ST, Baldocchi DD, Crill PM, Rayment M, Savage K, Striegl RG (1997) A comparison of six methods for measuring soil surface carbon dioxide fluxes. J Geophys Res 102(D24):28, 771-28,777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nykanen H, Heikkinen JEP, Pirinen L, Tiilikainen K, Martikainen PJ (2003) Annual CO2 exchange and CH4 fluxes on a subarctic palsa mire during climatically different years. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 17:1018, doi:10.1029/2002GB001861
  18. Pumpanen J, Kolari P, Ilvesniemi H, Minkkinen K, Vesala T, Niinistö S, Lohila A, Larmola T, Morero M, Pihlatie M, Janssens I, Curiel Yuste J, Grünzweig JM, Reth S, Subke J-A, Savage K, Kutsch W, Østreng G, Ziegler W, Anthoni P, Lindroth A, Hari P (2004) Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 efflux. Agr Forest Meteorol 123:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raich JW, Potter CS, Bhagawati D (2002) Interannual variability in global soil respiration, 1980–94. Global Change Biol 8:800–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raich JW, Schlesinger WH (1992) The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus 44B:81–99Google Scholar
  21. Rhodegioro M, Heinemeyer A, Schrumpf M, Bellamy P (2009) Determination of changes in soil carbon stocks. In: Kutsch W, Bahn M, Heinemeyer A (eds) Soil Carbon Dynamics: An Integrated Methodology, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: ISBN-13: 9780521865616, pp 49–75Google Scholar
  22. Rochette P, Ellert B, Gregorich EG, Desjardins RL, Pattey E, Lessard R, Johnson BG (1997) Description of a dynamic closed chamber for measuring soil respiration and its comparison with other techniques. Can J Soil Sci 77:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roehm CL, Roulet NT (2003) Seasonal contribution of CO2 fluxes in the annual C budget of a northern bog. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 17:1029 doi:10.1029/2002GB001889 Google Scholar
  24. Savage K, Davidson EA, Richardson AD (2008) A conceptual and practical approach to data quality and analysis procedures for high-frequency soil respiration measurements. Funct Ecol 22:1000–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tarnocai C, Canadell JG, Schuur EAG, Kuhry P, Mazhitova G, Zimov S (2009) Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 23:GB2023 doi:10.1029/2008GB003327
  26. Waddington JM, Roulet NT (2000) Carbon balance of a boreal patterned peatland. Global Change Biol 6:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ward SE, Bardgett RD, McNamara NP, Adamson JK, Ostle NJ (2007) Long-term consequences of grazing and burning on northern peatland carbon dynamics. Ecosystems 10:1069–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ward SE, Bardgett RD, McNamara NP, Ostle NJ (2009) Plant functional group identity influences short-term peatland ecosystem carbon flux: evidence from a plant removal experiment. Funct Ecol 23:454–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stockholm Environment Institute at the Environment Department and Centre for Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics (CTCD-York centre)University of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster Environment CentreBailriggUK

Personalised recommendations