Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 393, Issue 1–2, pp 229–244 | Cite as

Analysing uncertainties in the calculation of fluxes using whole-plant chambers: random and systematic errors

  • Oscar Pérez-PriegoEmail author
  • Ana López-Ballesteros
  • Enrique P. Sánchez-Cañete
  • Penélope Serrano-Ortiz
  • Lars Kutzbach
  • Francisco Domingo
  • Werner Eugster
  • Andrew S. Kowalski
Regular Article

Abstract

Aims

Gas exchange measurements on individual plants depend largely on chamber systems, and uncertainties and corrections in current flux calculation procedures require further assessment.

Methods

We present a practical study with novel methods for analyses of flux uncertainties in an original chamber design excluding soil fluxes and allowing simultaneous measurements of whole-plant photosynthesis and transpiration.

Results

Results indicate that random errors caused by IRGA noise and the lack of criteria to optimize the time window (TW) of chamber enclosure lead to significant flux uncertainties (12 %). Although enclosure should be rapid to minimize plant disturbances, longer TWs (3 min) increase confidence in flux estimates. Indeterminate stabilization periods in existing calculation protocols cause significant systematic errors. Stabilization times were identified via the change-point detection method, and flux uncertainties were reduced. Photosynthesis was overestimated by up to 28 % when not correcting the evolving CO2 molar fraction for water vapour dilution. Leakage can compromise flux estimates, but was negligible (ca. 2 %) here due to the large chamber-headspace and relatively small values of both collar contact length and closure time.

Conclusions

A bootstrapping, resampling-based flux calculation method is presented and recommended to better assess random errors and improve flux precision. We present practical recommendations for the use of whole-plant chambers.

Keywords

Canopy chamber Closed chamber Flux calculation methods Flux uncertainties Shrublands 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in part by Spanish Science Ministry projects Carborad (CGS2011-27493), ICOS-SPAIN (AIC10-A-000474), Carbored-II (CGL2010-22193-C04-02), and SOILPROF (CGL2011-15276-E) and also by the regional government (Junta de Andalucía) projects GEOCARBO (P08-RNM-3721) and CARBOLIVAR (RNM-7186). Oscar Perez-Priego was funded by a postdoctoral fellowship from the European Commission (FP7) through GHG-Europe project (Call FP7-ENV-2009-1.1.3.1; Project Code 244122). Authors thank Mirco Migliavacca and Thomas Wutzler for providing valuable comments on the manuscript. Critical comments from reviewers improved this manuscript from a previous version.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors state that there are no conflicts of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

In this work no research involving human participants or animals were conducted.

References

  1. Anthony WH, Hutchinson GL, Livingston GP (1995) Chamber measurement of soil-atmosphere gas exchange: linear vs. diffusion-based flux models. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59(5):1308–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breuninger C, Oswald R, Kesselmeier J, Meixner FX (2012) The dynamic chamber method: trace gas exchange fluxes (NO, NO2, O3) between plants and the atmosphere in the laboratory and in the field. Atmos Meas Tech 5(5):955–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christiansen J, Korhonen JJ, Juszczak R, Giebels M, Pihlatie M (2011) Assessing the effects of chamber placement, manual sampling and headspace mixing on CH4 fluxes in a laboratory experiment. Plant Soil 343(1–2):171–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corelli-Grappadelli L, Magnanini E (1993) A whole-tree system for gas-exchange studies. HortSci 28(1):41–45Google Scholar
  5. Dariah A, Marwanto S, Agus F (2014) Root- and peat-based CO2 emissions from oil palm plantations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 19(6):831–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Denmead OT (1984) Plant physiological methods for studying evapotranspiration: problems of telling the forest from the trees. Agric Water Manag 8:167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denmead OT (2008) Approaches to measuring fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide between landscapes and the atmosphere. Plant Soil 309(1-2):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denmead OT, Dunin FX, Wong SC, Greenwood EAN (1993) Measuring water use efficiency of Eucalypt trees with chambers and micrometeorological techniques. J Hydrol 150(2–4):649–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flexas J et al (2007) Analysis of leakage in IRGA’s leaf chambers of open gas exchange systems: quantification and its effects in photosynthesis parameterization. J Exp Bot 58(6):1533–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grau A (1995) A closed chamber technique for field measurement of gas exchange of forage canopies. N Z J Agric Res 38(1):71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall P, Martin MA (1988) On bootstrap resampling and iteration. Biometrika 75(4):661–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinemeyer A, McNamara N (2011) Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology: Implications for soil respiration studies. Plant Soil 346(1-2):145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Held AA, Steduto P, Orgaz F, Matista A, Hsiao TC (1990) Bowen ratio/energy balance technique for estimating crop net CO2 assimilation, and comparison with a canopy chamber. Theor Appl Climatol 42(4):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hinkley DV (1970) Inference about the change-point in a sequence of random variables. Biometrika 57:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooper DU, Cardon ZG, Chapin FS, Durant M (2002) Corrected calculations for soil and ecosystem measurements of CO2 flux using the LI-COR 6200 portable photosynthesis system. Oecologia 132:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hupp J (2011) The importance of water vapor measurements and corrections. LI-COR Biosciences Inc. Application Note, 129, p 8Google Scholar
  17. Jassal RS, Black TA, Nesic Z, Gaumont-Guay D (2012) Using automated non-steady-state chamber systems for making continuous long-term measurements of soil CO2 efflux in forest ecosystems. Agric For Meteorol 161:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones HG (1998) Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration. J Exp Bot 49(Special Issue):387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Juszczak R, Humphreys E, Acosta M, Michalak-Galczewska M, Kayzer D, Olejnik J (2013) Ecosystem respiration in a heterogeneous temperate peatland and its sensitivity to peat temperature and water table depth. Plant Soil 366(1-2):505–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Killick R, Eckley IA (2010) Changepoint: analysis of changepoint models. Lancaster University, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  21. Killick R, Fearnhead P, Eckley IA (2012) Optimal detection of change points with a linear computational cost. JASA 107(500):1590–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kutzbach L et al (2007) CO2 flux determination by closed-chamber methods can be seriously biased by inappropriate application of linear regression. Biogeosciences 4(6):1005–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Langensiepen M, Kupisch M, van Wijk MT, Ewert F (2012) Analyzing transient closed chamber effects on canopy gas exchange for optimizing flux calculation timing. Agric For Meteorol 164:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le Dantec V, Epron D, Dufrêne E (1999) Soil CO2 efflux in a beech forest: comparison of two closed dynamic systems. Plant Soil 214(1-2):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leiber-Sauheitl K, Fuß R, Voigt C, Freibauer A (2014) High CO2 fluxes from grassland on histic Gleysol along soil carbon and drainage gradients. Biogeosciences 11(3):749–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leuning R, Foster IJ (1990) Estimation of transpiration by single trees: comparison of a ventilated chamber, leaf energy budgets and a combination equation. Agric For Meteorol 51(1):63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levy PE, Gray A, Leeson SR, Gaiawyn J, Kelly MPC, Cooper MDA, Dinsmore KJ, Jones SK, Sheppard LJ (2011) Quantification of uncertainty in trace gas fluxes measured by the static chamber method. Eur J Soil Sci 62(6):811–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Livingston GP, Hutchinson GL (1995) Enclosure-based measurement of trace gas exchange: applications and sources of error. In: Matson PA, Harriss RC (eds) Biogenic trace gases: measuring emissions from soil and water. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 15–51Google Scholar
  29. McLeod MK, Daniel H, Faulkner R, Murison R (2004) Evaluation of an enclosed portable chamber to measure crop and pasture actual evapotranspiration at small scale. Agric Water Manag 67(1):15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pedersen AR, Petersen SO, Schelde K (2010) A comprehensive approach to soil-atmosphere trace-gas flux estimation with static chambers. Eur J Soil Sci 61:888–902. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01291.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pérez-Peña Tarara J (2004) A portable whole canopy gas exchange system for several mature field-grown grapevines. Vitis 43(1):7–14Google Scholar
  32. Pérez-Priego O, Testi L, Orgaz F, Villalobos FJ (2010) A large closed canopy chamber for measuring CO2 and water vapour exchange of whole trees. Environ Exp Bot 68(2):131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pickering NB, Jones JW, Boote KJ (1993) Evaluation of the portable chamber technique for measuring canopy gas exchange by crops. Agric For Meteorol 63(3–4):239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pihlatie MK et al (2013) Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils. Agric For Meteorol 171–172:124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pumpanen J et al (2004) Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 efflux. Agric For Meteorol 123:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reicosky DC (1990) Canopy gas exchange in the field: closed chambers. Remote Sens Rev 5(1):163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reicosky DC, Wagner SW, Devine OJ (1990) Methods of calculating carbon dioxide exchange rates for maize and soybean using a Portable Field Chamber. Photosynthetica 24(1):22–38Google Scholar
  38. Rodeghiero M, Niinemets Ü, Cescatti A (2007) Major diffusion leaks of clamp-on leaf cuvettes still unaccounted: how erroneous are the estimates of Farquhar et al. model parameters? Plant Cell Environ 30(8):1006–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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(6):1000–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6(2):461–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Serrano-Ortiz P et al (2007) Variations in daytime net carbon and water exchange in a montane shrubland ecosystem in southeast Spain. Photosynthetica 45(1):30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Steduto P, Çetinkökü Ö, Albrizio R, Kanber R (2002) Automated closed-system canopy-chamber for continuous field-crop monitoring of CO2 and H2O fluxes. Agric For Meteorol 111(3):171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Venterea RT, Spokas KA, Baker JM (2009) Accuracy and precision analysis of chamber-based nitrous oxide gas flux estimates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73(4):1087–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagner SW, Reicosky DC (1992) Closed-chamber effects on leaf temperature, canopy photosynthesis, and evapotranspiration. Agron J 84(4):731–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner SW, Reicosky DC, Saamuel Alessi R (1997) Regression models for calculating gas fluxes measured with a closed chamber. Agron J 89:279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Webb EK, Pearman GI, Leuning R (1980) Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapour transfer. Q J R Meteorol Soc 106:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welles JM, Demetriades-Shah TH, McDermitt DK (2001) Considerations for measuring ground CO2 effluxes with chambers. Chem Geol 177(1–2):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oscar Pérez-Priego
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ana López-Ballesteros
    • 1
    • 3
  • Enrique P. Sánchez-Cañete
    • 1
    • 3
  • Penélope Serrano-Ortiz
    • 1
  • Lars Kutzbach
    • 4
  • Francisco Domingo
    • 3
  • Werner Eugster
    • 5
  • Andrew S. Kowalski
    • 1
    • 6
  1. 1.Departamento de Física Aplicada, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Biogeochemical Integration DepartmentMax Planck Institute for BiogeochemistryJenaGermany
  3. 3.Departamento de Desertificación y Geoecología, Estación Experimental de Zonas ÁridasConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasAlmeríaSpain
  4. 4.Institut für BodenkundeUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Agricultural SciencesETH ZurichZürichSwitzerland
  6. 6.Instituto Interuniversitario del Sistema Tierra en Andalucía, Centro Andaluz de Medio Ambiente (IISTA-CEAMA)GranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations