Analysing uncertainties in the calculation of fluxes using whole-plant chambers: random and systematic errors
- 578 Downloads
Gas exchange measurements on individual plants depend largely on chamber systems, and uncertainties and corrections in current flux calculation procedures require further assessment.
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 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.
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.
KeywordsCanopy chamber Closed chamber Flux calculation methods Flux uncertainties Shrublands
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-2009-220.127.116.11; 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.
- Corelli-Grappadelli L, Magnanini E (1993) A whole-tree system for gas-exchange studies. HortSci 28(1):41–45Google Scholar
- Hupp J (2011) The importance of water vapor measurements and corrections. LI-COR Biosciences Inc. Application Note, 129, p 8Google Scholar
- Killick R, Eckley IA (2010) Changepoint: analysis of changepoint models. Lancaster University, LancasterGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Pérez-Peña Tarara J (2004) A portable whole canopy gas exchange system for several mature field-grown grapevines. Vitis 43(1):7–14Google Scholar
- 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