Plant and Soil

, Volume 343, Issue 1–2, pp 171–185 | Cite as

Assessing the effects of chamber placement, manual sampling and headspace mixing on CH4 fluxes in a laboratory experiment

  • Jesper Riis Christiansen
  • Janne F. J. Korhonen
  • Radoslaw Juszczak
  • Michael Giebels
  • Mari Pihlatie
Regular Article

Abstract

A laboratory experiment was conducted with two types of closed static chambers to estimate the effects of chamber placement, manual headspace sampling and headspace mixing on methane (CH4) fluxes. Chamber fluxes were compared to a known reference flux in a chamber calibration system. The measurements were conducted with three types of soils (coarse dry, fine dry and fine wet quarts sand) at five flux levels ranging from 60 to 2000 μg CH4 m−2 h−1. We found that the placement of a non-vented chamber disturbed the initial CH4 concentration development within the chamber headspace for 10 to 30 s. Excluding this short period from the flux calculation resulted in a lower flux estimate (mean±SE) of 126 ± 26 μg CH4 m−2 h−1 compared to 134 ± 26 μg CH4 m−2 h−1 if data from time zero of the enclosure were included. We also found that in non-mixed chambers (no fan mixing) the gas sampling by syringes or gas bottles disturbed the development of CH4 concentration during the enclosure. Furthermore, flux estimates in non-mixed chambers were significantly underestimated (on average 36%) compared to the measured reference fluxes. However, the use of fans to constantly mix the chamber headspace during enclosure significantly improved the goodness-of-fit of the regression analysis used to calculate the flux and further eliminated the disturbance of the manual sampling on the concentration development. We recommend that chambers should be vented during the placement of the chamber, and that fans are used as an integrated part of static chambers while headspace mixing with syringes should be avoided.

Keywords

Methane Closed static chamber Greenhouse gas Headspace mixing Fans Manual sampling 

Abbreviations

CO2

Carbon dioxide

FL

Flux level

GHG

Greenhouse gas

CH4

Methane

N2O

Nitrous oxide

NRMSE

Normalised root mean square error

RMSE

Root mean square error

References

  1. Bain WG, Hutyra L, Patterson DC, Bright AV, Daube BC, Munger JW, Wofsy SC (2005) Wind-induced error in the measurement of soil respiration using closed dynamic chambers. Agric For Meteorol 131:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekku Y, Koizumi H, Nakadai T, Iwaki H (1995) Measurement of soil respiration using closed-chamber method—an Irga technique. Ecol Res 10:369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butnor JR, Johnsen KH (2004) Calibrating soil respiration measures with a dynamic flux apparatus using artificial soil media of varying porosity. Eur J Soil Sci 55:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conen F, Smith KA (1998) A re-examination of closed flux chamber methods for the measurement of trace gas emissions from soils to the atmosphere. Eur J Soil Sci 49:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conen F, Smith KA (2000) An explanation of linear increases in gas concentration under closed chambers used to measure gas exchange between soil and the atmosphere. Eur J Soil Sci 51:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davidson EA, Savage K, Verchot LV, Navarro R (2002) Minimizing artifacts and biases in chamber-based measurements of soil respiration. Agric For Meteorol 113:21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gao F, Yates SR (1998a) Simulation of enclosure-based methods for measuring gas emissions from soil to the atmosphere. J Geophys Res Atmos 103:26127–26136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao F, Yates SR (1998b) Laboratory study of closed and dynamic flux chambers: experimental results and implications for field application. J Geophys Res Atmos 103:26115–26125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hutchinson GL, Livingston GP (2001) Vents and seals in non-steady-state chambers used for measuring gas exchange between soil and the atmosphere. Eur J Soil Sci 52:675–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hutchinson GL, Livingston GP, Healy RW, Striegl RG (2000) Chamber measurement of surface-atmosphere trace gas exchange: numerical evaluation of dependence on soil, interfacial layer, and source/sink properties. J Geophys Res Atmos 105:8865–8875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssens IA, Kowalski AS, Longdoz B, Ceulemans R (2000) Assessing forest soil CO2 efflux; an in situ comparison of four techniques. Tree Physiol 20:23–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Le Dantec V, Epron D, Dufrene E (1999) Soil CO2 efflux in a beech forest: comparison of two closed dynamic systems. Plant Soil 214:125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu G, Si BC (2009) Multi-layer diffusion model and error analysis applied to chamber-based gas fluxes measurements. Agric For Meteorol 149:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Livingston GP, Hutchinson GL (1995) Enclosure-based measurement of trace gas exchange: applications and sources of error. In: Matson PA, Harriss RC (eds) Methods in ecology. Biogenic trace gases: measuring emissions from soil and water. Blackwell Science, Malden, pp 14–51Google Scholar
  16. Livingston GP, Hutchinson GL, Spartalian K (2005) Diffusion theory improves chamber-based measurements of trace gas emissions. Geophys Res Lett 32Google Scholar
  17. Livingston GP, Hutchinson GL, Spartalian K (2006) Trace gas emission in chambers: a non-steady-state diffusion model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1459–1469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nay SM, Mattson KG, Bormann BT (1994) Biases of chamber methods for measuring soil CO2 efflux demonstrated with a laboratory apparatus. Ecology 75:2460–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pihlatie M, Pumpanen J, Rinne J, Ilvesniemi H, Simojoki A, Hari P, Vesala T (2007) Gas concentration driven fluxes of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide in boreal forest soil. Tellus B Chem Phys Meteorol 59:458–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pumpanen J, Kolari P, Ilvesniemi H, Minkkinen K, Vesala T, Niinisto S, Lohila A, Larmola T, Morero M, Pihlatie M, Janssens I, Yuste JC, Grunzweig JM, Reth S, Subke JA, Savage K, Kutsch W, Ostreng G, Ziegler W, Anthoni P, Lindroth A, Hari P (2004) Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 efflux. Agric For Meteorol 123:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rochette P, Eriksen-Hamel NS (2008) Chamber measurements of soil nitrous oxide flux: are absolute values reliable? Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rochette P, Hutchinson GL (2005) Measurement of soil respiration in situ: chamber techniques. In: Micrometeorology in agricultural systems. Agronomy Monograph no. 47, 247–286Google Scholar
  23. Takle ES, Brandle JR, Schmidt RA, Garcia R, Litvina IV, Massman WJ, Zhou XH, Doyle G, Rice CW (2003) High-frequency pressure variations in the vicinity of a surface CO2 flux chamber. Agric For Meteorol 114:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Takle ES, Massman WJ, Brandle JR, Schmidt RA, Zhou XH, Litvina IV, Garcia R, Doyle G, Rice CW (2004) Influence of high-frequency ambient pressure pumping on carbon dioxide efflux from soil. Agric For Meteorol 124:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Venterea RT, Baker JM (2008) Effects of soil physical nonuniformity on chamber-based gas flux estimates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:1410–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Widen B, Lindroth A (2003) A calibration system for soil carbon dioxide efflux measurement chambers: description and application. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesper Riis Christiansen
    • 1
  • Janne F. J. Korhonen
    • 2
  • Radoslaw Juszczak
    • 3
  • Michael Giebels
    • 4
  • Mari Pihlatie
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Forest & Landscape Ecology, Forest & Landscape DenmarkUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Meteorology DepartmentPoznan University of Life SciencesPoznanPoland
  4. 4.Institute of Landscape Matter DynamicsLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape ResearchMünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations