Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology: Implications for soil respiration studies
- 1.1k Downloads
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.
KeywordsSoil respiration Static chamber Closed dynamic chamber Chamber comparison Gas sampling CO2 headspace concentration
This work was carried out within a NERC grant (F14/G6/105) as part of the Centre for Terrestrial Carbon Dynamics. The Li-Cor 8100 chambers were purchased through NERC special equipment grant (NE/C513550/1) and the customised, multiplex controller and flushing system were built by the enthusiastic and helpful University of York, Biology Department, Electronic Workshop. The authors particularly like to thank Conor Heinemeyer for his patience during the field experiment.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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