Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 419–425 | Cite as

A cost-effective method for reducing soil disturbance-induced errors in static chamber measurement of wetland methane emissions

  • R. Scott Winton
  • Curtis J. Richardson
Original Paper

Abstract

Static chambers used for sampling methane (CH4) in wetlands are highly sensitive to soil disturbance. Temporary compression around chambers during sampling can inflate the initial chamber CH4 headspace concentration and/or lead to generation of non-linear, unreliable flux estimates that must be discarded. In this study, we tested an often-used rubber gasket (RG)-sealed static chamber against a water-filled gutter (WFG) seal design that could be set up and sampled from a distance of 2 m with a newly designed remote rod sampling system to reduce soil disturbance. Compared to conventional RG design, our remotely sampled static chambers reduced the chance of detecting inflated initial CH4 concentrations (>3.6 ppm) from 66 to 6 % and nearly doubled the proportion of robust linear regressions (r 2 > 0.9) from 45 to 86 %. Importantly, the remote rod sampling system allows for more accurate and reliable CH4 sampling without costly boardwalk construction. This paper presents results demonstrating that the remote rod sampling system combined with WFG static chambers improves CH4 data reliability by reducing initial gas measurement variability due to chamber disturbance when tested on a mineral soil-restored wetland in Charles City County, Virginia, USA.

Keywords

Gas flux Greenhouse gas Methane Static chamber Wetland 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the help of Jonathan Bills, who provided critical assistance with site instrumentation and field sampling. Hongjun Wang and Wes Willis assisted with configuration and maintenance of the gas chromatograph. Hongjun Wang, Ashley Helton, and Emily Bernhardt gave valuable advice and training in static chamber design and gas sampling and Todd Smith assisted with chamber construction. James Perry, Lee Daniels, David Bailey, and Leo Snead provided valuable insight into the site history and scope of previous investigations. We thank Ann and Jay Kinney for graciously allowing us to use of their driveway to access the site. Three anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments that improved this manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Peterson Family Foundation, Wetland Studies and Solutions Inc. and the Duke University Wetland Center Endowment.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

We declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anthony WH, Hutchinson GL, Livingston GP (1995) Chamber measurement of soil-atmosphere gas exchange: linear versus diffusion-based flux models. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:1308. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900050015x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey D, Perry J, Daniels W (2007) Vegetation dynamics in response to organic matter loading rates in a created freshwater wetland in southeastern Virginia. Wetlands 27:936–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergschneider CR (2005) Determining an appropriate organic matter loading rate for a created coastal plain forested wetland. 91Google Scholar
  4. Bridgham SD, Patrick Megonigal J, Keller JK et al (2006) The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26:889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruland G, Richardson C (2004) Hydrologic gradients and topsoil additions affect soil properties of Virginia created wetlands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:2069–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christiansen JR, Korhonen JFJ, Juszczak R et al (2011) Assessing the effects of chamber placement, manual sampling and headspace mixing on CH4 fluxes in a laboratory experiment. Plant Soil 343:171–185. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0701-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conen F, Smith K (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
  8. Forbrich 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 42:507–515. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hutchinson G, Mosier A (1981) Improved soil cover method for field measurement of nitrous oxide fluxes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kormann R, Müller H, Werle P (2001) Eddy flux measurements of methane over the fen “Murnauer Moos”, 11 11′E, 47 39′N, using a fast tunable diode laser spectrometer. Atmos Environ 35:2533–2544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krauss KW, Whitbeck JL (2011) Soil greenhouse gas fluxes during wetland forest retreat along the Lower Savannah River, Georgia (USA). Wetlands 32:73–81. doi: 10.1007/s13157-011-0246-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Livingston GP, Hutchinson GL (1995) Enclosure-based measurement of trace gas exchange: applications and sources of error. In: Matson A, Harriss RC (eds) Biogenic trace gases: measuring emissions from soil and water. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, pp 14–51Google Scholar
  13. Mastepanov M, Sigsgaard C, Dlugokencky EJ et al (2008) Large tundra methane burst during onset of freezing. Nature 456:628–630. doi: 10.1038/nature07464 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Morse J, Ardon M, Bernhardt ES (2012) Greenhouse gas fluxes in southeastern US coastal plain wetlands under contrasting land uses. Ecol Appl 22:264–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Myhre G, Shindell D, Bréon F-M et al (2013) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K et al (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–124Google Scholar
  16. Nahlik AM, Mitsch WJ (2010) Methane emissions from created riverine wetlands. Wetlands 30:783–793. doi: 10.1007/s13157-010-0038-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parkin TB, Venterea RT (2010) USDA-ARS GRACEnet Project Protocols Chapter 3. Chamber-Based Trace Gas Flux Measurements 4. USDA-ARS GRACEnet Project Protocols 2010:1–39Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Scott A, Crichton I, Ball BC (1999) Long-term monitoring of soil gas fluxes with closed chambers using automated and manual systems. J Environ Qual 28:1637. doi: 10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800050030x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strack M, Kellner E, Waddington JM (2005) Dynamics of biogenic gas bubbles in peat and their effects on peatland biogeochemistry. Global Biogeochem Cycles 19:1–9. doi: 10.1029/2004GB002330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang H, Lu J, Wang W et al (2006) Methane fluxes from the littoral zone of hypereutrophic Taihu Lake, China. J Geophys Res 111:1–8. doi: 10.1029/2005JD006864 Google Scholar
  22. Weishampel P, Kolka R (2008) Measurement of methane fluxes from terrestrial landscapes using static, non-steady state enclosures. In: Hoover CM (ed) Field measurements for forest carbon monitoring. Springer, New York, pp 163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Winton RS, Richardson CJ (2015) The effects of organic matter amendments on greenhouse gas emissions from a mitigation wetland in Virginia’s coastal plain. Wetlands. doi: 10.1007/s13157-015-0674-y Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University Wetland CenterDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations