Quantitative comparison of in situ soil CO 2 flux measurement methods

Development of reliable regional or global carbon budgets requires accurate measurement of soil CO2 flux. We conducted laboratory and field studies to determine the accuracy and comparability of methods commonly used to measure in situ soil CO2 fluxes. Methods compared included two static techniques, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and soda lime as CO2 traps; a multichamber open dynamic system (OC) with an infrared gas analyzer; and a headspace analysis system, with gas chromatograph with circulating fan (GCF) and gas chromatograph without circulating fan (GC), measuring changes in headspace CO2 concentration using a gas chromatograph. In the laboratory, we compared NaOH, OC, GCF, and GC using sand-filled cylinders to simulate a soil system. Three concentrations of standard CO2 gas (representing low, medium, and high soil-CO2 flux rates) entered the cylinders through individually monitored flow meters. Flux rates measured using the OC method equaled the actual CO2 flux at all three CO2 concentrations. Flux rates determined with GC and GCF were < 55 percent of the actual flux rate. The percent of actual CO2 flux measured increased with increasing CO2 concentrations. At all concentrations, NaOH collected between 40 and 47 percent of CO2 entering the system. A field study was conducted to verify laboratory results and allow comparison with the soda lime trap (SODA) method. In laboratory and field studies, all methods detected significant differences in flux rates among the standard CO2 concentrations and field sites. Regression analyses showed good relationships between NaOH, SODA, and GC methods with flux rates measured using the OC methods (r2 ≥ 0.78). Slope values for these regression equations ranged from 0.34 for NaOH to 0.54 for GC and SODA. These results suggest that data collected using the other methods could be standardized to OC flux rates. However, because methodological differences significantly affect CO2 flux measurements, care should be used in applying these relationships.

[1]  H. Koizumi,et al.  Examination of four methods for measuring soil respiration , 1997 .

[2]  Elizabeth Pattey,et al.  Description of a dynamic closed chamber for measuring soil respiration and its comparison with other techniques , 1997 .

[3]  M. Hiroki,et al.  Field measurement of carbon dioxide evolution from soil by a flow-through chamber method using a portable photosynthesis meter , 1997 .

[4]  J. Magid,et al.  Soil surface CO2 flux as an index of soil respiration in situ: A comparison of two chamber methods , 1996 .

[5]  J. Moncrieff,et al.  An improved dynamic chamber technique for measuring CO2 efflux from the surface of soil , 1996 .

[6]  J. Vose,et al.  Effects of elevated CO 2 and N fertilization on soil respiration from ponderosa pine ( Pine ponderosa ) in open-top chambers , 1995 .

[7]  Bernard T. Bormann,et al.  Biases of Chamber Methods for Measuring Soil CO2 Efflux Demonstrated with a Laboratory Apparatus , 1994 .

[8]  Stephanie A. Bohlman,et al.  Seasonal and topographic patterns of forest floor CO(2) efflux from an upland oak forest. , 1993, Tree physiology.

[9]  J. M. Norman,et al.  Soil surface CO2 fluxes and the carbon budget of a grassland , 1992 .

[10]  R. Desjardins,et al.  Comparison of static and dynamic closed chambers for measurement of soil respiration under field conditions , 1992 .

[11]  W. Schlesinger,et al.  The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate , 1992 .

[12]  J. Raich,et al.  Comparison of Two Static Chamber Techniques for Determining Carbon Dioxide Efflux from Forest Soils , 1990 .

[13]  K. Kyuma,et al.  Measurement of soil respiration in the field: influence of temperature, moisture level, and application of sewage sludge compost and agro-chemicals , 1989 .

[14]  Knute J. Nadelhoffer,et al.  Belowground Carbon Allocation in Forest Ecosystems: Global Trends , 1989 .

[15]  Henry L. Gholz,et al.  Soil CO2 evolution in Florida slash pine plantations. II: Importance of root respiration , 1987 .

[16]  W. Cropper,et al.  The measurement of soil CO2 evolution in situ , 1985, Pedobiologia.

[17]  N. Edwards.  The use of soda-lime for measuring respiration rates in terrestrial systems , 1982, Pedobiologia.

[18]  E. Ripley,et al.  A COMPARISON OF METHODS TO MEASURE SOIL RESPIRATION , 1979 .

[19]  H. E. Garrett,et al.  Carbon Dioxide Evolution from the Floor of an Oak-Hickory Forest 1 , 1973 .

[20]  P. Sollins,et al.  Continuous Measurement of Carbon Dioxide Evolution From Partitioned Forest Floor Components , 1973 .

[21]  E. Jong,et al.  CALCULATION OF SOIL RESPIRATION AND ACTIVITY FROM CO2 PROFILES IN THE SOIL , 1972 .

[22]  F. B. Smith,et al.  Further Studies on Soil Respiration , 1931 .

[23]  J. Melillo,et al.  Effects of nitrogen fertilization on the fluxes of N2O, CH4, and CO2 from soils in a Florida slash pine plantation , 1994 .

[24]  A. Page.  Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. , 1982 .