Carbon flux estimates are sensitive to data source: a comparison of field and lab temperature sensitivity data

A large literature exists on mechanisms driving soil production of the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4. Although it is common knowledge that measurements obtained through field studies vs. laboratory incubations can diverge because of the vastly different conditions of these environments, few studies have systematically examined these patterns. These data are used to parameterize and benchmark ecosystem- to global-scale models, which are then susceptible to the biases of the source data. Here, we examine how greenhouse gas measurements may be influenced by whether the measurement/incubation was conducted in the field vs. laboratory, focusing on CO2 and CH4 measurements. We use Q 10 of greenhouse gas flux (temperature sensitivity) for our analyses because this metric is commonly used in biological and Earth system sciences and is an important parameter in many modeling frameworks. We predicted that laboratory measurements would be less variable, but also less representative of true field conditions. However, there was greater variability in the Q 10 values calculated from lab-based measurements of CO2 fluxes, because lab experiments explore extremes rarely seen in situ, and reflect the physical and chemical disturbances occurring during sampling, transport, and incubation. Overall, respiration Q 10 values were significantly greater in laboratory incubations (mean = 4.19) than field measurements (mean = 3.05), with strong influences of incubation temperature and climate region/biome. However, this was in part because field measurements typically represent total respiration (Rs), whereas lab incubations typically represent heterotrophic respiration (Rh), making direct comparisons difficult to interpret. Focusing only on Rh-derived Q 10, these values showed almost identical distributions across laboratory (n = 1110) and field (n = 581) experiments, providing strong support for using the former as an experimental proxy for the latter, although we caution that geographic biases in the extant data make this conclusion tentative. Due to a smaller sample size of CH4 Q 10 data, we were unable to perform a comparable robust analysis, but we expect similar interactions with soil temperature, moisture, and environmental/climatic variables. Our results here suggest the need for more concerted efforts to document and standardize these data, including sample and site metadata.