Calibrating soil respiration measures with a dynamic flux apparatus using artificial soil media of varying porosity

Summary Measurement of soil respiration to quantify ecosystem carbon cyclingrequires absolute, not relative, estimates of soil CO2 efflux. We describe a novel, automated efflux apparatus that can be used to test the accuracy of chamber-based soil respiration measurements by generating known CO2 fluxes. Artificial soil is supported above an air-filled footspace wherein the CO2 concentration is manipulated by mass flow controllers. The footspace is not pressurized so that the diffusion gradient between it and the air at the soil surface drives CO2 efflux. Chamber designs or measurement techniques can be affected by soil air volume, hence properties of the soil medium are critical. We characterized and utilized three artificial soils with diffusion coefficients ranging from 2.7 � 10 � 7 to 11.9 � 10 � 7 m 2 s � 1 and porosities of 0.26 to 0.46. Soil CO2 efflux rates were measured usinga commercial dynamic closed-chamber system (Li-Cor 6400 photosynthesis system equipped with a 6400-09 soil CO2 flux chamber). On the least porous soil, small underestimates (< 5% )o f CO 2 effluxes were observed, which increased as soil diffusivity and soil porosity increased, leadingto underestimates as high as 25 %. Differential measurement bias across media types illustrates the need for testingsystems on several types of soil media.

[1]  M. Kirschbaum,et al.  Discrimination between Betula pendula , Betula pubescens , and their hybrids using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy , 1997 .

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

[3]  B. Bormann,et al.  Soil Carbon Changes: Comparing Flux Monitoring and Mass Balance in a Box Lysimeter Experiment , 2000 .

[4]  James M. Tiedje,et al.  In situ Measurement of Gas Diffusion Coefficient in Soils 1 , 1976 .

[5]  G. Katul,et al.  Modelling the limits on the response of net carbon exchange to fertilization in a south-eastern pine forest , 2002 .

[6]  Richard W. Healy,et al.  Numerical Evaluation of Static‐Chamber Measurements of Soil—Atmosphere Gas Exchange: Identification of Physical Processes , 1996 .

[7]  M. Rayment.  Closed chamber systems underestimate soil CO2 efflux , 2000 .

[8]  M. Gradwell.  A laboratory study of the diffusion of oxygen through pasture topsoils. , 1960 .

[9]  F. Conen,et al.  An explanation of linear increases in gas concentration under closed chambers used to measure gas exchange between soil and the atmosphere , 2000 .

[10]  P. Schjønning,et al.  Tortuosity, diffusivity, and permeability in the soil liquid and gaseous phases , 2001 .

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

[12]  G. L. Hutchinson,et al.  Improved Soil Cover Method for Field Measurement of Nitrous Oxide Fluxes , 1981 .

[13]  A. Lindroth,et al.  A Calibration System for Soil Carbon Dioxide‐Efflux Measurement Chambers , 2003 .

[14]  Paul G. Jarvis,et al.  An improved open chamber system for measuring soil CO2 effluxes in the field , 1997 .

[15]  Per Schjønning,et al.  Predicting the Gas Diffusion Coefficient in Undisturbed Soil from Soil Water Characteristics , 2000 .

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

[17]  Ivan A. Janssens,et al.  Forest floor CO2 fluxes estimated by eddy covariance and chamber-based model , 2001 .

[18]  A. Klute.  Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. , 1988 .

[19]  Ivan A. Janssens,et al.  Assessing forest soil CO(2) efflux: an in situ comparison of four techniques. , 2000, Tree physiology.

[20]  M. Kirschbaum,et al.  Comparison of soda lime and infrared gas analysis techniques for in situ measurement of forest soil respiration , 1997 .

[21]  R. S. Weinbeck,et al.  A numerical evaluation of chamber methods for determining gas fluxes , 1978 .

[22]  J. Lawrence,et al.  Quantifying CO2 fluxes from soil surfaces to the atmosphere , 2002 .

[23]  N. Iversen,et al.  Modeling Diffusion and Reaction in Soils: II. Atmospheric Methane Diffusion and Consumption in a Forest Soil , 1996 .

[24]  V. Dantec,et al.  Soil CO2 efflux in a beech forest: comparison of two closed dynamic systems , 1999, Plant and Soil.

[25]  J. Bakker,et al.  The influence of soil structure and air content on gas diffusion in soils. , 1970 .

[26]  John M. Norman,et al.  A comparison of six methods for measuring soil‐surface carbon dioxide fluxes , 1997 .

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

[28]  G. Katul,et al.  Modelling night‐time ecosystem respiration by a constrained source optimization method , 2002 .

[29]  Chris A. Maier,et al.  Soil CO 2 evolution and root respiration in 11 year-old Loblolly Pine ( Pinus taeda ) Plantations as Affected by Moisture and Nutrient Availability , 2000 .