Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils

The static chamber method (non-flow-through-non-steady-state chambers) is the most common method to measure fluxes of methane (CH4) from soils. Laboratory comparisons to quantify errors resulting from chamber design, operation and flux calculation methods are rare. We tested fifteen chambers against four flux levels (FL) ranging from 200 to 2300 μg CH4 m−2 h−1. The measurements were conducted on a calibration tank using three quartz sand types with soil porosities of 53% (dry fine sand, S1), 47% (dry coarse sand, S2), and 33% (wetted fine sand, S3). The chambers tested ranged from 0.06 to 1.8 m in height, and 0.02 to 0.195 m3 in volume, 7 of them were equipped with a fan, and 1 with a vent-tube. We applied linear and exponential flux calculation methods to the chamber data and compared these chamber fluxes to the reference fluxes from the calibration tank. The chambers underestimated the reference fluxes by on average 33% by the linear flux calculation method (Rlin), whereas the chamber fluxes calculated by the exponential flux calculation method (Rexp) did not significantly differ from the reference fluxes (p < 0.05). The flux under- or overestimations were chamber specific and independent of flux level. Increasing chamber height, area and volume significantly reduced the flux underestimation (p < 0.05). Also, the use of non-linear flux calculation method significantly improved the flux estimation; however, simultaneously the uncertainty in the fluxes was increased. We provide correction factors, which can be used to correct the under- or overestimation of the fluxes by the chambers in the experiment.

[1]  P. Rochette,et al.  Chamber Measurements of Soil Nitrous Oxide Flux: Are Absolute Values Reliable? , 2008 .

[2]  Eric A. Davidson,et al.  Minimizing artifacts and biases in chamber-based measurements of soil respiration , 2002 .

[3]  Rodney T. Venterea,et al.  Effects of Soil Physical Nonuniformity on Chamber‐Based Gas Flux Estimates , 2008 .

[4]  A. Vermeulen,et al.  The importance of reducing the systematic error due to non-linearity in N2O flux measurements by static chambers , 2008 .

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

[6]  G. L. Hutchinson,et al.  Trace gas emission in chambers : A non-steady-state diffusion model , 2006 .

[7]  Per Ambus,et al.  Biosphere-atmosphere exchange of reactive nitrogen and greenhouse gases at the NitroEurope core flux measurement sites: Measurement strategy and first data sets , 2009 .

[8]  John R. Butnor,et al.  Calibrating soil respiration measures with a dynamic flux apparatus using artificial soil media of varying porosity , 2004 .

[9]  Johannes Corley,et al.  Best practices in establishing detection and quantification limits for pesticide residues in foods , 2003 .

[10]  J. Baker,et al.  Accuracy and precision analysis of chamber-based nitrous oxide gas flux estimates. , 2009 .

[11]  Dan Yakir,et al.  Carbon sequestration in arid‐land forest , 2003 .

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

[13]  G. L. Hutchinson,et al.  Chamber Measurement of Soil-Atmosphere Gas Exchange: Linear vs. Diffusion-Based Flux Models , 1995 .

[14]  A. Vermeulen,et al.  The importance of reducing the systematic error due to non-linearity in N2O flux measurements by static chambers , 2008, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems.

[15]  Tim R. Moore,et al.  The effect of atmospheric turbulence and chamber deployment period on autochamber CO 2 and CH 4 flux measurements in an ombrotrophic peatland , 2012 .

[16]  M. Wilmking,et al.  A comparison of linear and exponential regression for estimating diffusive CH4 fluxes by closed-chambers in peatlands , 2010 .

[17]  Scott R. Yates,et al.  Simulation of enclosure‐based methods for measuring gas emissions from soil to the atmosphere , 1998 .

[18]  S. Yates,et al.  Laboratory study of closed and dynamic flux chambers : Experimental results and implications for field application , 1998 .

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

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

[21]  G. L. Hutchinson,et al.  Diffusion theory improves chamber‐based measurements of trace gas emissions , 2005 .

[22]  G. L. Hutchinson,et al.  Vents and seals in non‐steady‐state chambers used for measuring gas exchange between soil and the atmosphere , 2001 .

[23]  W. Kutsch,et al.  Field measurements of soil respiration: Principles and constraints, potentials and limitations of different methods , 2009 .

[24]  N. Shurpali,et al.  CO 2 flux determination by closed-chamber methods can be seriously biased by inappropriate application of linear regression , 2007 .

[25]  S. O. Petersen,et al.  A comprehensive approach to soil‐atmosphere trace‐gas flux estimation with static chambers , 2010 .

[26]  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 .

[27]  R. Ceulemans,et al.  No signs of thermal acclimation of heterotrophic respiration from peat soils exposed to different water levels , 2009 .

[28]  Sini Niinistö,et al.  Comparison of different chamber techniques for measuring soil CO2 efflux , 2004 .

[29]  P. Levy,et al.  Quantification of uncertainty in trace gas fluxes measured by the static chamber method , 2011 .

[30]  Liukang Xu,et al.  On maintaining pressure equilibrium between a soil CO2 flux chamber and the ambient air , 2006 .

[31]  Jesper Riis Christiansen,et al.  Assessing the effects of chamber placement, manual sampling and headspace mixing on CH4 fluxes in a laboratory experiment , 2011, Plant and Soil.