Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils

Mari Pihlatie, Jesper Riis Christiansen, Hermanni Aaltonen, Janne Korhonen, Annika Nordbo, Terhi Rasilo, Giuseppe Benanti, Michael Giebels, Mohamed Helmy, Jatta Sheehy, Stephanie Jones, Radoslaw Juszczak, Roland Klefoth, Raquel Lobo-do-Vale, Ana Paula Rosa, Peter Schreiber, Dominique Serca, Sara Vicca, Benjamin Wolf, Jukka Pumpanen

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinenvertaisarvioitu

Kuvaus

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 g CH4m−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.
Alkuperäiskielienglanti
LehtiAgricultural and Forest Meteorology
Vuosikerta171-172
Sivut124-136
Sivumäärä13
ISSN0168-1923
DOI - pysyväislinkit
TilaJulkaistu - 5 tammikuuta 2013
OKM-julkaisutyyppiA1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä, vertaisarvioitu

Tieteenalat

  • 114 Fysiikka

Lainaa tätä

Pihlatie, Mari ; Riis Christiansen, Jesper ; Aaltonen, Hermanni ; Korhonen, Janne ; Nordbo, Annika ; Rasilo, Terhi ; Benanti, Giuseppe ; Giebels, Michael ; Helmy, Mohamed ; Sheehy, Jatta ; Jones, Stephanie ; Juszczak, Radoslaw ; Klefoth, Roland ; Lobo-do-Vale, Raquel ; Rosa, Ana Paula ; Schreiber, Peter ; Serca, Dominique ; Vicca, Sara ; Wolf, Benjamin ; Pumpanen, Jukka. / Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils. Julkaisussa: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2013 ; Vuosikerta 171-172. Sivut 124-136.
@article{adec31b9c9cd45578646eb55fade61f7,
title = "Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils",
abstract = "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 fromchamber design, operation and flux calculation methods are rare. We tested fifteen chambers against four flux levels (FL) ranging from 200 to 2300 g CH4m−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{\%} (drycoarse 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 werechamber 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 wasincreased. We provide correction factors, which can be used to correct the under- or overestimation of the fluxes by the chambers in the experiment.",
keywords = "114 Physical sciences",
author = "Mari Pihlatie and {Riis Christiansen}, Jesper and Hermanni Aaltonen and Janne Korhonen and Annika Nordbo and Terhi Rasilo and Giuseppe Benanti and Michael Giebels and Mohamed Helmy and Jatta Sheehy and Stephanie Jones and Radoslaw Juszczak and Roland Klefoth and Raquel Lobo-do-Vale and Rosa, {Ana Paula} and Peter Schreiber and Dominique Serca and Sara Vicca and Benjamin Wolf and Jukka Pumpanen",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008",
language = "English",
volume = "171-172",
pages = "124--136",
journal = "Agricultural and Forest Meteorology",
issn = "0168-1923",
publisher = "Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co",

}

Pihlatie, M, Riis Christiansen, J, Aaltonen, H, Korhonen, J, Nordbo, A, Rasilo, T, Benanti, G, Giebels, M, Helmy, M, Sheehy, J, Jones, S, Juszczak, R, Klefoth, R, Lobo-do-Vale, R, Rosa, AP, Schreiber, P, Serca, D, Vicca, S, Wolf, B & Pumpanen, J 2013, 'Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils', Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vuosikerta 171-172, Sivut 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008

Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils. / Pihlatie, Mari; Riis Christiansen, Jesper; Aaltonen, Hermanni; Korhonen, Janne; Nordbo, Annika; Rasilo, Terhi; Benanti, Giuseppe; Giebels, Michael; Helmy, Mohamed; Sheehy, Jatta; Jones, Stephanie; Juszczak, Radoslaw; Klefoth, Roland; Lobo-do-Vale, Raquel; Rosa, Ana Paula; Schreiber, Peter; Serca, Dominique; Vicca, Sara; Wolf, Benjamin; Pumpanen, Jukka.

julkaisussa: Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Vuosikerta 171-172, 05.01.2013, s. 124-136.

Tutkimustuotos: ArtikkelijulkaisuArtikkeliTieteellinenvertaisarvioitu

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils

AU - Pihlatie, Mari

AU - Riis Christiansen, Jesper

AU - Aaltonen, Hermanni

AU - Korhonen, Janne

AU - Nordbo, Annika

AU - Rasilo, Terhi

AU - Benanti, Giuseppe

AU - Giebels, Michael

AU - Helmy, Mohamed

AU - Sheehy, Jatta

AU - Jones, Stephanie

AU - Juszczak, Radoslaw

AU - Klefoth, Roland

AU - Lobo-do-Vale, Raquel

AU - Rosa, Ana Paula

AU - Schreiber, Peter

AU - Serca, Dominique

AU - Vicca, Sara

AU - Wolf, Benjamin

AU - Pumpanen, Jukka

PY - 2013/1/5

Y1 - 2013/1/5

N2 - 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 fromchamber design, operation and flux calculation methods are rare. We tested fifteen chambers against four flux levels (FL) ranging from 200 to 2300 g CH4m−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% (drycoarse 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 werechamber 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 wasincreased. We provide correction factors, which can be used to correct the under- or overestimation of the fluxes by the chambers in the experiment.

AB - 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 fromchamber design, operation and flux calculation methods are rare. We tested fifteen chambers against four flux levels (FL) ranging from 200 to 2300 g CH4m−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% (drycoarse 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 werechamber 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 wasincreased. We provide correction factors, which can be used to correct the under- or overestimation of the fluxes by the chambers in the experiment.

KW - 114 Physical sciences

U2 - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008

DO - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.11.008

M3 - Article

VL - 171-172

SP - 124

EP - 136

JO - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

JF - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

SN - 0168-1923

ER -