• Title of article

    Comparison of static chambers to measure CH4 emissions from soils

  • Author/Authors

    Mari K. Pihlatie، نويسنده , , Jesper Riis Christiansen، نويسنده , , Hermanni Aaltonen، نويسنده , , Janne F.J. Korhonen، نويسنده , , Annika Nordbo، نويسنده , , Terhi Rasilo، نويسنده , , Giuseppe Benanti، نويسنده , , Michael Giebels، نويسنده , , Mohamed Helmy، نويسنده , , Jatta Sheehy، نويسنده , , Stephanie Jones، نويسنده , , Radoslaw Juszczak، نويسنده , , Roland Klefoth، نويسنده , , Raquel Lobo-do-Vale، نويسنده , , Ana Paula Rosa، نويسنده , , Peter Schreiber، نويسنده , , DOMINIQUE SERCA، نويسنده , , Sara Vicca، نويسنده , , Benjamin Wolf، نويسنده , , JUKKA PUMPANEN، نويسنده , , et al.، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2013
  • Pages
    13
  • From page
    124
  • To page
    136
  • 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 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.
  • Keywords
    Soil , Methane , Flux calculation , Static chamber , Fluxes
  • Journal title
    Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
  • Serial Year
    2013
  • Journal title
    Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
  • Record number

    960405