z-logo
Premium
A practical approach for uncertainty quantification of high‐frequency soil respiration using Forced Diffusion chambers
Author(s) -
Lavoie Martin,
Phillips C. L.,
Risk David
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: biogeosciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2169-8961
pISSN - 2169-8953
DOI - 10.1002/2014jg002773
Subject(s) - eddy covariance , scaling , flux (metallurgy) , statistics , mathematics , environmental science , observational error , covariance , diffusion , range (aeronautics) , soil respiration , atmospheric sciences , standard deviation , random field , soil science , soil water , ecosystem , physics , ecology , chemistry , geometry , biology , thermodynamics , organic chemistry , materials science , composite material
This paper examines the sources of uncertainty for the Forced Diffusion (FD) chamber soil respiration ( R s ) measurement technique and demonstrates a protocol for uncertainty quantification that could be appropriate with any soil flux technique. Here we sought to quantify and compare the three primary sources of uncertainty in R s : (1) instrumentation error; (2) scaling error, which stems from the spatial variability of R s ; and (3) random error, which arises from stochastic or unpredictable variation in environmental drivers and was quantified from repeated observations under a narrow temperature, moisture, and time range. In laboratory studies, we found that FD instrumentation error remained constant as R s increased. In field studies from five North American ecosystems, we found that as R s increased from winter to peak growing season, random error increased linearly with average flux by about 40% of average R s . Random error not only scales with soil flux but scales in a consistent way (same slope) across ecosystems. Scaling error, measured at one site, similarly increased linearly with average R s , by about 50% of average R s . Our findings are consistent with previous findings for both soil fluxes and eddy covariance fluxes across other northern temperate ecosystems that showed random error scales linearly with flux magnitude with a slope of ~0.2. Although the mechanistic basis for this scaling of random error is unknown, it is suggestive of a broadly applicable rule for predicting flux random error. Also consistent with previous studies, we found the random error of FD follows a Laplace (double‐exponential) rather than a normal (Gaussian) distribution.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom