Premium
A Calibration System for Soil Carbon Dioxide‐Efflux Measurement Chambers
Author(s) -
Widén Britta,
Lindroth Anders
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
soil science society of america journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.836
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1435-0661
pISSN - 0361-5995
DOI - 10.2136/sssaj2003.3270
Subject(s) - efflux , carbon dioxide , volume (thermodynamics) , calibration , flux (metallurgy) , chemistry , environmental science , boundary layer , soil science , tracer , airflow , analytical chemistry (journal) , atmospheric sciences , environmental chemistry , mechanics , mathematics , thermodynamics , physics , biochemistry , statistics , organic chemistry , nuclear physics
Comparisons have revealed large discrepancies among the many methods for measuring soil CO 2 efflux indicating the need for an absolute calibration of methods. This study presents a calibration system, constructed to imitate an area of soil, and its application to two different chamber systems for the measurement of soil CO 2 efflux: one open and one closed dynamic. Air rich in CO 2 was allowed to diffuse through a layer of sand on top of a box of known volume. By measuring the decrease in CO 2 concentration inside the box, the exact CO 2 efflux could be calculated. The CO 2 –efflux rates measured by the chambers could then be compared with the efflux rates calculated from the box. The error of the closed‐chamber system ranged from an underestimate of 19% to an overestimate of 21%. The errors were most likely caused by a combination of underestimated chamber volume, causing an underestimation of CO 2 efflux, and turbulence within the chamber, which increased the flux by disturbing the boundary layer above the surface. The open‐chamber system always overestimated the CO 2 efflux. Disturbing the boundary layer alone was believed to cause a 17% increase in efflux. Increasing negative pressure difference caused a mass flow of CO 2 –rich air into the chamber. At a pressure difference of −0.15 Pa, the error was 11 to 40%, depending on air‐filled soil volume. Accordingly, soil‐water content, a parameter to which soil CO 2 efflux is often related, was found to substantially affect the measurements made by both tested systems. These results point to the need of calibrating systems used for measuring soil CO 2 efflux is measured against a known flux, to elucidate the limits and applicability of each system.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom