z-logo
Premium
Estimating lake‐atmosphere CO 2 exchange
Author(s) -
Anderson Dean E.,
Striegl Robert G.,
Stannard David I.,
Michmerhuizen Catherine M.,
McConnaughey Ted A.,
LaBaugh James W.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
limnology and oceanography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.7
H-Index - 197
eISSN - 1939-5590
pISSN - 0024-3590
DOI - 10.4319/lo.1999.44.4.0988
Subject(s) - eddy covariance , flux (metallurgy) , atmosphere (unit) , atmospheric sciences , environmental science , boundary layer , climatology , hydrology (agriculture) , chemistry , geology , meteorology , ecosystem , physics , thermodynamics , ecology , geotechnical engineering , organic chemistry , biology
Lake‐atmosphere CO 2 flux was directly measured above a small, woodland lake using the eddy covariance technique and compared with fluxes deduced from changes in measured lake‐water CO 2 storage and with flux predictions from boundary‐layer and surface‐renewal models. Over a 3‐yr period, lake‐atmosphere exchanges of CO 2 were measured over 5 weeks in spring, summer, and fall. Observed springtime CO 2 efflux was large (2.3–2.7 umol m ‐2 s ‐1 ) immediately after lake‐thaw. That efflux decreased exponentially with time to less than 0.2 umol m ‐2 s −1 within 2 weeks. Substantial interannual variability was found in the magnitudes of springtime efflux, surface water CO 2 concentrations, lake CO 2 storage, and meteorological conditions. Summertime measurements show a weak diurnal trend with a small average downward flux (−0.17 μmol m ‐2 s 1 ) to the lake's surface, while late fall flux was trendless and smaller (−0.0021 μmol m ‐2 s −1 ). Large springtime efflux afforded an opportunity to make direct measurement of lake‐atmosphere fluxes well above the detection limits of eddy covariance instruments, facilitating the testing of different gas flux methodologies and air‐water gas‐transfer models. Although there was an overall agreement in fluxes determined by eddy covariance and those calculated from lake‐water storage change in CO 2 , agreement was inconsistent between eddy covariance flux measurements and fluxes predicted by boundary‐layer and surface‐renewal models. Comparison of measured and modeled transfer velocities for CO 2 , along with measured and modeled cumulative CO 2 flux, indicates that in most instances the surface‐renewal model underpredicts actual flux. Greater underestimates were found with comparisons involving homogeneous boundary‐layer models. No physical mechanism responsible for the inconsistencies was identified by analyzing coincidentally measured environmental variables.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here