An open chamber system for measuring soil surface CO2 efflux: Analysis of error sources related to the chamber system

Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres

Volumn 106, Issue D8, 2001, Pages 7985-7992

  Pumpanen, J ^a   Ilvesniemi, H ^a   Keronen, P ^a   Nissinen, A ^a   Pohja, T ^b   Vesala, T ^a   Hari, P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b SMEAR II Station   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AIR FLOW; AIR-SOIL INTERACTION; CARBON DIOXIDE; ERROR ANALYSIS;

EID: 0034956990     PISSN: 01480227     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2000JD900715     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 2 evolution in situ, Pedobiologia, 28, 35-40, 1985.
2. De Jong, E., R.E. Redmann, and E.A. Ripley, A comparison of methods to measure soil respiration, Soil Sci., 127, 300-306, 1979.
3. Dixon, R.K., and D.P. Turner, The global carbon cycle and climate change: Responses and feedbacks from below-ground systems, Environ. Pollut., 73, 245-262, 1991.
4. Dixon, R.K., K.J. Andrasco, F.G. Sussman, M.A. Lavin, M.C. Trexler, and T.S. Vinson, Forest sector carbon offset projects: Near term opportunities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, Water Air Soil Pollut., 70, 561-577, 1993.
5. Edwards, N.T., and P. Sollings, Continuous measurement of carbon dioxide evolution from partitional forest floor components, Ecology, 54, 406-412, 1973.
6. 2 efflux from the surface of soil, Functional Ecol., 10(2), 297-305, 1996.
7. 2 efflux measurement, Functional Ecol., 12(2), 319-325, 1998.
8. Gao, F., and S.R. Yates, Laboratory study of closed and dynamic flux chambers: Experimental results and implications for field application, J. Geophys. Res., 10(D20), 26,115-26,125, 1998.
9. 2 flux, Plant Cell Environ., 22, 1297-1301, 1999.
10. 2 efflux: an in situ comparison of four techniques, Tree Physiol., 20, 23-32, 2000.
11. 2 flux as an index of soil respiration in situ: A comparison of two chamber methods, Soil Biol. Biochem., 28, 1297-1306, 1996.
12. 2 efflux from soil surface, Soil Sci., 118, 233-237, 1974.
13. Kutsch, W.L., Untersuchung zur Bodenatmung zweier Ackerstandorte im Bereich der Bornhöveder Seenkette, in EcoSys. Beiträge zur Ökosystemforschung, Suppl. Bd.16, 125 pp., Ökologie-Zentrum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany, 1996.
14. 2, Global Change Biol., 5, 269-281, 1999.
15. Norman, J.M., C.J. Kucharik, S.T. Gower, D.D. Baldocchi, P.M. Crill, M. Rayment, K. Savage, and R.G. Striegl, A comparison of six methods for measuring soil surface carbon dioxide effluxes, J. Geophys. Res., 102(D24), 28,771-28,777, 1997.
16. 2, Water Air Soil Pollut., 70, 465-481, 1993.
17. 2 effluxes in the field, J. Geophys. Res., 102(D24), 28,779-28,784, 1997.
18. Rochette, P., E.G. Gregorich, and R.L. Desjardins, Comparison of static and dynamic closed chambers for measurement of soil respiration under field conditions, Can. J. Soil Sci., 72, 605-609, 1992.
19. Schlesinger, W.H., Carbon balance in terrestrial detritus, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 8, 51-81, 1977.
20. Singh, J.S., and S.R. Gupta, Plant decomposition and soil respiration in terrestrial ecosystems, Botanical Rev.. 43, 4, pp. 475-489, 1977.
21. Smith, T.M., W.P. Cramer, R.K. Dixon, R. Leemans, R.P. Neilson, and A.M. Solomon, The global terrestrial carbon cycle, Water Air Soil Pollut., 70, 19-37, 1993.
22. Vesala, J., et al., Long-term field measurements of atmosphere-surface interactions in boreal forest combining forest ecology, micrometeorology, aerosol physics and atmospheric chemistry, Trends Heat Mass Momentum Transf., 4, 17-35, 1998.