A carbon dioxide flux generator for testing enfrared gas analyzer-based soil respiration systems

Soil Science Society of America Journal

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 514-518

  Martin, Jonathan G ^a   Bolstad, Paul V ^a   Norman, John M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC EQUIPMENT; BOUNDARY LAYERS; CARBON DIOXIDE; DIFFUSION; GAS GENERATORS; INFRARED RADIATION; MIXING; PHOTOSYNTHESIS; POROUS MATERIALS;

FLUX GENERATORS; GAS ANALYZERS;

SOIL TESTING;

CARBON DIOXIDE; POROUS MEDIUM; SOIL RESPIRATION; TESTING METHOD;

EID: 1542291067     PISSN: 03615995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.5140     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Billings, S.A., D.D. Richter, and J. Yarie. 1998. Soil carbon dioxide fluxes and profile concentrations in two boreal forests. Can. J. For. Res. 28:1773-1783.
2. Davidson, E.A., B. Belk, and R.D. Boone. 1998. Soil water content and temperature as independent or confounding factors controlling soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Glob. Change Biol. 4:217-227.
3. Davidson, E.A., K. Savage, L.V. Verchot, and R. Navarro. 2002. Minimizing artifacts and biases in chamber-based measurements of soil respiration. Agric. For. Meteorol. 113:21-37.
4. De Jong, E., R.E. Redmann, and E.A. Ripley. 1979. A comparison of methods to measure soil respiration. Soil Sci. 127:300-306.
5. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The scientific basis. Available online at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm (verified 18 Nov. 2003).
6. 2 efflux: An in situ comparison of four techniques. Tree Physiol. 20:23-32.
7. 2 flux as an index of soil respiration in situ: A comparison of two chamber methods. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28:1297-1306.
8. 2 efflux in beech forest: Comparison of two closed dynamic systems. Plant Soil 214:125-132.
9. LI-COR, Inc. 1997. 6400-09 Soil flux chamber instruction manual. Publ. No. 9710-119, LI-COR, Inc., Lincoln, NE.
10. 2. Glob. Change Biol. 5:269-281.
11. 2 efflux demonstrated with a laboratory apparatus. Ecology 75:2460-2463.
12. Norman, J.M., C.J. Kucharik, S.T. Gower, D.D. Baldocchi, P.M. Crill, M. Rayment, K. Savage, and R.G. Striegl. 1997. A comparison of six methods for measuring soil-surface carbon dioxide fluxes. J. Geophys. Res. 102(D24):28 771-28 777.
13. Olander, L. 1994. Equations and formulas for air and air contaminants. A literature review. Arbets Miljo Institute, National Institute of Occupational Health. Rep. 1994:17. Arbets Miljo Institute, National Institute of Occupational Health, Solna, Sweden.
14. Raich, J.W., and C. Potter. 1995. Global patterns of carbon dioxide emissions from soils. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 9:23-36.
15. Raich, J.W., and W.H. Schlesinger. 1992. The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus. 44(B):81-99.
16. Widen, B., and A. Lindroth. 2003. A calibration system for soil carbon dioxide-efflux measurement chambers: Description and application. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 67:327-334.
17. 2 fluxes in a boreal forest J. Geophys. Res. 102(D24): 28 795-28 804.
18. Yim, M.H., S.J. Joo, and K. Nakane. 2002. Comparison of field methods for measuring soil respiration: A static alkali absorption method and two dynamic closed chamber methods. For. Ecol. Manage. 170:189-197.