EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Comparison of field methods for measuring soil respiration: A static alkali absorption method and two dynamic closed chamber methods



Comparison of field methods for measuring soil respiration: A static alkali absorption method and two dynamic closed chamber methods



Forest Ecology & Management 170(1-3): 189-197, 15 October



The objectives of the present study were to compare the static alkali absorption (AA) and dynamic closed chamber (DC) methods for measuring soil respiration, and to evaluate the effects of methodological differences on estimating annual mean soil respiration rate in a natural forest. For the AA method, we used Kirita's method (Jpn. J. Ecol. 21 (1971) 119) using an alkali-soaked sponge disc that covers nearly the same area as that covered by a chamber. For the DC method, we used both the LI-6200 system (DC-62 method) and the newer LI-6400 system (DC-64 method) (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). Comparative measurements were conducted on five occasions during the study period (November 1998-October 1999) at a Quercus serrata forest in Japan. Daily mean soil respiration rates obtained by the AA, DC-62 and DC-64 methods for a 24 h period were in the ranges 205-578, 147-629 and 165-734 mg CO2 m-2 h-1, respectively. The daily mean soil respiration rates obtained by the AA method were 79-128% of those obtained by the DC-64 method. When the daily mean soil respiration rate obtained by the DC-64 method was below 300 mg CO2 m-2 h-1, the daily mean soil respiration rate obtained by the AA method was an average of 26% higher than that obtained by the DC-64 method. When the daily mean soil respiration rate obtained by the DC-64 method was above 300 mg CO2 m-2 h-1, the daily mean soil respiration rate obtained by the AA method was an average of 19% lower than that obtained by the DC-64 method. However, at the present site, there was a little difference between the two methods as for estimating annual mean soil respiration rate, and therefore the AA method improved by Kirita (Jpn. J. Ecol. 21 (1971) 119) is suggested to be a useful method for estimating annual mean soil respiration in the forest. The daily mean soil respiration rates obtained by the DC-62 method were systematically 10-24% lower (an average of 15% lower) than those obtained with the DC-64 method, and the annual mean rate was lower than that estimated by the AA method.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 010358531

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1016/s0378-1127(01)00773-3



Related references

Measuring soil respiration in the field: an automated closed chamber system compared with portable IRGA and alkali absorption methods. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 33(3/4): 403-423, 2002

Description of a dynamic closed chamber for measuring soil respiration and its comparison with other techniques. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 77(2): 195-203, 1997

Comparison of eddy covariance and static chamber/gas chromatogram methods in measuring ecosystem respiration. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 19(2): 290-298, 2008

Comparison of static and dynamic closed chambers for measurement of soil respiration under field conditions. Canadian Journal Of Soil Science. 72(4): 605-609, 1992

Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology Implications for soil respiration studies. Plant and Soil 346(1-2): 145-151, 2011

Measuring N2O emissions from organic soils by closed chamber or soil/snow N2O gradient methods. European Journal of Soil Science 54(3): 625-631, September, 2003

Measuring N (sub 2) O emissions from organic soils by closed chamber or soil/ snow N (sub 2) O gradient methods. European Journal of Soil Science 54(3): 625-631, 2003

Re examination of the absorption method of measuring soil respiration under field conditions part 4 an improved absorption method using a disc of plastic sponge as absorbent holder. Japanese Journal of Ecology 21(3-4): 119-127, 1971

A chamber system with automatic opening and closing for continuously measuring soil respiration based on an open-flow dynamic method. Ecological Research 21(3): 405-414, 2006

Comparison of static chamber and thin boundary layer equation methods for measuring greenhouse gas emissions from large water bodies. Environmental Science and Technology 33(2): 0-7, 1999

Soil surface CO2 flux as an index of soil respiration in situ: a comparison of two chamber methods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28(10/11): 1297-1306, 1996

Soil surface CO (sub 2) flux as an index of soil respiration in situ; a comparison of two chamber methods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 28(10-11): 1297-1306, 1996

Re examination of the absorption method of measuring soil respiration under field conditions part 2 effect of the size of the apparatus on carbon di oxide absorption rates. Japanese Journal of Ecology 21(1-2): 37-42, 1971

Comparison of the closed-chamber and gas concentration gradient methods for measurement of CO2 and N2O fluxes in two upland field soils. Soil Science & Plant Nutrition 54(5): 777-785, 2008