Literature DB >> 22565252

Calculating the detection limits of chamber-based soil greenhouse gas flux measurements.

T B Parkin1, R T Venterea, S K Hargreaves.   

Abstract

Renewed interest in quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from soil has led to an increase in the application of chamber-based flux measurement techniques. Despite the apparent conceptual simplicity of chamber-based methods, nuances in chamber design, deployment, and data analyses can have marked effects on the quality of the flux data derived. In many cases, fluxes are calculated from chamber headspace vs. time series consisting of three or four data points. Several mathematical techniques have been used to calculate a soil gas flux from time course data. This paper explores the influences of sampling and analytical variability associated with trace gas concentration quantification on the flux estimated by linear and nonlinear models. We used Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the minimum detectable fluxes (α = 0.05) of linear regression (LR), the Hutchinson/Mosier (H/M) method, the quadratic method (Quad), the revised H/M (HMR) model, and restricted versions of the Quad and H/M methods over a range of analytical precisions and chamber deployment times (DT) for data sets consisting of three or four time points. We found that LR had the smallest detection limit thresholds and was the least sensitive to analytical precision and chamber deployment time. The HMR model had the highest detection limits and was most sensitive to analytical precision and chamber deployment time. Equations were developed that enable the calculation of flux detection limits of any gas species if analytical precision, chamber deployment time, and ambient concentration of the gas species are known.
Copyright © by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Inc.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22565252     DOI: 10.2134/jeq2011.0394

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Qual        ISSN: 0047-2425            Impact factor:   2.751


  13 in total

1.  Are distinct nitrous oxide emission factors required for cattle urine and dung deposited on pasture in western Canada?

Authors:  Ben W Thomas; Xinlei Gao; Ryan Beck; Xiying Hao
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Nitrogen Addition Affects Nitrous Oxide Emissions of Rainfed Lucerne Grassland.

Authors:  Yuan Li; Gang Wang; Narasinha J Shurpali; Yuying Shen
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 4.614

3.  Modeling nitrous oxide emissions from rough fescue grassland soils subjected to long-term grazing of different intensities using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT).

Authors:  Narayan Kumar Shrestha; Ben W Thomas; Xinzhong Du; Xiying Hao; Junye Wang
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-07-22       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Assessment of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Fluxes from Paddy Field by Means of Static Closed Chambers Maintaining Plants Within Headspace.

Authors:  Chiara Bertora; Matteo Peyron; Simone Pelissetti; Carlo Grignani; Dario Sacco
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 1.355

5.  Measurement of greenhouse gas flux from agricultural soils using static chambers.

Authors:  Sarah M Collier; Matthew D Ruark; Lawrence G Oates; William E Jokela; Curtis J Dell
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 1.355

6.  Water table management and fertilizer application impacts on CO2, N2O and CH4 fluxes in a corn agro-ecosystem.

Authors:  Cynthia M Crézé; Chandra A Madramootoo
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-25       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Spatial and temporal variability of soil N2 O and CH4 fluxes along a degradation gradient in a palm swamp peat forest in the Peruvian Amazon.

Authors:  Kristell Hergoualc'h; Nelda Dezzeo; Louis V Verchot; Christopher Martius; Jeffrey van Lent; Jhon Del Aguila-Pasquel; Mariela López Gonzales
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 10.863

8.  Greenhouse gas emissions from cattle dung depositions in two Urochloa forage fields with contrasting biological nitrification inhibition (BNI) capacity.

Authors:  Banira Lombardi; Sandra Loaiza; Catalina Trujillo; Ashly Arevalo; Eduardo Vázquez; Jacobo Arango; Ngonidzashe Chirinda
Journal:  Geoderma       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 6.114

9.  Restricting the nonlinearity parameter in soil greenhouse gas flux calculation for more reliable flux estimates.

Authors:  Roman Hüppi; Raphael Felber; Maike Krauss; Johan Six; Jens Leifeld; Roland Fuß
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from stored manure from beef cattle supplemented 3-nitrooxypropanol and monensin to reduce enteric methane emissions.

Authors:  Jennifer L Owens; Ben W Thomas; Jessica L Stoeckli; Karen A Beauchemin; Tim A McAllister; Francis J Larney; Xiying Hao
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.996

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.