바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 2287-8327

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.42 No.4
Citation Share

Comparison of automatic and manual chamber methods for measuring soil respiration in a temperate broad-leaved forest

Journal of Ecology and Environment / Journal of Ecology and Environment, (P)2287-8327; (E)2288-1220
2018, v.42 no.4, pp.272-277
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-018-0093-0

(2018). Comparison of automatic and manual chamber methods for measuring soil respiration in a temperate broad-leaved forest. Journal of Ecology and Environment, 42(4), 272-277, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41610-018-0093-0
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Background: Studying the ecosystem carbon cycle requires analysis of interrelationships between soil respiration (Rs) and the environment to evaluate the balance. Various methods and instruments have been used to measure Rs. The closed chamber method, which is currently widely used to determine Rs, creates a closed space on the soil surface, measures CO2 concentration in the inner space, and calculates Rs from the increase. Accordingly, the method is divided into automatic or manual chamber methods (ACM and MCM, respectively). However, errors of these methods and differences in instruments are unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the characteristics and difference of Rs values calculated using both methods with actual data. Results: Both methods determined seasonal variation patterns of Rs, reflecting overall changes in soil temperature (Ts). ACM clearly showed detailed changes in Rs, but MCM did not, because such small changes are unknown as Rs values are collected monthly. Additionally, Rs measured using MCM was higher than that using ACM and differed depending on measured plots, but showed similar tendencies with all measurement times and plots. Contrastingly, MCM Rs values in August for plot 4 were very high compared with ACM Rs values because of soil disturbances that easily occur during MCM measurements. Comparing Rs values calculated using monthly means with those calculated using MCM, the ACM calculated values for monthly averages were higher or lower than those of similar measurement times using the MCM. The difference between the ACM and MCM was attributed to greater or lesser differences. These Rs values estimated the carbon released into the atmosphere during measurement periods to be approximately 57% higher with MCM than with ACM, at 5.1 and 7.9 C ton ha−1, respectively. Conclusion: ACM calculated average values based on various Rs values as high and low for measurement periods, but the MCM produced only specific values for measurement times as representative values. Therefore, MCM may exhibit large errors in selection differences during Rs measurements. Therefore, to reduce this error using MCM, the time and frequency of measurement should be set to obtain Rs under various environmental conditions. Contrastingly, the MCM measurement is obtained during CO2 evaluation in the soil owing to soil disturbance caused by measuring equipment, so close attention should be paid to measurements. This is because the measurement process is disturbed by high CO2 soil concentration, and even small soil disturbances could release high levels into the chamber, causing large Rs errors. Therefore, the MCM should be adequately mastered before using the device to measure Rs.

keywords
Soil respiration, Soil temperature, Temperate forest, Automatic and manual closed chambers

Reference

1.

Aerts R. Climate, leaf litter chemistry and decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems:a triangular relationship. Oikos. 1997;79:439–49.

2.

Eom JY, Jeong SH, Chun JH, Lee JH, Lee JS. Long-term characteristics of soil respiration in a Korean cool-temperate deciduous forest in a monsoon climate. Animal Cells Syst. 2018;22(Issue 2):100–8.

3.

Fang C, Moncrieff JB, Gholz HL, Clark KL. Soil CO2 efflux and its spatial variation in a Florida slash pine plantation. Plant Soil. 1998;205:135–46.

4.

Hanson PJ, Eswards CT, Garten CT, Andrews JA. Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations. Biogeochem. 2000;48:115–46.

5.

Healy RW, Striegi SC, Russell TF, Hutchison GL, Livingston GP. Numerical evaluation of static-chamber measurements of soil –atmosphere gas exchange:identification of physical processes. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1996;60:740–7.

6.

Jeong SH, Eom JY, Lee JH, Lee JS. Effect of rainfall events on soil carbon flux in mountain pastures. J Ecol Environ. 2017a;41:37.

7.

Jeong SH, Eom JY, Park JH, Lee JS. Characteristics of accumulated soil carbon and soil respiration in temperate deciduous forest and alpine pastureland. J Ecol Environ. 2017b;41:3.

8.

Jung EY, Otieno D, Kwon H, Lee B, Lim JH, Kim J, Tenhunen J. Water use by a warm-temperate deciduous forest under the influence of the Asian monsoon: contributions of the overstory and understory to forest water use. J Plant Res. 2013;126:661–74.

9.

Laiju N, Otieno D, Jung EY, Lee B, Tenhunen J, Lim JH, Kang S. Environmental controls on growing-season sap flow density of Quercus serrata Thunb in a temperate deciduous forest of Korea. J Ecol Environ. 2012;35:213–25.

10.

Lee JH, Eom JY, Jeong SH, Hong SB, Park EJ, Lee JS. Influence of carbonized crop residue on soil carbon storage in red pepper field. J Ecol Environ. 2017;41:40.

11.

Lee JS. Effect of micro-environment in ridge and southern slope on soil respiration in Quercus mongolica forest. J Ecol Environ. 2018;42:26.

12.

Lee KJ, Choi SH, Jo JC. Analysis on the forest community in Mt. Jookup by the classification and ordination techniques. J Kor For Soc. 1992;81:214–23.

13.

Lee MS, Lee J, Koizumi H. Temporal variation in CO2 efflux from soil and snow surfaces in a Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) plantation, central Japan. Ecol Res. 2008;23:777–85.

14.

Lee NY, Koo JW, Noh NJ, Kim J, Son Y. Seasonal variation in soil CO2 efflux in evergreen coniferous and broad-leaved deciduous forests in a cooltemperate forest, Central Korea. Ecol Res. 2010;25:609–17.

15.

Liang N, Nakadai T, Hirano T, Qu L, Koike T, Fujinuma Y, Inoue G. In situ comparison of four approaches to estimating soil CO2 efflux in a northern larch (Larix kaempferi Sarg.) forest. Agric For Meteorol. 2004;123:97–117.

16.

Lim JH, Shin JH, Jin Z, Chun JH, Oh S. Forest stand structure, site characteristics and carbon budget of the Kwangneung natural forest in Korea. J Kor Soc Agric For Meteorol. 2003;5:101–9.

17.

Oikawa T. Increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration and biosphere. J Agric Meteorol. 1991;47:191–4.

18.

Rochette P, Desjardins RL, Pattey E. Spatial and temporal variability of soil respiration in agricultural fields. Can J Soil Sci. 1991;71:189–96.

19.

Suh SU, Chun YM, Chae NY, Kim J, Lim JH, Yokozawa M, Lee MS, Lee JS. A chamber system with automatic opening and closing for continuously measuring soil respiration based on an open-flow dynamic method. Ecol Res. 2006;2:405–14.

20.

Wang CK, Yang JY, Zhang QZ. Soil respiration in six temperate forests in China. Glob Chang Biol. 2006;12:2103–14.

21.

Wu Y, Liu G, Fu B, Liu Z, Hu H. Comparing soil CO2 emission in pine plantation and oak shrub: dynamic and correlations. Ecol Res. 2006;21:840–8.

22.

Yun KS, Heo KY, Chu JE, Ha KJ, Lee EJ, Choi Y, Kitoh A. Changes in climate classification and extreme climate indices from a high-resolution future projection in Korea. Asia-Pacific J Atmos Sci. 2012;48:213–26.

Journal of Ecology and Environment

e-Submission OA Policy