Optimizing chamber methods for measuring nitrous oxide emissions from plot‐based agricultural experiments. (9th January 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chadwick, D. R.; Cardenas, L.; Misselbrook, T. H.; Smith, K. A.; Rees, R. M.; Watson, C. J.; McGeough, K. L.; Williams, J. R.; Cloy, J. M.; Thorman, R. E.; Dhanoa, M. S.
• Is Part Of: European journal of soil science. Volume 65:Number 2(2014:Apr.)
• Page Start: 295
• Page End: 307
• Publication Date: 2014-01-09
• Subjects: Soil science -- Periodicals; 631.4
• DOI: 10.1111/ejss.12117
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1351-0754

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="ejss12117-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p id="ejss12117-para-0001">Nitrous oxide emissions (N<sub>2</sub>O) from agricultural land are spatially and temporally variable. Most emission measurements are made with small (≪ 1 m<sup>2</sup> area) static chambers. We used N<sub>2</sub>O chamber data collected from multiple field experiments across different geo‐climatic zones in the UK and from a range of nitrogen treatments to quantify uncertainties associated with flux measurements. Data were analysed to assess the spatial variability of fluxes, the degree of linearity of headspace N<sub>2</sub>O accumulation and the robustness of using ambient air N<sub>2</sub>O concentrations as a surrogate for sampling immediately after closure (T<sub>0</sub>). Data showed differences of up to more than 50‐fold between the maximum and minimum N<sub>2</sub>O flux from five chambers within one plot on a single sampling occasion, and that reliability of flux measurements increased with greater numbers of chambers. In more than 90% of the 1970 cases where linearity of headspace N<sub>2</sub>O accumulation was measured (with four or more sampling points), linear accumulation was observed; however, where non‐linear accumulation was seen this could result in a 26% under‐estimate of the flux. Statistical analysis demonstrated that the use of ambient air as a surrogate for T<sub>0</sub> headspace samples did not result in any consistent bias in calculated fluxes. Spatial variability has the potential to result in erroneous flux estimates if not taken into account, and generally introduces a far larger uncertainty into the calculated flux (commonly orders of magnitude more) than any uncertainties introduced through reduced headspace sampling or assumption of linearity of headspace accumulation. Hence, when deploying finite resources, maximizing chamber numbers should be given priority over maximizing the number of headspace samplings per enclosure period.</p> </abstract>