Department of Ecology, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, Peking University, 5 Yiheyuan Rd., Beijing 100871, China.
Environ Pollut. 2013 Oct;181:81-90. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.06.018. Epub 2013 Jul 6.
Comparing of different CH4 flux measurement techniques allows for the independent evaluation of the performance and reliability of those techniques. We compared three approaches, the traditional discrete Manual Static Chamber (MSC), Continuous Automated Chamber (CAC) and Eddy Covariance (EC) methods of measuring the CH4 fluxes in an alpine wetland. We found a good agreement among the three methods in the seasonal CH4 flux patterns, but the diurnal patterns from both the CAC and EC methods differed. While the diurnal CH4 flux variation from the CAC method was positively correlated with the soil temperature, the diurnal variation from the EC method was closely correlated with the solar radiation and net CO2 fluxes during the daytime but was correlated with the soil temperature at nighttime. The MSC method showed 25.3% and 7.6% greater CH4 fluxes than the CAC and EC methods when measured between 09:00 h and 12:00 h, respectively.
比较不同的 CH4 通量测量技术可以独立评估这些技术的性能和可靠性。我们比较了三种方法，即传统的离散手动静态室（MSC）、连续自动室（CAC）和涡度相关（EC）方法，以测量高山湿地中的 CH4 通量。我们发现这三种方法在季节 CH4 通量模式上具有很好的一致性，但 CAC 和 EC 方法的日变化模式不同。虽然 CAC 方法的日 CH4 通量变化与土壤温度呈正相关，但 EC 方法的日变化与白天的太阳辐射和净 CO2 通量密切相关，而夜间与土壤温度相关。当在 09:00 h 至 12:00 h 之间测量时，MSC 方法比 CAC 和 EC 方法分别显示出 25.3%和 7.6%更大的 CH4 通量。
