Advanced

Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes over a lake : Comparison between eddy covariance, floating chambers and boundary layer method

Erkkilä, Kukka Maaria; Ojala, Anne; Bastviken, David; Biermann, Tobias LU ; Heiskanen, Jouni; Lindroth, Anders LU ; Peltola, Olli; Rantakari, Miitta; Vesala, Timo and Mammarella, Ivan (2018) In Biogeosciences 15(2). p.429-445
Abstract

Freshwaters bring a notable contribution to the global carbon budget by emitting both carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. Global estimates of freshwater emissions traditionally use a wind-speed-based gas transfer velocity, kCC (introduced by Cole and Caraco, 1998), for calculating diffusive flux with the boundary layer method (BLM). We compared CH4 and CO2 fluxes from BLM with kCC and two other gas transfer velocities (kTE and kHE), which include the effects of water-side cooling to the gas transfer besides shear-induced turbulence, with simultaneous eddy covariance (EC) and floating chamber (FC) fluxes during a 16-day measurement campaign in September 2014 at Lake Kuivajärvi in Finland. The measurements included... (More)

Freshwaters bring a notable contribution to the global carbon budget by emitting both carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. Global estimates of freshwater emissions traditionally use a wind-speed-based gas transfer velocity, kCC (introduced by Cole and Caraco, 1998), for calculating diffusive flux with the boundary layer method (BLM). We compared CH4 and CO2 fluxes from BLM with kCC and two other gas transfer velocities (kTE and kHE), which include the effects of water-side cooling to the gas transfer besides shear-induced turbulence, with simultaneous eddy covariance (EC) and floating chamber (FC) fluxes during a 16-day measurement campaign in September 2014 at Lake Kuivajärvi in Finland. The measurements included both lake stratification and water column mixing periods. Results show that BLM fluxes were mainly lower than EC, with the more recent model kTE giving the best fit with EC fluxes, whereas FC measurements resulted in higher fluxes than simultaneous EC measurements. We highly recommend using up-to-date gas transfer models, instead of kCC, for better flux estimates.

BLM CO2 flux measurements had clear differences between daytime and night-time fluxes with all gas transfer models during both stratified and mixing periods, whereas EC measurements did not show a diurnal behaviour in CO2 flux. CH4 flux had higher values in daytime than night-time during lake mixing period according to EC measurements, with highest fluxes detected just before sunset. In addition, we found clear differences in daytime and night-time concentration difference between the air and surface water for both CH4 and CO2. This might lead to biased flux estimates, if only daytime values are used in BLM upscaling and flux measurements in general.

FC measurements did not detect spatial variation in either CH4 or CO2 flux over Lake Kuivajärvi. EC measurements, on the other hand, did not show any spatial variation in CH4 fluxes but did show a clear difference between CO2 fluxes from shallower and deeper areas. We highlight that while all flux measurement methods have their pros and cons, it is important to carefully think about the chosen method and measurement interval, as well as their effects on the resulting flux.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
lake, turbulent fluxes, Methane, carbon cycling, chamber measurements, carbon dioxide
in
Biogeosciences
volume
15
issue
2
pages
17 pages
publisher
Copernicus Publications
external identifiers
  • scopus:85040905512
ISSN
1726-4170
DOI
10.5194/bg-15-429-2018
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
588a9b24-7dc2-4c94-8d31-184c565236fe
date added to LUP
2018-02-07 09:49:56
date last changed
2018-07-01 04:52:32
@article{588a9b24-7dc2-4c94-8d31-184c565236fe,
  abstract     = {<p>Freshwaters bring a notable contribution to the global carbon budget by emitting both carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere. Global estimates of freshwater emissions traditionally use a wind-speed-based gas transfer velocity, kCC (introduced by Cole and Caraco, 1998), for calculating diffusive flux with the boundary layer method (BLM). We compared CH4 and CO2 fluxes from BLM with kCC and two other gas transfer velocities (kTE and kHE), which include the effects of water-side cooling to the gas transfer besides shear-induced turbulence, with simultaneous eddy covariance (EC) and floating chamber (FC) fluxes during a 16-day measurement campaign in September 2014 at Lake Kuivajärvi in Finland. The measurements included both lake stratification and water column mixing periods. Results show that BLM fluxes were mainly lower than EC, with the more recent model kTE giving the best fit with EC fluxes, whereas FC measurements resulted in higher fluxes than simultaneous EC measurements. We highly recommend using up-to-date gas transfer models, instead of kCC, for better flux estimates. <br/><br/> BLM CO2 flux measurements had clear differences between daytime and night-time fluxes with all gas transfer models during both stratified and mixing periods, whereas EC measurements did not show a diurnal behaviour in CO2 flux. CH4 flux had higher values in daytime than night-time during lake mixing period according to EC measurements, with highest fluxes detected just before sunset. In addition, we found clear differences in daytime and night-time concentration difference between the air and surface water for both CH4 and CO2. This might lead to biased flux estimates, if only daytime values are used in BLM upscaling and flux measurements in general. <br/><br/> FC measurements did not detect spatial variation in either CH4 or CO2 flux over Lake Kuivajärvi. EC measurements, on the other hand, did not show any spatial variation in CH4 fluxes but did show a clear difference between CO2 fluxes from shallower and deeper areas. We highlight that while all flux measurement methods have their pros and cons, it is important to carefully think about the chosen method and measurement interval, as well as their effects on the resulting flux.</p>},
  author       = {Erkkilä, Kukka Maaria and Ojala, Anne and Bastviken, David and Biermann, Tobias and Heiskanen, Jouni and Lindroth, Anders and Peltola, Olli and Rantakari, Miitta and Vesala, Timo and Mammarella, Ivan},
  issn         = {1726-4170},
  keyword      = {lake,turbulent fluxes,Methane,carbon cycling,chamber measurements,carbon dioxide},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {01},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {429--445},
  publisher    = {Copernicus Publications},
  series       = {Biogeosciences},
  title        = {Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes over a lake : Comparison between eddy covariance, floating chambers and boundary layer method},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-429-2018},
  volume       = {15},
  year         = {2018},
}