A closed-chamber method to measure greenhouse gas fluxes from dry aquatic sediments

Lesmeister, Lukas; Koschorreck, Matthias

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2377-2017

Articles | Volume 10, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2377-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-2377-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 6

Research article

|

30 Jun 2017

Research article |

| 30 Jun 2017

A closed-chamber method to measure greenhouse gas fluxes from dry aquatic sediments

Lukas Lesmeister and Matthias Koschorreck

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Jun 2017)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 13 Feb 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Referee comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Feb 2017
- AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Matthias Koschorreck, 02 May 2017
RC2: 'Comment by Anonymous Referee', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Mar 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to RC2', Matthias Koschorreck, 02 May 2017
RC3: 'Technical note: A closed chamber method to measure greenhouse gas fluxes from dry sediments', Mathias Hoffmann, 02 Apr 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to RC3', Matthias Koschorreck, 02 May 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Matthias Koschorreck on behalf of the Authors (03 May 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (28 May 2017) by Christian Brümmer

Dear Matthias Koschorreck,

Thank you for providing a revised version of your manuscript entitled 'Technical note: A closed chamber method to measure greenhouse gas fluxes from dry sediments'. Your study addresses an important methodological shortcoming when investigating chamber-based soil-atmosphere fluxes from gravelly land surfaces.

I have gone through your responses to the reviewer's comments and think that their points have satisfactorily been addressed. While the low number of replicates is unfortunate, the combination of lab and field tests, the expansion to more than just CO2, and the clear presentation of results and take home message, make the manuscript a useful study for a wide range of researchers conducting chamber-based GHG fluxes. Please take the following minor edits listed below into account before final publication.

Thank you for submitting your work to AMT.

Best regards,
Christian Brümmer

- First line in the Abstract. I agree with #R3 that 'probably' in this context is not a term that should be used. More information is needed. Consider changing it to something like: 'Findings from a global initiative (REFERENCE) indicate that greenhouse gas emissions from dry aquatic sediments likely play an important role when investigating global carbon and nitrogen budgets.'. Please check whether this fits with the reference you will provide.

- P.2, L.30: How did you determine the detection limit for CO2, CH4, and N2O?

- P.4, L.27-28: Rephrase sentence beginning with: 'But if clay...'. Do not formulate as question.

- P.5, L.2: Replace 'stood' with 'remained'.

- P.5, L.32: Replace 'sausages' with something like 'sausage-shaped rolls' or similar.

- P.6, L.9: Replace 'extraordinary' with 'extremely'.

- P.6, L.12-13: Rephrase last sentence to something like: 'Our study demonstrates that even at stony dry aquatic sediment sites closed chamber measurements of greenhouse gas fluxes are feasible under controlled and reproducible conditions.'

Hide

AR by Matthias Koschorreck on behalf of the Authors (29 May 2017)

ED: Publish as is (30 May 2017) by Christian Brümmer

AR by Matthias Koschorreck on behalf of the Authors (31 May 2017)

Short summary

Greenhouse gas emissions from dry aquatic sediments are probably globally relevant. However, they are difficult to measure because of the often rocky substrate. We tested the performance of different materials to seal a closed chamber to stony ground both in laboratory and field experiments. Pottery clay was a convenient sealing material, while the use of on-site material produced artefacts. We confirmed that CO₂ fluxes from dry aquatic sediments were similar to fluxes from normal soils.