Adam T. Rexroade, Marcus B. Wallin, Clément Duvert
{"title":"测量热带陡流中的气体传输速度:方法评估及对升尺度的影响","authors":"Adam T. Rexroade, Marcus B. Wallin, Clément Duvert","doi":"10.1029/2024JG008420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Greenhouse gas emission estimates from streams rely, in part, on accurate measurements or estimates of the gas transfer velocity, which describes the physical efficiency for gas exchange across the water-air interface. Numerous methods for measuring or modeling gas transfer velocity exist, yet few studies compare these different methods. Additionally, current models of gas transfer velocity in streams are predominantly derived from measurements in low-gradient, temperate, or boreal streams. Here, we measured gas transfer velocity using four different methods in a high-energy, tropical headwater stream under a range of flow conditions, and compared these measurements to indirect estimates from four empirical models. Our results show that, when compared to the use of a biologically inert gas tracer (propane), floating chambers produced lower gas transfer velocity values. Using carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) as a tracer gas was unreliable without considering other natural sources and sinks of CO<sub>2</sub> and yielded gas transfer velocities lower than when using propane. Existing empirical models tended to underestimate gas transfer velocity, compared to the inert tracer gas. When using empirical models to upscale the emission flux along an entire stream reach, choice of model was more influential than the spatial resolution of model implementation. We also highlight the extreme spatial variability of gas transfer velocity across small spatial scales, which contrasts with its relative stability across changing hydrological conditions. The discrepancies between methods highlight the need for further research in measuring and upscaling gas transfer velocity, particularly in very turbulent steep streams.</p>","PeriodicalId":16003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences","volume":"130 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JG008420","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Gas Transfer Velocity in a Steep Tropical Stream: Method Evaluation and Implications for Upscaling\",\"authors\":\"Adam T. Rexroade, Marcus B. Wallin, Clément Duvert\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2024JG008420\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Greenhouse gas emission estimates from streams rely, in part, on accurate measurements or estimates of the gas transfer velocity, which describes the physical efficiency for gas exchange across the water-air interface. Numerous methods for measuring or modeling gas transfer velocity exist, yet few studies compare these different methods. Additionally, current models of gas transfer velocity in streams are predominantly derived from measurements in low-gradient, temperate, or boreal streams. Here, we measured gas transfer velocity using four different methods in a high-energy, tropical headwater stream under a range of flow conditions, and compared these measurements to indirect estimates from four empirical models. Our results show that, when compared to the use of a biologically inert gas tracer (propane), floating chambers produced lower gas transfer velocity values. Using carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>) as a tracer gas was unreliable without considering other natural sources and sinks of CO<sub>2</sub> and yielded gas transfer velocities lower than when using propane. Existing empirical models tended to underestimate gas transfer velocity, compared to the inert tracer gas. When using empirical models to upscale the emission flux along an entire stream reach, choice of model was more influential than the spatial resolution of model implementation. We also highlight the extreme spatial variability of gas transfer velocity across small spatial scales, which contrasts with its relative stability across changing hydrological conditions. The discrepancies between methods highlight the need for further research in measuring and upscaling gas transfer velocity, particularly in very turbulent steep streams.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences\",\"volume\":\"130 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JG008420\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JG008420\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JG008420","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Measuring Gas Transfer Velocity in a Steep Tropical Stream: Method Evaluation and Implications for Upscaling
Greenhouse gas emission estimates from streams rely, in part, on accurate measurements or estimates of the gas transfer velocity, which describes the physical efficiency for gas exchange across the water-air interface. Numerous methods for measuring or modeling gas transfer velocity exist, yet few studies compare these different methods. Additionally, current models of gas transfer velocity in streams are predominantly derived from measurements in low-gradient, temperate, or boreal streams. Here, we measured gas transfer velocity using four different methods in a high-energy, tropical headwater stream under a range of flow conditions, and compared these measurements to indirect estimates from four empirical models. Our results show that, when compared to the use of a biologically inert gas tracer (propane), floating chambers produced lower gas transfer velocity values. Using carbon dioxide (CO2) as a tracer gas was unreliable without considering other natural sources and sinks of CO2 and yielded gas transfer velocities lower than when using propane. Existing empirical models tended to underestimate gas transfer velocity, compared to the inert tracer gas. When using empirical models to upscale the emission flux along an entire stream reach, choice of model was more influential than the spatial resolution of model implementation. We also highlight the extreme spatial variability of gas transfer velocity across small spatial scales, which contrasts with its relative stability across changing hydrological conditions. The discrepancies between methods highlight the need for further research in measuring and upscaling gas transfer velocity, particularly in very turbulent steep streams.
期刊介绍:
JGR-Biogeosciences focuses on biogeosciences of the Earth system in the past, present, and future and the extension of this research to planetary studies. The emerging field of biogeosciences spans the intellectual interface between biology and the geosciences and attempts to understand the functions of the Earth system across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Studies in biogeosciences may use multiple lines of evidence drawn from diverse fields to gain a holistic understanding of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems and extreme environments. Specific topics within the scope of the section include process-based theoretical, experimental, and field studies of biogeochemistry, biogeophysics, atmosphere-, land-, and ocean-ecosystem interactions, biomineralization, life in extreme environments, astrobiology, microbial processes, geomicrobiology, and evolutionary geobiology