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

IF 3.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
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,&nbsp;Marcus B. Wallin,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Marcus B. Wallin,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

温室气体排放估算部分依赖于气体传输速度的精确测量或估算,气体传输速度描述了气体在水-空气界面交换的物理效率。目前存在许多测量或模拟气体传递速度的方法,但很少有研究对这些不同的方法进行比较。此外,目前的河流中气体传输速度模型主要来自于低梯度、温带或北方河流的测量。在这里,我们使用四种不同的方法在一系列流动条件下测量了高能热带水源流中的气体传递速度,并将这些测量结果与四种经验模型的间接估计结果进行了比较。我们的研究结果表明,与使用生物惰性气体示踪剂(丙烷)相比,浮动室产生的气体传递速度值更低。如果不考虑二氧化碳的其他天然来源和汇,使用二氧化碳作为示踪气体是不可靠的,并且产生的气体传递速度低于使用丙烷时。与惰性示踪气体相比,现有的经验模型往往低估了气体传递速度。在利用经验模型进行河段排放通量升级时,模型选择的影响大于模型实现的空间分辨率。我们还强调了气体传输速度在小空间尺度上的极端空间变异性,这与它在变化的水文条件下的相对稳定性形成对比。方法之间的差异突出了在测量和提高气体传递速度方面的进一步研究的必要性,特别是在非常湍流的陡峭溪流中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Measuring Gas Transfer Velocity in a Steep Tropical Stream: Method Evaluation and Implications for Upscaling

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences
Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences Earth and Planetary Sciences-Paleontology
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.40%
发文量
242
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信