<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>C.J. Kucharik</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>S.T. Gower</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>D. D. Baldocchi</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>P.M. Crill</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>M. Rayment</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>K. Savage</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Robert G. Striegl</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>J.M. Norman</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>1997</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;Measurements of soil-surface CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fluxes are important for characterizing the carbon budget of boreal forests because these fluxes can be the second largest component of the budget. Several methods for measuring soil-surface CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fluxes are available: (1) closed-dynamic-chamber systems, (2) closed-static-chamber systems, (3) open-chamber systems, and (4) eddy covariance systems. This paper presents a field comparison of six individual systems for measuring soil-surface CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;fluxes with each of the four basic system types represented. A single system is used as a reference and compared to each of the other systems individually in black spruce (Picea mariana), jack pine (Pinus banksiana), or aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests. Fluxes vary from 1 to 10 μmol CO&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;m&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;−2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;s&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;−1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;span&gt;. Adjustment factors to bring all of the systems into agreement vary from 0.93 to 1.45 with an uncertainty of about 10–15%.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1029/97JD01440</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Geophysical Union</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>A comparison of six methods for measuring soil-surface carbon dioxide fluxes</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>