Technical Note: Semi-rigid chambers for methane gas flux measurements on tree stems

Siegenthaler, Andy; Welch, Bertie; Pangala, Sunitha R.; Peacock, Michael; Gauci, Vincent

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-1197-2016

Articles | Volume 13, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-1197-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-1197-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 4

Technical note

|

26 Feb 2016

Technical note |

| 26 Feb 2016

Technical Note: Semi-rigid chambers for methane gas flux measurements on tree stems

Andy Siegenthaler, Bertie Welch, Sunitha R. Pangala, Michael Peacock, and Vincent Gauci

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Feb 2016)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Sep 2015)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C6642: 'Biogeochemistry', Kazuhiko Terazawa, 18 Oct 2015
- AC C8653: 'Final response', Andy Siegenthaler, 23 Dec 2015
RC C7494: 'Review of 'Technical Note: Semi-rigid chambers for methane gas flux measurements on tree-stems'', Andrew Baird, 09 Nov 2015

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (29 Dec 2015) by Xinming Wang

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (08 Jan 2016) by Xinming Wang

Below are my suggestions (page and line numbers refer to these in the track changes version):
Page 1 line 16: delete ”describe”
Page 1 line 18: delete “more”
Page 1 lines 19-21: “We found that the semi-rigid chambers performed well, and had numerous benefits including reduced gas permeability and optimal stem gas exchange surface to total chamber volume ratio (Sc/Vtot) allowing better headspace mixing”: Personally I do not like the hollow words like “the semi-rigid chambers performed well”, you either delete them or be specific to let the readers know in what way and by what kind of parameters you claimed that the semi-rigid chambers performed well. Similarly I also do not like “numerous benefits”, just directly list the most important advantages. Better just change to “had reduced gas permeability and optimal ratio of stem gas exchange surface to total chamber volume (Sc/Vtot)…”.
Page 2 line 28: “access logistics are”: change to “access logistics is”?
Page 14 Lines 376-378: The rigid chamber was 14.1x larger than the small sleeve and 9.7x larger than the large sleeve, and the initial concentration gradient in the rigid chamber was 14.0x smaller compared to the smaller sleeve and 9.01x compared to the bigger sleeve”: 9.01 x smaller?(line 378). What does “14.1 x larger” really mean? (Please note that mathematically 6 is 3 times of 2, or 2 times larger than 2). Also “14.0x smaller” is somewhat weird. To be accurate, better change the style “14.1 x” in the whole text. For example, “The rigid chamber was 14.1x larger than the small sleeve” can be rewrite as “The rigid chamber was 14.1 times that of the small sleeve in volume”? And “the initial concentration gradient in the rigid chamber was 14.0x smaller compared to the smaller sleeve” can be rewrite as “the initial concentration gradient in the rigid chamber was only 1/14.0 of that in the smaller sleeve”?

Hide

AR by Andy Siegenthaler on behalf of the Authors (17 Jan 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (14 Feb 2016) by Xinming Wang

AR by Andy Siegenthaler on behalf of the Authors (15 Feb 2016)

Download

Article (1135 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

There is increasing interest in measuring methane emissions from tree stems in a wide range of ecosystems. This is commonly done with bulky closed chambers, which limit measurement to a very narrow range of tree stem sizes and shapes. We designed, described and tested new semi-rigid stem-flux chambers with decisive advantages (reduced permeability, fast deployment, adapted headspace volume, easy to carry in multiple sizes, extremely light and economical) ideal for use in remote ecosystems.