4.3 Article

Methane Emission from a Small Lake after Artificially Created Ebullition

Journal

WETLANDS
Volume 43, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13157-023-01685-4

Keywords

Eddy covariance; Methane; Flux quality; Small lake; Shallow lake; Ebullition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The total amount of methane emitted from wetlands, particularly through the ebullition of methane gas bubbles, remains uncertain. In this study, the eddy covariance method was used to quantify methane flux from a small lake during an artificial ebullition event. Results showed that the method was effective in accurately measuring methane emissions during the event. The total methane flux during the artificial ebullition event was comparable to the flux over 2.7 days under regular conditions.
The total amount of methane(CH4) that is emitted from wetlands worldwide is still uncertain. A major factor contributing to this uncertainty is ebullition, which is the emission of virtually pure methane gas bubbles from water bodies; these short, high-flux pulses are highly variable in space and time. Small, shallow lakes have been found to be prone to high CH4 emissions related to ebullition, and the fluxes from these ecosystems have been quantified using the eddy covariance (EC) method. However, this method was found to cause systematic biases during high-flux events. In this study, the EC method was used to quantify the CH4 flux from a small, shallow lake in which an artificial ebullition event was conducted to analyze the EC method's performance under such conditions. Results showed that the flux quality was not necessarily subject to flux biases during the ebullition event but was of sufficient quality to quantify the CH4 emissions. The total emission flux of CH4 from the small lake during the artificial ebullition event was of the same magnitude as the respective CH4 flux over 2.7 days during regular conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available