Cross-Validation of Open-Path and Closed-Path Eddy-Covariance Techniques for Observing Methane Fluxes

Methane ( ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ ) fluxes observed with the eddy-covariance technique using an open-path ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ analyzer and a closed-path ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ analyzer in a rice paddy field were evaluated with an emphasis on the flux correction methodology. A comparison of the fluxes obtained by the analyzers revealed that both the open-path and closed-path techniques were reliable, provided that appropriate corrections were applied. For the open-path approach, the influence of fluctuations in air density and the line shape variation in laser absorption spectroscopy (hereafter, spectroscopic effect) was significant, and the relative importance of these corrections would increase when observing small ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ fluxes. A new procedure proposed by Li-Cor Inc. enabled us to accurately adjust for these effects. The high-frequency loss of the open-path ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ analyzer was relatively large (11 % of the uncorrected covariance) at an observation height of 2.5 m above the canopy owing to its longer physical path length, and this correction should be carefully applied before correcting for the influence of fluctuations in air density and the spectroscopic effect. Uncorrected ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ fluxes observed with the closed-path analyzer were substantially underestimated (37 %) due to high-frequency loss because an undersized pump was used in the observation. Both the bandpass and transfer function approaches successfully corrected this flux loss. Careful determination of the bandpass frequency range or the transfer function and the cospectral model is required for the accurate calculation of ${\mathrm {CH}}_{4}$ fluxes with the closed-path technique.