Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology: implications for soil respiration studies

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Cite this

@article{f92641d5d12a48a7a42af9d0069d6224,

title = "Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology: implications for soil respiration studies",

author = "Andreas Heinemeyer and N.P. McNamara",

year = "2011",

month = sep,

language = "English",

volume = "346",

pages = "145--151",

journal = "PLANT AND SOIL",

issn = "0032-079X",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the closed static versus the closed dynamic chamber flux methodology

T2 - implications for soil respiration studies

AU - Heinemeyer, Andreas

AU - McNamara, N.P.

PY - 2011/9

Y1 - 2011/9

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051670995&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

SN - 0032-079X

VL - 346

SP - 145

EP - 151

JO - PLANT AND SOIL

JF - PLANT AND SOIL

IS - 1

ER -