Data for: Patel et al. Carbon flux estimates are sensitive to data source: A comparison of field and lab temperature sensitivity data

This dataset contains data and code used for the paper "Carbon flux estimates are sensitive to data source: A comparison of field and lab temperature sensitivity data" [DOI COMING SOON]A large literature exists on mechanisms driving soil production of the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4. Measurements of these gases’ fluxes are often performed using closed-chamber incubations in the laboratory or in situ, i.e., in the field. Although it is common knowledge that measurements obtained through field studies vs. laboratory incubations can diverge because of the vastly different conditions of these environments, few studies have systematically examined these patterns. It is crucial to understand the magnitude and reasons for any differences, as these data are used to parametrize and benchmark ecosystem- to global-scale models, which are then susceptible to the biases of the source data. Here, we specifically examine how greenhouse gas measurements may be influenced by whether the measurement/incubation was conducted in the field vs. laboratory, focusing on CO2 and CH4 measurements. We use Q10 of greenhouse gas flux (temperature sensitivity) for our analyses, because of the ubiquity of this metric in biological and Earth system sciences and its importance to many modeling frameworks. We predicted that laboratory measurements would be less variable, but also less representative of true field conditions. However, there was greater variability in the Q10 values calculated from lab-based measurements of CO2 fluxes, because lab experiments explore extremes rarely seen in situ, and reflect the physical and chemical disturbances occurring during sampling, transport, and incubation. Overall, respiration Q10 values were significantly greater in laboratory incubations (mean = 4.19) than field measurements (mean = 3.05), with strong influences of incubation temperature and climate region/biome. However, this was in part because field measurements typically represent total respiration (Rs), whereas lab incubations typically represent heterotrophic respiration (Rh), making direct comparisons difficult to interpret. Focusing only on Rh-derived Q10, these values showed almost identical distributions across laboratory (n = 1110) and field (n = 581) experiments, providing strong support for using the former as an experimental proxy for the latter, although we caution that geographic biases in the extant data make this conclusion tentative. Due to a smaller sample size of CH4 Q10 data, we were unable to perform a comparable robust analysis, but we expect similar interactions with soil temperature, moisture, and environmental/climatic variables. Our results here suggest the need for more concerted efforts to document and standardize these data, including sample and site metadata. This dataset contains a compressed (.zip) archive of the data and R scripts used for this manuscript. The dataset includes files in .csv format, which can be accessed and processed using MS Excel or R. This archive can also be accessed on GitHub at https://github.com/kaizadp/field_lab_q10 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7106554).