In order to determine the future consequences of the increasing atmospheric C02 concentration on vegetation, experimental plants have been exposed to controlled C02 concentrations in open-top chambers (OTCs) and in open fields using the recently developed free-air C02 enrichment (FACE) approach. The environment inside open-top chambkrs approaches that of the field outside, but generally it is warmer, more humid, shaded, and has altered air movement. These plus other environmental differences have caused plants to grow differently than outside, as shown by a review of experiments that reported such chamber effects. The 95% confidence interval for ratios of biomass accumulation inside to outside ranged from 0.70 to 1.73. Moreover, there was a significant average bias for about 10% better growth inside. Thus, absolute growth can not be determined with a high degree of confidence using open-top chambers. Recent cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) experiments in which both OTCs and FACE were used showed that the relative growth responses to elevated C02 were not significantly different between OTCs and FACE, but the absolute growth of the cotton was 30% greater inside OTCs, while that of the wheat was about the same for both OTCs and FACE. Thus, for many studies the FACE approach is prefened because both absolute and relative responses to elevated C02 can be obtained reliably. Furthermore, the large plot size suppo& multidisciplinary teams with much destructive sampling, and there is an economy of scale. Yet, OTCs remain a workable alternative in some experiments that appear technically difficult or too expensive with FACE. Copyright 8 1997. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711, USA. Advances in Carbon Dioxide EfJeca Research. ASA Special Publication no. 61. 114 KIMBALL lh AL. ' The increasing C02 concentration of the atmosphere has led to major research efforts to determine what effects it will have on the vegetation of the Earth in the future (e.g., Dahlman et al., 1985). This research generally has involved exposing plants to elevated (or subambient) levels of C02 for various lengths of time and observing the responses of the plants. The techniques used for exposing plants to elevated C02 were reviewed by Drake et al. (1985), Lawlor and Mitchell (1991), and Allen et al. (1993); and recently the proceedings of a symposium on "Design and Execution of Experiments on C02 Enrichment" was edited by Schulze and Mooney (1993). For some studies the objective is to determine what effect varying C02 will have at specified levels of other variables, such as temperature. For such studies, controlled-environment chambers appear most suitable. Often however, the objective is to determine the effects of C02 on plant growth under conditions representative of future fields. These latter studies will be the subject of this chapter. Because the natural wind rapidly disperses any C02 released in an open field, researchers have frequently used a transparent wind barrier in the form of an open-top chamber (OTC) around their experimental plants in order to confine the C02 while transmitting most of the solar radiation. Such chambers prevent natural wind flow and also alter the environment from being the same as the surrounding field in several other ways. Until recently, no one had controlled the C02 concentration in an open field with any degree of precision. In 1993, however, Hendrey (1993) and colleagues reported that they had successfully developed free-air C02 enrichment (FACE) technology for controlling C02 concentrations under field conditions. They presented results with an initial cotton crop. Since that first study, we have conducted two more FACE experiments on cotton (Dugas & Pinter, 1994) and one on wheat (Pinter et al., 1993; Kimball et al., 1993b). Two questions arise when considering results from OTCs and FACE systems: (i) do plants grow the same in OTCs as they do in an open field, and (ii) even if they do not grow the same in an absolute sense, do they at least respond relatively the same to elevated C02 compared with control plants. Answering these two questions, using data from the literature as well as from the recent FACE cotton and wheat experiments, is the primary goal of this chapter. COMPARISON OF OPEN-TOP CHAMBER AND OPEN FIELD ENVIRONMENTS The environment inside an OTC can differ from that of the field outside in several ways (Tables 5-1 and 5-2), as reviewed previously by, for example, Heagle et al. (1988). As already mentioned, the transparent OTC walls are constructed in order to create a wind barrier and thereby make it easier to control the concentration of C02 (or other gas of interest) inside. Of course, an assumption is being made that the effects of air movement on plant growth are less important than those of C02 (or other gas) or at least that meaningful relative comparisons can be made between plants grown in treatment chambers and those from suitable control chambers; however, air movement itself can affect plant growth VEGETATION RESPONSE TO ELEVATED CARBON DIOXIDE 115 Table 5-1. Observations of open-top chamber conditions. Observers Range of Observations Air movement Weinstock et al., 1982 Drake et al., 1989 Ham & Owensbyt Solar radiation Heagle et al., 1979 Olszyk et al., 1980 Heagle & Letchworth, 1982 Weinstock et al., 1982 Kats et al., 1985 Olszyk et al., 1986b Unsworth, 1986 Drake et al., 1989 Sanders et al., 1991 Olszyk et a]., 1992 Fuhrer, 1993 Long-wave radiation Unsworth, 1986 Air temperature Heagle et al., 1979 Olszyk et al., 1980 Weinstock et al., 1982 Olszyk et al., 1986b Drake et al., 1989 Sanders et al., 1991 Nie et al., 1992 Olszyk et al., 1992 Fuhrer, 1993 Foliage temperature Weinstock et al., 1982 Kimball et al., 1983 Kats et al., 1985 Olszyk et al., 1986b Drake et al., 1989 Olszy k et al., 1992 Ham, 1993$ Air vapor pressure Weinstock et al., 1982 Olszyk et al., 1992 Transpiration Olszyk et al., 1980 Kimball et al., 1985 Dunin & Greenwood, 1986 Bremer & Ham, 19935 Reduced to 0.38 to 0.21 of outside Constant inside but variable outside Constant at 0.75 m s-', while outside winds twice as high in daytime and half as high at night Turbulent intensity 0.05 inside and 0.20 outside, both day and night 0.7S1.01 of outside 0.77-1.00 of outside 0.80-0.99 of outside 0.82-1.03 of outside 0.90 of outside 0.71 of outside 0.93-0.97 of outside 0.90 of outside 0.81 of outside 0.81 of outside 0.77-0.79 of outside 150 W m-2 greater than outside, which is typically 350 W m-2 0.6-0.9OC warmer than outside 0.0-0.8"C warmer than outside 0.4-3.7OC warmer than outside 0.0-2.0°C warmer than outside 1.9-2.7"C warmer than outside OA°C warmer than outside 1.4-2.7OC warmer than outside 0.9OC warmer than outside 1.3-3.6"C warmer than outside -1.1 to +3.1°C warmer than outside O.l°C warmer than outside 2B°C warmer than outside 0.0 to l.O°C warmer than outside lS°C warmer than outside 2.1°C warmer than outside cooler than outside when have ample ventilation, low vapor pressure, and high outside foliage temperatures 0-14% higher absolute vapor pressure than outside 0% higher absolute vapor pressure than outside 0.86 of outside using black atmometers 0.89 of outside in well-watered plots using small pans 0.96 of outside in dry plots using small pans no difference between lysimeter inside and Bowen ratio outside 0.80 of outside for ~orghastrurn nutans using sap flow gauges 0.82 of outside similarly for Andromgon gerardi