4.3 Review

Atmospheric deposition and leaching of nitrogen in Chinese forest ecosystems

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 341-350

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10310-011-0267-4

Keywords

Carbon sequestration; Chinese forests; Nitrogen deposition; Nitrogen leaching; Nitrogen retention

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40703030, 30972365]
  2. Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) [21310008, 20-08421]
  3. Key laboratory of vegetation restoration and management of degraded ecosystems, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. Villum Foundation, Denmark

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Data have been compiled from published sources on nitrogen (N) fluxes in precipitation, throughfall, and leaching from 69 forest ecosystems at 50 sites throughout China, to examine at a national level: (1) N input in precipitation and throughfall, (2) how precipitation N changes after the interaction with canopy, and (3) whether N leaching increases with increasing N deposition and, if so, to what extent. The deposition of dissolved inorganic N (DIN) in precipitation ranged from 2.6 to 48.2 kg N ha(-1) year(-1), with an average of 16.6 kg N ha(-1) year(-1). Ammonium was the dominant form of N at most sites, accounting for, on average, 63% of total inorganic N deposition. Nitrate accounted for the remaining 37%. On average, DIN fluxes increased through forest canopies, by 40% and 34% in broad-leaved and coniferous forests, respectively. No significant difference in throughfall DIN inputs was found between the two forest types. Overall, 22% of the throughfall DIN input was leached from forest ecosystems in China, which is lower than the 50-59% observed for European forests. Simple calculations indicate that Chinese forests have great potential to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, because of the large forest area and high N deposition.

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