4.8 Article

Lianas reduce carbon accumulation and storage in tropical forests

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504869112

Keywords

lianas; tropical forests; carbon sequestration; carbon storage; carbon balance

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0845071, DEB 1019436, DEB-1019441]
  2. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (a Research Growth Initiative grant)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Tropical forests store vast quantities of carbon, account for one-third of the carbon fixed by photosynthesis, and are a major sink in the global carbon cycle. Recent evidence suggests that competition between lianas (woody vines) and trees may reduce forest-wide carbon uptake; however, estimates of the impact of lianas on carbon dynamics of tropical forests are crucially lacking. Here we used a large-scale liana removal experiment and found that, at 3 y after liana removal, lianas reduced net above-ground carbon uptake (growth and recruitment minus mortality) by similar to 76% per year, mostly by reducing tree growth. The loss of carbon uptake due to liana-induced mortality was four times greater in the control plots in which lianas were present, but high variation among plots prevented a significant difference among the treatments. Lianas altered how aboveground carbon was stored. In forests where lianas were present, the partitioning of forest aboveground net primary production was dominated by leaves (53.2%, compared with 39.2% in liana-free forests) at the expense of woody stems (from 28.9%, compared with 43.9%), resulting in a more rapid return of fixed carbon to the atmosphere. After 3 y of experimental liana removal, our results clearly demonstrate large differences in carbon cycling between forests with and without lianas. Combined with the recently reported increases in liana abundance, these results indicate that lianas are an important and increasing agent of change in the carbon dynamics of tropical forests.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available