4.8 Article

Differentiating moss from higher plants is critical in studying the carbon cycle of the boreal biome

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5270

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Program for Global Change Research of China [2010CB950504]
  2. National Science Foundation for Excellent Young Scholars of China [41322005]
  3. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [41121001]
  4. Freedom Project (No. SKLCS-ZZ-2013-0202) of the State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [SKLCS-ZZ-2013-0202, NCET-12-0060]
  5. Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) Program
  6. Global Change Research and Development Program (R&D) of the US Geological Survey
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26242026] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The satellite-derived normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is used for estimating gross primary production (GPP), often includes contributions from both mosses and vascular plants in boreal ecosystems. For the same NDVI, moss can generate only about one-third of the GPP that vascular plants can because of its much lower photosynthetic capacity. Here, based on eddy covariance measurements, we show that the difference in photosynthetic capacity between these two plant functional types has never been explicitly included when estimating regional GPP in the boreal region, resulting in a substantial overestimation. The magnitude of this overestimation could have important implications regarding a change from a current carbon sink to a carbon source in the boreal region. Moss abundance, associated with ecosystem disturbances, needs to be mapped and incorporated into GPP estimates in order to adequately assess the role of the boreal region in the global carbon cycle.

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