4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Inter-annual carbon dioxide uptake of a wet sedge tundra ecosystem in the Arctic

Journal

TELLUS SERIES B-CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL METEOROLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 215-231

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.00012.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The CO2 flux of a wet sedge tundra ecosystem in the Arctic, at Barrow, Alaska, has been measured by the e eddy correlation method since spring 1999, and the CO2 uptake by the vegetation during the spring and growing periods was examined between 1999 and 2000. CO2 flux changed to a sink immediately after the spring thaw in 1999 and the photosynthetic activity was high in the first half of the growing period. At this time the air temperature was low and solar radiation was high. In the 2000 season, the temperature was approximately 5 degreesC lower during the snow-covered period, and increased up to 5 degreesC higher right after the spring thaw but the solar radiation decreased to two thirds of that in 1999. Thus, we found different CO2 accumulation during the snowmelt and the following two weeks between both years. The difference in the climate at beginning shoulder period of the growing season resulted in the difference of CO2 accumulation through the growing period. The maximum level of photosynthetic potential (p(max)) in late July was analyzed as being almost the same at 20 gCO(2) m(-2) d(-1) for both years. However, the weekly average peak CO2 uptake was 16.4 and 11.9 gCO(2) m(-2) d(-1) in 1999 and 2000, respectively, with the lower number in 2000 caused by the low radiation with high air temperatures. The CO2 accumulation during the spring and through the growing periods was a net sink of 593 gCO(2) m(-2) in 1999 and a sink of 384 gCO(2) m(-2) in 2000. High CO2 accumulation in 1999 was caused by earlier development of the vegetation, and the lower CO2 uptake in mid summer in 2000 was caused by unseasonable weather.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available