4.6 Article

Optimal co-allocation of carbon and nitrogen in a forest stand at steady state

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 180, 期 1, 页码 114-123

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02558.x

关键词

allocation; carbon and nitrogen; forest; functional balance; growth model; optimization; productivity and biomass; steady state

资金

  1. NSF [0090238]
  2. Academy of Finland [206307]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [0090238] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Academy of Finland (AKA) [206307, 206307] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitrogen (N) is essential for plant production, but N uptake imposes carbon (C) costs through maintenance respiration and fine-root construction, suggesting that an optimal C:N balance can be found. Previous studies have elaborated this optimum under exponential growth; work on closed canopies has focused on foliage only. Here, the optimal co-allocation of C and N to foliage, fine roots and live wood is examined in a closed forest stand. Optimal co-allocation maximizes net primary productivity (NPP) as constrained by stand-level C and N balances and the pipe model. Photosynthesis and maintenance respiration increase with foliar nitrogen concentration ([N]), and stand-level photosynthesis and N uptake saturate at high foliage and fine-root density. Optimal NPP increases almost linearly from low to moderate N availability, saturating at high N. Where N availability is very low or very high, the system resembles a functional balance with a steady foliage [N]; in between, [N] increases with N availability. Carbon allocation to fine roots decreases, allocation to wood increases, and allocation to foliage remains stable with increasing N availability. The predicted relationships between biomass density and foliage [N] are in reasonable agreement with data from coniferous stands across Finland. All predictions agree with our qualitative understanding of N effects on growth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据