4.6 Article

Soil respiration, root biomass, and root turnover following long-term exposure of northern forests to elevated atmospheric Co2 and tropospheric O3

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 180, 期 1, 页码 153-161

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02564.x

关键词

carbon allocation; carbon dioxide (CO2); climate change; fine roots; global change; ozone (O-3)

资金

  1. US Department of Energy - Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  2. USDA Forest Service Northern Global Change Program
  3. North Central Research Station
  4. National Science Foundation (DBI/ MRI)
  5. USDA NRI Competitive Grants Program
  6. University of Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Rhinelander free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment is designed to understand ecosystem response to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (+CO2) and elevated tropospheric ozone (+O-3). The objectives of this study were: to understand how soil respiration responded to the experimental treatments; to determine whether fine-root biomass was correlated to rates of soil respiration; and to measure rates of fine-root turnover in aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests and determine whether root turnover might be driving patterns in soil respiration. Soil respiration was measured, root biomass was determined, and estimates of root production, mortality and biomass turnover were made. Soil respiration was greatest in the +CO2 and +CO2 +O-3 treatments across all three plant communities. Soil respiration was correlated with increases in fine-root biomass. In the aspen community, annual fine-root production and mortality (gm(-2)) were positively affected by +O-3. After 10 yr of exposure, +CO2 +O-3-induced increases in belowground carbon allocation suggest that the positive effects of elevated CO2 on belowground net primary productivity (NPP) may not be offset by negative effects of O-3. For the aspen community, fine-root biomass is actually stimulated by +O-3, and especially +CO2 +O-3.

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