4.6 Article

Glasshouse vs field experiments: do they yield ecologically similar results for assessing N impacts on peat mosses?

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 195, 期 2, 页码 408-418

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04157.x

关键词

carbon (C); climate; experiments; meta-analysis; mires and peatlands; nitrogen deposition; productivity; Sphagnum

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010023] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1019523] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peat bogs have accumulated more atmospheric carbon (C) than any other terrestrial ecosystem today. Most of this C is associated with peat moss (Sphagnum) litter. Atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition can decrease Sphagnum production, compromising the C sequestration capacity of peat bogs. The mechanisms underlying the reduced production are uncertain, necessitating multifactorial experiments. We investigated whether glasshouse experiments are reliable proxies for field experiments for assessing interactions between N deposition and environment as controls on Sphagnum N concentration and production. We performed a meta-analysis over 115 glasshouse experiments and 107 field experiments. We found that glasshouse and field experiments gave similar qualitative and quantitative estimates of changes in Sphagnum N concentration in response to N application. However, glasshouse-based estimates of changes in production even qualitative assessments diverged from field experiments owing to a stronger N effect on production response in absence of vascular plants in the glasshouse, and a weaker N effect on production response in presence of vascular plants compared to field experiments. Thus, although we need glasshouse experiments to study how interacting environmental factors affect the response of Sphagnum to increased N deposition, we need field experiments to properly quantify these effects.

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