4.6 Article

Contingency in ecosystem but not plant community response to multiple global change factors

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 196, 期 2, 页码 462-471

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04271.x

关键词

carbon dioxide; context dependence; functional leaf traits; global environmental change; interaction; nitrogen deposition; nitrogen fertilization; nonlinear

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme/ERC [242658]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community and ecosystem responses to global environmental change are contingent on the magnitude of change and interacting global change factors. To reveal whether responses are also contingent on the magnitude of each interacting factor, multifactor, multilevel experiments are required, but are rarely conducted. We exposed model grassland ecosystems to six levels of atmospheric CO2 and six levels of nitrogen enrichment, applying the latter both chronically (simulating deposition) and acutely (simulating fertilization). The 66 treatments were maintained for 6 months under controlled growing conditions, with biomass harvested every 28 d and sorted to species. Aboveground plant productivity responses to CO2 were contingent on nitrogen amount, and the responses to nitrogen amount were dependent on whether applications were chronic or acute. Specifically, productivity responses to increasing CO2 concentrations were accentuated with higher nitrogen enrichments, and productivity was greater when higher nitrogen enrichments were applied acutely. Plant community composition was influenced only by nitrogen enrichment, where the co-dominant grass species with the greatest leaf trait plasticity increasingly dominated with higher nitrogen amounts. Community processes are considered to be unpredictable, but our data suggest that the prediction of the impacts of simultaneous global changes is more complex for ecosystem processes, given that their responses are contingent on the levels of interacting factors.

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