4.7 Article

Fine-root respiration in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) forest exposed to elevated CO2 and N fertilization

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 31, 期 11, 页码 1663-1672

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01869.x

关键词

carbon cycle; Duke FACE; FACTS-1; global climate change; net ecosystem exchange; soil respiration

资金

  1. Office of Science (BER)
  2. US Department of Energy [DE-FG02-95ER62083]
  3. Southeast Regional Center (SERC)
  4. National Institute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC) [DE-FC02-03ER63613]
  5. DOE [DE-FG02-04ERG384]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest ecosystems release large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere from fine-root respiration (R-r), but the control of this flux and its temperature sensitivity (Q(10)) are poorly understood. We attempted to: (1) identify the factors limiting this flux using additions of glucose and an electron transport uncoupler (carbonyl cyanide m-chlorophenylhydrazone); and (2) improve yearly estimates of R-r by directly measuring its Q(10)in situ using temperature-controlled cuvettes buried around intact, attached roots. The proximal limits of R-r of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) trees exposed to free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) and N fertilization were seasonally variable; enzyme capacity limited R-r in the winter, and a combination of substrate supply and adenylate availability limited R-r in summer months. The limiting factors of R-r were not affected by elevated CO2 or N fertilization. Elevated CO2 increased annual stand-level R-r by 34% whereas the combination of elevated CO2 and N fertilization reduced R-r by 40%. Measurements of in situ R-r with high temporal resolution detected diel patterns that were correlated with canopy photosynthesis with a lag of 1 d or less as measured by eddy covariance, indicating a dynamic link between canopy photosynthesis and root respiration. These results suggest that R-r is coupled to daily canopy photosynthesis and increases with carbon allocation below ground.

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

4.7
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