4.7 Article

Acclimation and soil moisture constrain sugar maple root respiration in experimentally warmed soil

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 949-959

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpt068

关键词

acclimation; Acer saccharum (sugar maple); carbon balance; root biomass; root-system respiration; soil moisture; specific respiration rate; warming experiment

类别

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science (BER) through the Midwestern Regional Center of the National Institute for Climatic Change Research [DE-FC02-06ER64158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The response of root respiration to warmer soil can affect ecosystem carbon (C) allocation and the strength of positive feedbacks between climatic warming and soil CO2 efflux. This study sought to determine whether fine-root (< 1 mm) respiration in a sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.)-dominated northern hardwood forest would adjust to experimentally warmed soil, reducing C return to the atmosphere at the ecosystem scale to levels lower than that would be expected using an exponential temperature response function. Infrared heating lamps were used to warm the soil (+4 to +5 degrees C) in a mature sugar maple forest in a fully factorial design, including water additions used to offset the effects of warming-induced dry soil. Fine-root-specific respiration rates, root biomass, root nitrogen (N) concentration, soil temperature and soil moisture were measured from 2009 to 2011, with experimental treatments conducted from late 2010 to 2011. Partial acclimation of fine-root respiration to soil warming occurred, with soil moisture deficit further constraining specific respiration rates in heated plots. Fine-root biomass and N concentration remained unchanged. Over the 2011 growing season, ecosystem root respiration was not significantly greater in warmed soil. This result would not be predicted by models that allow respiration to increase exponentially with temperature and do not directly reduce root respiration in drier soil.

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