4.8 Article

Nutrient availability as the key regulator of global forest carbon balance

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 471-476

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2177

关键词

-

资金

  1. Spanish Government [CGL2010-17172, CSD2008-00040]
  2. Catalan Government [SGR 2009-458, FI-2013]
  3. European Research Council Synergy grant [610028]
  4. ERC [242564]
  5. FWO Vlaanderen
  6. GHG-Europe project
  7. US Department of Energy
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences
  9. Division Of Environmental Biology [1026415] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forests strongly affect climate through the exchange of large amounts of atmospheric CO2 (ref. 1). The main drivers of spatial variability in net ecosystem production (NEP) on a global scale are, however, poorly known. As increasing nutrient availability increases the production of biomass per unit of photosynthesis(2) and reduces heterotrophic(3) respiration in forests, we expected nutrients to determine carbon sequestration in forests. Our synthesis study of 92 forests in different climate zones revealed that nutrient availability indeed plays a crucial role in determining NEP and ecosystem carbon-use efficiency (CUEe; that is, the ratio of NEP to gross primary production (GPP)). Forests with high GPP exhibited high NEP only in nutrient-rich forests (CUEe = 33 +/- 4%; mean +/- s.e.m.). In nutrient-poor forests, a much larger proportion of GPP was released through ecosystem respiration, resulting in lower CUEe (6 +/- 4%). Our finding that nutrient availability exerts a stronger control on NEP than on carbon input (GPP) conflicts with assumptions of nearly all global coupled carbon cycle-climate models, which assume that carbon inputs through photosynthesis drive biomass production and carbon sequestration. An improved global understanding of nutrient availability would therefore greatly improve carbon cycle modelling and should become a critical focus for future research.

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

4.8
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