4.4 Article

A meta-analysis of the canopy light extinction coefficient in terrestrial ecosystems

期刊

FRONTIERS OF EARTH SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 599-609

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11707-014-0446-7

关键词

canopy light extinction coefficient; ecological modeling; biogeochemical model; forest; grassland; cropland; leaf area index

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2010CB950902, 2010CB950603]
  2. National Natural Sciences Foundation of China [41301043, 40971027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The canopy light extinction coefficient (K) is a key factor in affecting ecosystem carbon, water, and energy processes. However, K is assumed as a constant in most biogeochemical models owing to lack of in-site measurements at diverse terrestrial ecosystems. In this study, by compiling data of K measured at 88 terrestrial ecosystems, we investigated the spatiotemporal variations of this index across main ecosystem types, including grassland, cropland, shrubland, broadleaf forest, and needleleaf forest. Our results indicated that the average K of all biome types during whole growing season was 0.56. However, this value in the peak growing season was 0.49, indicating a certain degree of seasonal variation. In addition, large variations in K exist within and among the plant functional types. Cropland had the highest value of K (0.62), followed by broadleaf forest (0.59), shrubland (0.56), grassland (0.50), and needleleaf forest (0.45). No significant spatial correlation was found between K and the major environmental factors, i.e., mean annual precipitation, mean annual temperature, and leaf area index (LAI). Intra-annually, significant negative correlations between K and seasonal changes in LAI were found in the natural ecosystems. In cropland, however, the temporal relationship was site-specific. The ecosystem type specific values of K and its temporal relationship with LAI observed in this study may contribute to improved modeling of global biogeochemical cycles.

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

4.4
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