4.6 Article

Temperature sensitivity of soil respiration in a low-latitude forest ecosystem varies by season and habitat but is unaffected by experimental warming

期刊

BIOGEOCHEMISTRY
卷 141, 期 1, 页码 63-73

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10533-018-0501-7

关键词

Soil respiration; Temperature sensitivity; Soil carbon; Soil organic matter; Decomposition; Warming; Terrestrial carbon-climate feedback

资金

  1. NSF [DEB-1242013]
  2. University of Georgia's Office of the Vice-President for Research (OVPR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental warming of forest ecosystems typically stimulates soil respiration (CO2 efflux), but most warming experiments have been conducted in northern latitudes (>40 degrees N) with relatively young soils. We quantified the influence of experimental warming on soil respiration (R-T) in two adjacent forest habitatsa mature, closed canopy forest and a gap where trees were manually removed on highly-weathered Ultisols of the southeastern U.S. (33 degrees N). Using temperature variation, both natural and induced by experimental warming, we also quantified the temperature sensitivity of R-T, defined as the activation energy, E-A in the Arrhenius equation. Experimental warming (either +3 degrees C or +5 degrees C above ambient) did not significantly increase soil respiration rate or cumulative CO2 loss over the 3years of the experiment, and did not influence the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration, once the influence of natural temperature variation was taken into consideration. Despite the absence of an experimental warming effect, we observed that E-A varied on monthly time scales, and varied differently in each habitat. Soil moisture and habitat also influenced R-T, but the effects were not consistent, and varied by month. Our results suggest that although R-T does depend on temperature, the sensitivity of R-T to temperature variation is influenced primarily by factors like microclimate and plant phenology that can change on relatively short (

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