4.6 Article

The partitioning of gross primary production for young Eucalyptus tereticornis trees under experimental warming and altered water availability

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 222, 期 3, 页码 1298-1312

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.15629

关键词

allocation; climate change; drought; partitioning; respiration; warming

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP140103415]
  2. New South Wales government Climate Action Grant [NSW T07/CAG/016]
  3. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment
  4. Western Sydney University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The allocation of carbon (C) is an important component of tree physiology that influences growth and ecosystem C storage. Allocation is challenging to measure, and its sensitivity to environmental changes such as warming and altered water availability is uncertain. We exposed young Eucalyptus tereticornis trees to +3 degrees C warming and elimination of summer precipitation in the field using whole-tree chambers. We calculated C allocation terms using detailed measurements of growth and continuous whole-crown CO2 and water exchange measurements. Trees grew from small saplings to nearly 9 m height during this 15-month experiment. Warming accelerated growth and leaf area development, and it increased the partitioning of gross primary production (GPP) to aboveground respiration and growth while decreasing partitioning below ground. Eliminating summer precipitation reduced C gain and growth but did not impact GPP partitioning. Trees utilized deep soil water and avoided strongly negative water potentials. Warming increased growth respiration, but maintenance respiration acclimated homeostatically. The increasing growth in the warmed treatment resulted in higher rates of respiration, even with complete acclimation of maintenance respiration. Warming-induced stimulations of tree growth likely involve increased C allocation above ground, particularly to leaf area development, whereas reduced water availability may not stimulate allocation to roots.

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