4.7 Article

Effects of nitrogen addition on soil methane uptake in global forest biomes

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114751

关键词

Nitrogen deposition; Nitrogen addition; Soil methane uptake; Forest

资金

  1. Fok Ying-Tong Education Foundation [161015]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41877328]
  3. Open Foundation of the State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology of China [SKLURE 2016-2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitrogen (N) deposition has been conventionally thought to decrease forest soil methane (CH4) uptake, while the biome specific and dose dependent effect is poorly understood. Based on a meta-analysis of 63 N addition trials from 7 boreal forests, 8 temperate forests, 13 subtropical and 4 tropical forests, we evaluated the effects of N addition on soil CH4 uptake fluxes across global forest biomes. When combining all N addition levels, soil CH4 uptake was insignificantly decreased by 7% in boreal forests, while N addition significantly decreased soil CH4 uptake by 39% in temperate forests and by 21% in subtropical and tropical forests, respectively. Meta-regression analyses, however, indicated a shift from a positive to a negative effect on soil CH4 uptake with increasing N additions both in boreal forests (threshold = 48 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1)) and temperate forests (threshold = 27 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1)), while no such shift was found in subtropical and tropical forests. Considering that current N deposition to most boreal and temperate forests is below the abovementioned thresholds, N deposition likely exerts a positive to neutral effect on soil CH4 uptake in both forest biomes. Our results provide new insights on the biome specific and dose dependent effect of N addition on soil CH4 sink in global forests and suggest that the current understanding that N deposition decreases forest soil CH4 uptake is flawed by high levels of experimental N addition. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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