4.5 Article

Profound afternoon depression of ecosystem production and nighttime decline of respiration in a macrophyte-rich, shallow lake

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 185, 期 1, 页码 157-170

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-017-3931-3

关键词

Lake metabolism; Charophytes; Small lake; Diel patterns; Carbon limitation

类别

资金

  1. Villum Kann Ramussen Centre of Excellence for Lake Restoration
  2. Carlsberg Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Small, shallow lakes with dense growth of submerged macrophytes are extremely abundant worldwide, but have remained grossly understudied although open water oxygen measurements should be suitable to determine diel fluctuations and test drivers of ecosystem metabolism during the day. We measured the temporal and spatial variability of environmental conditions as well as net ecosystem production (NEP) and respiration (R) in a small, shallow Swedish lake with dense charophyte stands by collecting data from oxygen-, pH-,temperature- and light-sensors across horizontal and vertical gradients during different periods between April and June in 3 years. We found reproducible diel oxygen patterns and daily metabolic rates. The charophyte canopy accounted for almost all primary production and respiration of the ecosystem. Two novel discoveries-profound afternoon depression of production and nighttime decline of respiration-occurred on virtually every day. Extensive increase of oxygen-, temperature- and pH- levels and depletion of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and - CO2 concentrations could account for maximum NEP-rates before noon and afternoon depression with low NEP-rates. Ecosystem respiration declined during the night to 24-70% of rates at sunset, probably because of depletion of respiratory substrates. Afternoon depression of photosynthesis should be widespread in numerous habitats with dense growth of macrophytes, periphyton, or phytoplankton implying that daily photosynthesis and growth are restricted and species with efficient DIC use may have an advantage.

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

4.5
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