4.1 Article

Very high CO2 exchange fluxes at the peak of the rainy season in a West African grazed semi-arid savanna ecosystem

期刊

出版社

ROYAL DANISH GEOGRAPHICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1080/00167223.2016.1178072

关键词

Net ecosystem exchange; Sahel; gross primary productivity; dryland; savanna; ecosystem respiration

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research (DFF) Sapere Aude programme
  2. Faculty of Science, Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Africa is a sink of carbon, but there are large gaps in our knowledge regarding the CO2 exchange fluxes for many African ecosystems. Here, we analyse multi-annual eddy covariance data of CO2 exchange fluxes for a grazed Sahelian semi-arid savanna ecosystem in Senegal, West Africa. The aim of the study is to investigate the high CO2 exchange fluxes measured at the peak of the rainy season at the Dahra field site: gross primary productivity and ecosystem respiration peaked at values up to -48mol CO(2)m(-2)s(-1) and 20mol CO(2)m(-2)s(-1), respectively. Possible explanations for such high fluxes include a combination of moderately dense herbaceous C4 ground vegetation, high soil nutrient availability and a grazing pressure increasing the fluxes. Even though the peak net CO2 uptake was high, the annual budget of -229 +/- 7 +/- 49g Cm(-2)y(-1) (+/- random errors +/- systematic errors) is comparable to that of other semi-arid savanna sites due the short length of the rainy season. An inter-comparison between the open-path and a closed-path infrared sensor indicated no systematic errors related to the instrumentation. An uncertainty analysis of long-term NEE budgets indicated that corrections for air density fluctuations were the largest error source (11.3% out of 24.3% uncertainty). Soil organic carbon data indicated a substantial increase in the soil organic carbon pool for the uppermost .20m. These findings have large implications for the perception of the carbon sink/source of Sahelian ecosystems and its response to climate change.

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

4.1
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