4.7 Article

Biometric and eddy-covariance-based estimates of carbon balance for a warm-temperate mixed forest in Japan

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 148, 期 5, 页码 723-737

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.01.017

关键词

eddy-covariance method; CO2 flux; biometric measurements; net primary production

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To estimate net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and net ecosystem production (NEP) in a forest situated on complex terrain, we evaluated the sensitivity of the estimates of NEE to the choice of a friction velocity (u*) correction for the estimation of flux on calm night. And compared these estimates with estimates based on biometric data using a warm-temperate deciduous and evergreen mixed forest in Japan. Biometric approaches were based on analyses of autotrophic carbon pools and heterotrophic carbon fluxes (NEP) versus changes in two major carbon pools (Delta C). To estimate Delta C, we calculated contributions to the soil carbon pool by litter and coarse woody debris (CWD) independently. The 3-year mean annual NEE from 2000 to 2002 was -1.23 MgC ha(-1) year(-1) (a negative flux indicates carbon gain). Estimated Delta C and NEP were 1.73 and 0.91 MgC m(-2) year(-1), respectively (a positive flux indicates carbon gain). The increment of live biomass contributed 76% of total Delta C. Estimated NEP varied widely due to large spatial variation in soil respiration. A realistic u* threshold was 0.4 m s(-1). The estimated NEE value was larger than NEP. The change in NEE as a function of the u* threshold was marked, and most of the measured data (about 80%) could be eliminated by using the 0.4 m s(-1) u* threshold. These results seem to be caused by the loss of most nocturnal respiration as a result of horizontal advection. or drainage flow (because the study site was located on complex terrain). This tendency was consistent for towers located on a ridge and in a valley. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. 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