4.8 Article

Sensitivity of three grassland communities to simulated extreme temperature and rainfall events

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 671-684

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00344.x

关键词

C3; C4; diversity; extreme climatic events; global climate change; stability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three grassland communities in New Zealand with differing climates and proportions of C3 and C4 species were subjected to one-off extreme heating (eight hours at 52.5 degrees C) and rainfall (the equivalent of 100 mm) events. A novel experimental technique using portable computer-controlled chambers simulated the extreme heating events. The productive, moist C3/C4 community was the most sensitive to the extreme events in terms of short-term community composition compared with a dry C3/C4 community or an exclusively C3 community. An extreme heating event caused the greatest change to plant community species abundance by favouring the expansion of C4 species relative to C3 species, shifting C4 species abundance from 43% up to 84% at the productive, moist site, This was observed both in the presence and absence of added water. In the absence of C4 species, heating reduced community productivity by over 60%. The short-term shifts in the abundance of C3 and C4 species in response to the single extreme climatic events did not have persistent effects on community structure or on soil nitrogen one year later. There was no consistent relationship between diversity and stability of biomass production of these plant communities, and species functional identity was the most effective explanation for the observed shifts in biomass production. The presence of C4 species resulted in an increased stability of productivity after extreme climatic events, but resulted in greater overall. shifts in community composition. The presence of C4 species may buffer grassland community productivity against an increased frequency of extreme heating events associated with future global 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

4.8
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