4.5 Review

Ecosystem responses to nitrogen deposition in the Colorado Front Range

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 352-368

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s100210000032

关键词

nitrogen; Rocky Mountains; Colorado; subalpine forests; alpine and subalpine lakes; paleolimnology; diatoms; N isotopes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We asked whether 3-5 kg N y(-1) atmospheric N deposition was sufficient to have influenced natural, otherwise undisturbed, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of the Colorado Front Range by comparing ecosystem processes and properties east and west of the Continental Divide. The eastern side receives elevated N deposition from urban, agricultural, and industrial sources, compared with 1-2 kg N y(-1) on the western side. Foliage of east side old-growth Englemann spruce forests have significantly lower C:N and lignin:N ratios and greater N:Mg and N:P ratios. Soil % N is higher, and C:N ratios lower in the east side stands, and potential net N mineralization rates are greater. Lake NO, concentrations are significantly higher in eastern lakes than western lakes. Two east side lakes studied paleolimnologically revealed rapid changes in diatom community composition and increased biovolumes and cell concentrations. The diatom flora is now representative of increased disturbance or eutrophication. Sediment nitrogen isotopic ratios have become progressively lighter over the past SO years, coincident with the change in algal flora, possibly from an influx of isotopically light N volatilized from agricultural fields and feedlots. Seventy-five percent of the increased east side soil N pool can be accounted for by increased N deposition commensurate with human settlement. Nitrogen emissions from fixed, mobile, and agricultural sources have increased dramatically since approximately 1950 to the east of the Colorado Front Range, as they have in many parts of the world. Our findings indicate even slight increases in atmospheric deposition lead to measurable changes in ecosystem properties.

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