4.1 Article

Abundance and composition of plant biomass as potential controls for mire net ecosytem CO2 exchange

期刊

BOTANY
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 63-74

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/B11-068

关键词

bog; fen; microtopography; net ecosystem exchange; peatland; plant functional type; water table

资金

  1. University of Oulu
  2. US National Science Foundation
  3. Graduate School in Forest Sciences
  4. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  6. University of Helsinki
  7. Academy of Finland [218101, 140863]
  8. Academy of Finland (AKA) [140863, 218101, 218101, 140863] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared the amount and composition of different aboveground biomass (BM) fractions of four mires with their net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) measured by eddy covariance. We found clear differences in response of green biomass (GBM) of plant functional types (PFTs) to water table (WT), which resulted in larger spatial variation in GBM within a mire than variation between mires. GBM varied between mires from 126 +/- 7 to 336 +/- 16 g.m(-2) (mean +/- SE), while within mire variation at largest was from 157 +/- 17 to 488 +/- 20 g.m(-2) (mean +/- SE). GBM of dominant PFTs appeared to be better in explaining the peak growing season NEE than the total BM or GBM of a mire. The differences in photosynthetic capacity between PTFs had a major role, and thus a smaller GBM with different species composition could result in higher NEE than larger GBM. Vascular plant GBM, especially that of sedges, appeared to have a high impact on NEE. Eleven PFTs, defined here, appeared to capture well the internal variation within mires, and the differences in GBM between communities were explained by the water table response of PFTs. Our results suggest the use of photosynthesizing BM, separated into PFTs, in modelling ecosystem carbon exchange instead of using just total BM.

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