4.5 Article

Climate dependence of heterotrophic soil respiration from a soil-translocation experiment along a 3000 m tropical forest altitudinal gradient

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE
卷 60, 期 6, 页码 895-906

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2009.01175.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC [NE/D014174]
  2. NERC [NE/D011191/1, NE/F010680/1, NE/D01185X/1, NE/D014174/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/F010680/1, NE/D01185X/1, NE/D011191/1, NE/D014174/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropical ecosystems play a key role in the global carbon cycle, but their response to global warming is not well understood. Altitudinal gradients offer the unique possibility of undertaking in situ experimental studies of the influence of alterations in climate on the carbon (C) cycle. In a soil-translocation experiment we took replicate soil cores at 3030 m, 1500 m, 1000 m and 200 m above sea level along an altitudinal gradient in tropical forest in Peru, and exchanged (i.e. translocated) them among these sites to observe the influence of altered climatic conditions on the decomposition of soil organic matter under natural field conditions. Soil respiration rates of the translocated soil cores and adjacent undisturbed soils were measured twice a month from April 2007 to October 2007. The temperature sensitivity of heterotrophic respiration in each core was examined using a Lloyd & Taylor function and a simple modified third-order polynomial fit. Calculated Q(10) values decreased with decreasing altitude using both mathematical functions (2.53-1.24 according to the Lloyd & Taylor function, and 2.56-0.63 using the polynomial fit). Soil organic C-stocks increased markedly and linearly with altitude, but surprisingly the average total soil respiration rate did not vary significantly with altitude along the transect (3.98-4.31 mu mol CO(2) m-2 s-1). This implies an increase with elevation of absolute C allocation to below-ground allocation.

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