4.7 Article

Temporal variation and climate dependence of soil respiration and its components along a 3000 m altitudinal tropical forest gradient

期刊

GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2010GB003787

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/D014174]
  2. Asociacion para la Conservacion de la Cuenca Amazonica (ACCA) in Cusco
  3. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA) in Lima
  4. NERC [NE/F010680/1, NE/G018278/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G018278/1, NE/F010680/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To simulate the effect of temperature on soil respiration rates, we translocated soil cores among four sites (3030, 1500, 1000, and 200 m asl) along an altitudinal tropical forest gradient in the Peruvian Andes, traversing a difference in mean annual temperature of 13.9 degrees C. Rates of total (R-s) and heterotrophic (R-sh) respiration were measured twice a month from April 2007 to March 2009 and additionally for full 24 h periods. The diurnal range in R-s increased with altitude; this variation was mainly root and litter derived, whereas R-sh varied only slightly over full 24 h periods. Although mean annual daytime R-s rates were not significantly different among the four sites (4.45-4.05 mu mol CO2 m(-2) s(-1)), the annual amount of respired C decreased with increasing altitude from 1639 g C m(-2) yr(-1) at 200 m asl to 1064 g C m(-2) yr(-1) at 3030 m asl. The contribution of R-sh to R-s was not correlated with elevation and ranged from 25% to 60%. The temperature dependence of R-s was lower at the midelevation sites (Q(10) of 2.07 and 2.94 at 1500 and 1000 m asl, respectively) than at the highest and lowest sites of the gradient (Q(10) of 4.33 and 6.92 at 3030 and 200 m asl, respectively). The temperature sensitivity of R-sh was higher for the sites at 3030 and 200 m asl and increased with time, i.e., with the loss of the most labile C pools.

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