4.8 Article

Increasing soil methane sink along a 120-year afforestation chronosequence is driven by soil moisture

期刊

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 12, 页码 3664-3671

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02798.x

关键词

afforestation; alpine regions; chronosequence; fertilization; methane oxidation; nitrous oxide; Norway spruce; soil moisture regime

资金

  1. COST Action [639]
  2. Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Upland soils are important sinks for atmospheric methane (CH4), a process essentially driven by methanotrophic bacteria. Soil CH4 uptake often depends on land use, with afforestation generally increasing the soil CH4 sink. However, the mechanisms driving these changes are not well understood to date. We measured soil CH4 and N2O fluxes along an afforestation chronosequence with Norway spruce (Picea abies L.) established on an extensively grazed subalpine pasture. Our experimental design included forest stands with ages ranging from 25 to >120 years and included a factorial cattle urine addition treatment to test for the sensitivity of soil CH4 uptake to N application. Mean CH4 uptake significantly increased with stand age on all sampling dates. In contrast, CH4 oxidation by sieved soils incubated in the laboratory did not show a similar age dependency. Soil CH4 uptake was unrelated to soil N status (but cattle urine additions stimulated N2O emission). Our data indicated that soil CH4 uptake in older forest stands was driven by reduced soil water content, which resulted in a facilitated diffusion of atmospheric CH4 into soils. The lower soil moisture likely resulted from increased interception and/or evapotranspiration in the older forest stands. This mechanism contrasts alternative explanations focusing on nitrogen dynamics or the composition of methanotrophic communities, although these factors also might be at play. Our findings further imply that the current dramatic increase in forested area increases CH4 uptake in alpine regions.

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