4.7 Article

Do mesocosms influence photosynthesis and soil respiration?

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 36-44

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.07.003

Keywords

field studies; mesocosms; Douglas-fir; photosynthesis; soil respiration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mesocosms, enclosed outdoor experimental systems, are commonly used in terrestrial ecology. They are frequently used to study the effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Despite their advantages and frequent use it is important to verify, through explicit measures, that mesocosms reliably model the larger system. In this study, fully-coupled, soil-litter-plant mesocosms were constructed in Corvallis using native soil and litter, and planted with Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Mirb. Franco) seedlings. Needle photosynthesis and soil respiration were measured repeatedly over a 21-month period in mesocosms and compared to measurements made at two field sites (Toad Creek and Falls Creek) planted at the same density as the mesocosms. Under the temperature and soil moisture conditions, photosynthetic and soil respiration rates in the mesocosms were not significantly different than the rates at Toad Creek, where the soil and litter in the mesocosms were collected. In contrast, the soil at Falls Creek was different than the soil in the mesocosms and at Toad Creek and photosynthetic and soil respiration rates at Falls Creek were significantly different than at the other two sites. The lack of significant differences between rates measured in the mesocosms in Corvallis and at the Toad Creek field site indicate that the mesocosms did not cause significant artifacts in the data and that the results for these rates in the mesocosms can be extrapolated to field settings with comparable edaphic conditions. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available