4.6 Article

A comparison of mangrove and marsh influences on soil respiration rates: A mesocosm study

期刊

ESTUARINE COASTAL AND SHELF SCIENCE
卷 248, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2020.106877

关键词

Coastal wetlands; Mangroves; Ecotone; Soil respiration; Climate change; Decomposition

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1655659]
  2. Wetland Foundation
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology [1655659] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that mangrove seedlings did not increase heterotrophic respiration, and that respiration rate was significantly higher in marsh-derived soils compared to mangrove-derived soils. The results suggest that the stage of mangrove invasion and root development level may influence changes in heterotrophic soil respiration.
Due to reductions in freeze events, mangroves have been rapidly encroaching into previously salt marshdominated coastal wetlands along the northeastern shores of Florida, USA. This shift in dominant wetland vegetation type may have significant implications for belowground processes such as soil organic matter decomposition and respiration. Using a full factorial greenhouse mesocosm experiment, we investigated the effects of plant type (no plant, Avicennia germinans, or Spartina alterniflora) and soil type (sand, mangrove-derived soil, or marsh-derived soil) on estimated heterotrophic soil respiration rates. While we predicted that A. germinans mangrove seedlings would increase heterotrophic respiration, we found that mangrove seedlings did not increase heterotrophic respiration when compared to control (no plant) treatments. Additionally, we found that heterotrophic respiration was higher in marsh-derived soils than in mangrove-derived soils for both control and mangrove plant treatments. Our findings suggest that the stage of mangrove invasion and the level of root development may influence changes in heterotrophic soil respiration.

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

4.6
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