4.0 Article

Plant carbon and water fluxes in tropical montane cloud forests

期刊

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 404-420

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266467416000341

关键词

carbon cycling; ecohydrology; ecophysiology; fog-affected forests; foliar water uptake; photosynthesis; primary productivity; sap flow; transpiration; water-use efficiency

类别

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [290605]
  2. Franklin and Marshall College
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1146446] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tropical montane cloud forests (TMCFs) are dynamic ecosystems defined by frequent, but intermittent, contact with fog. The resultant microclimate can vary considerably over short spatial and temporal scales, affecting the ecophysiology of TMCF plants. We synthesized research to date on TMCF carbon and water fluxes at the scale of the leaf, plant and ecosystem and then contextualized this synthesis with tropical lowland forest ecosystems. Mean light-saturated photosynthesis was lower than that of lowland forests, probably due to the effects of persistent reduced radiation leading to shade acclimation. Scaled to the ecosystem, measures of annual net primary productivity were also lower. Mean rates of transpiration, from the scale of the leaf to the ecosystem, were also lower than in lowland sites, likely due to lower atmospheric water demand, although there was considerable overlap in range. Lastly, although carbon use efficiency appears relatively invariant, limited evidence indicates that water use efficiency generally increases with altitude, perhaps due to increased cloudiness exerting a stronger effect on vapour pressure deficit than photosynthesis. The results reveal clear differences in carbon and water balance between TMCFs and their lowland counterparts and suggest many outstanding questions for understanding TMCF ecophysiology now and in the future.

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

4.0
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