4.7 Article

Eight years of forest-floor CO2 exchange in a boreal black spruce forest: Spatial integration and long-term temporal trends

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 25-35

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.08.010

关键词

Soil CO2 efflux; Forest-floor photosynthesis; Carbon balance; Temperature; Soil water content; Water table depth

资金

  1. Fonds de Recherche sur la nature et les Technologies du Quebec (FCAR)
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Fluxnet Canada Research Network and the Canadian Carbon Program (through NSERC, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) and BIOCAP Canada)
  4. Meteorological Service of Canada through a Contribution Agreement to the University of British Columbia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Automated measurements of the net forest-floor CO2 exchange (NFFE) were made in a mature (130-year-old) boreal black spruce forest over an 8-year period (2002-2009) with the objectives of (1) quantifying the spatial and temporal (seasonal and interannual) patterns in NFFE, soil respiration (SR) and gross forest-floor photosynthesis (GFFP), and (2) better understanding the key climatic controls on each component at both time scales. Scaling-up of the component fluxes to the stand level showed that the feather moss community accounted for more than 85% of NFFE and SR, and more than 70% of GFFP. The remainder was partitioned almost equally between the sphagnum and lichen communities for all components fluxes, while the exposed mineral soil in hollows accounted for less than 1% of NFFE and SR. Soil temperature (T-s) was the dominant climate variable determining seasonal trends in NFFE and SR. The shape of the exponential response was, however, strongly modulated by soil water content (SWC) in the surface organic horizon, with reduced apparent temperature sensitivity at low SWC. A lowering of the water table depth also had an effect on NFFE and SR, although very weak, with increased CO2 loss from the hollows likely due to improved soil aeration. Air temperature (T-a) was the dominant climate variable determining seasonal trends in GFFP, while plant water status seemed to have played a minor role. Although not statistically significant (p = 0.9907), annual totals of scaled-up NFFE varied from 505 121 to 601 +/- 144g Cm-2 y(-1) over the 8-year period. The lowest NFFE was observed in 2004, the coldest and wettest year on record, while the highest was observed in 2005, a warmer year with slightly above-average precipitation. SR, by far the dominant component of the forest-floor CO2 exchange, closely followed the inter-annual trends in NFFE, while GFFP was lowest in 2004 and highest in 2003, also a cold year but with very low precipitation. Over the 8-year period, winter NFFE contributed 7% to annual NFFE while GFFP during the growing season reduced losses due to SR by 18%. While strong correlations were observed between the component fluxes and temperature (T-s or T-a) and SWC at the seasonal time scale, the mean annual values of these climate variables were poor predictors of the inter-annual trends when considered individually. Combining multiplicatively T-s and SWC for NFFE and SR, and T-a and SWC for GFFP, significantly increased the predictive ability of the models. The difference in predictability of the two time scales poses some interesting challenges for interpreting and modeling the long-term temporal trends in NFEE and its components. The results obtained in this relatively long-term study suggest that the inter-annual variability in the component fluxes was not driven by the mean annual climate conditions, but rather the shorter time scale changes in climate conditions, i.e. changes that occurred within days, weeks and/or seasons. Moreover, it appeared that the timing of the climatic changes within each year was also critical, spring and summer conditions having a far greater impact than fall and winter conditions in this stand. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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