4.7 Article

Correlations between net primary productivity and foliar carbon isotope ratio across a Tibetan ecosystem transect

期刊

ECOGRAPHY
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 526-538

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05735.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Projects for Basic Research of China [2005CB422005]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40671069]
  3. International Cooperation Project of the USDA Forest Service Northern Global Change Program [05-IC-11242343-064]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Warming climate could affect leaf-level carbon isotope composition (delta C-13) through variations in photosynthetic gas exchange. However, it is still unclear to what extent variations in foliar delta C-13 can be used to detect changes in net primary productivity (NPP) because leaf physiology is only one of many determinants of stand productivity. We aim to examine how well site-mean foliar delta C-13 and stand NPP co-vary across large resource gradients using data obtained from the Tibetan Alpine Vegetation Transects (1900-4900 m, TAVT). The TAVT data indicated a robust negative correlation between foliar delta C-13 and NPP across ecosystems (NPP=-2.7224 delta C-13-67.738, r(2)=0.60, p < 0.001). The mean foliar delta C-13 decreased with increasing annual precipitation and its covariation with mean temperature and soil organic carbon and nitrogen contents. The results were further confirmed by global literature data. Pooled delta C-13 data from global literature and this study explained 60% of variations in annual NPP both from TAVT-measures and MODIS-estimates across 67 sites. Our results appear to support a conceptual model relating foliar delta C-13 and nitrogen concentration (N-mass) to NPP, suggesting that: 1) there is a general (negative) relationship between delta C-13 and NPP across different water availability conditions; 2) in water-limited conditions, water availability has greater effects on NPP than N-mass; 3) when water is not limiting, NPP increases with increasing N-mass.

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