4.5 Article

Deep Autotrophic Soil Respiration in Shrubland and Woodland Ecosystems in Central New Mexico

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 83-96

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-011-9495-x

关键词

soil respiration; soil depth; desert; carbon isotopes; vapor pressure deficit; New Mexico; autotrophic

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying the controls on soil respiration is important for understanding ecosystem physiology and for predicting the response of soil carbon reservoirs to climate change. The majority of soil respiration is typically considered to occur in the top 20-30 cm of soils. In desert soils, where organic matter concentrations tend to be low and plants are deeply rooted, deeper respiration might be expected. However, little is known about the depth distribution of respiration in dryland soils. Here we show that the average depth of soil respiration between pulse precipitation events is almost always greater than 20 cm and is frequently greater than 50 cm in two central New Mexico desert shrublands. The average depth of soil respiration in a pinon-juniper woodland was shallower, between 5 and 40 cm. In the shrublands, 8 parts per thousand seasonal variations in the carbon isotope composition of soil-respired CO2 (delta C-13(r-soil)) that correlate with vapor pressure deficit support root/rhizosphere respiration as the dominant source of soil CO2. Such deep autotrophic respiration indicates that shrubs preferentially allocate photosynthate to deep roots when conditions near the surface are unfavorable. Therefore, respiration rates in these soils are not necessarily correlated with root biomass. The delta(13) Cr-soil values provide no evidence for CO2 evolved from soil inorganic carbon. Our results also suggest that organic carbon cycling is rapid and efficient in these soils and that the delta C-13 value of CO2 respired from soils in much of the southwestern US, and perhaps in other semiarid regions, varies seasonally by at least 4 parts per thousand.

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

4.5
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