A Global Trend in Belowground Carbon Allocation: Can We Use the Relationship at Smaller Scales?

Gower, Stith T.; Pongracic, S.; Landsberg, J. J.

doi:10.2307/2265780

Cited by 108 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results also differ from those of Palmroth et al (2006), where TBCF declined as productivity (estimated from leaf area index) increased following disturbance. The global relationship between TBCF and ANPP total shown here may not be accurate for estimating TBCF for a specific site (Gower et al, 1996;Nadelhoffer et al, 1998;Davidson et al, 2002).…”

Section: Fluxmentioning

confidence: 79%

Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems

Litton

Raich

Ryan

2007

Global Change Biology

908

798

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon allocation plays a critical role in forest ecosystem carbon cycling. We reviewed existing literature and compiled annual carbon budgets for forest ecosystems to test a series of hypotheses addressing the patterns, plasticity, and limits of three components of allocation: biomass, the amount of material present; flux, the flow of carbon to a component per unit time; and partitioning, the fraction of gross primary productivity (GPP) used by a component. Can annual carbon flux and partitioning be inferred from biomass? Our survey revealed that biomass was poorly related to carbon flux and to partitioning of photosynthetically derived carbon, and should not be used to infer either. Are component fluxes correlated? Carbon fluxes to foliage, wood, and belowground production and respiration all increased linearly with increasing GPP (a rising tide lifts all boats). Autotrophic respiration was strongly linked to production for foliage, wood and roots, and aboveground net primary productivity and total belowground carbon flux (TBCF) were positively correlated across a broad productivity gradient. How does carbon partitioning respond to variability in resources and environment? Within sites, partitioning to aboveground wood production and TBCF responded to changes in stand age and resource availability, but not to competition (tree density). Increasing resource supply and stand age, with one exception, resulted in increased partitioning to aboveground wood production and decreased partitioning to TBCF. Partitioning to foliage production was much less sensitive to changes in resources and environment. Overall, changes in partitioning within a site in response to resource supply and age were small (o15% of GPP), but much greater than those inferred from global relationships. Across all sites, foliage production plus respiration, and total autotrophic respiration appear to use relatively constant fractions of GPP -partitioning to both was conservative across a broad range of GPP -but values did vary across sites. Partitioning to aboveground wood production and to TBCF were the most variable -conditions that favored high GPP increased partitioning to aboveground wood production and decreased partitioning to TBCF. Do priorities exist for the products of photosynthesis? The available data do not support the concept of priorities for the products of photosynthesis, because increasing GPP increased all fluxes. All facets of carbon allocation are important to understanding carbon cycling in forest ecosystems. Terrestrial ecosystem models require information on partitioning, yet we found few studies that measured all components of the carbon budget to allow estimation of partitioning coefficients. Future studies that measure complete annual carbon budgets contribute the most to understanding carbon allocation. Nomenclature:ANPP 5 aboveground net primary production; can refer to foliage (ANPP foliage ), wood (ANPP wood ), or total (ANPP total 5 ANPP foliage 1 ANPP wood ) 2089BNPP root 5 belowground net primary produc...

show abstract

Section: Fluxmentioning

confidence: 79%

Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems

Litton

Raich

Ryan

2007

Global Change Biology

908

798

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a considerable quantity of carbon in the soil is allocated in the root biomass (Laiho & Finér, 1996; Bardulis, Jansons, & Liepa, 2012; Bardulis et al, 2015), especially through fine root production/ mortality. Fine roots may even contribute to ~ 70% from the total carbon cycle in forest ecosystem (Gower, Pongracic, & Landsberg, 1996;Bhuiyan et al, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil carbon stock changes in transitional mire drained for forestry in Latvia: a case study

Lupikis¹,

Lazdiņš²

2017

Research for Rural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of drainage on soil carbon stock in a transitional mire drained for forestry. The study site is located in the central part of Latvia representing hemiboreal vegetation zone. Site was drained in 1960. It is located in a catchment area of the river Veseta. An undrained site at the same catchment area was chosen for control (ca. 2.5 km between sites). In both sites, the depth of peat is 4 -4.5 m. Drained site is dominated by coniferous trees. Soil samples collected in 2014 were used to determine bulk density and carbon content, and to calculate soil carbon stock. Samples were collected down to 80 cm depth. Ground surface elevation was measured before and several times after the drainage to determine peat subsidence. Carbon stock has increased by 0.3 tons ha -1 yr 1 after drainage, although peat has subsided on average by 26 cm (13 -48 cm). Subsidence was mainly caused by physical shrinkage of peat not by organic matter oxidation. Drainage was followed by compaction of aerated soil layer, which has caused most of the subsidence, especially during the first years after drainage. Soil bulk density has increased almost twice at soil surface layer 0 -10 cm (from 75 kg m 3 to 141 kg m 3 ). Differences decrease at deeper sampling depths. It is concluded that drainage is not always followed by reduction of carbon stock in soil. Increased above and below ground litter production rates may offset accelerated decomposition of organic matter after drainage.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, due to the difficulty in measuring belowground processes such as those comprising R h (e.g. Raich and Nadelhoffer, 1989;Nadelhoffer and Raich, 1992;Gower et al, 1996), some of the existing productivity models focus primarily on NPP or gross primary productivity (GPP, e.g. canopy photosynthesis), and not NEP (e.g.…”

Section: Comparison Of Landnep To Other Models Of Net Ecosystem Produmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling landscape net ecosystem productivity (LandNEP) under alternative management regimes

Euskirchen

Chen

et al. 2002

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Global Trend in Belowground Carbon Allocation: Can We Use the Relationship at Smaller Scales?

Cited by 108 publications

References 32 publications

Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems

Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems

Soil carbon stock changes in transitional mire drained for forestry in Latvia: a case study

Modeling landscape net ecosystem productivity (LandNEP) under alternative management regimes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About