A paired study of prairie carbon stocks, fluxes, and phenology: comparing the world's oldest prairie restoration with an adjacent remnant

Abstract

We measured carbon (C) stocks and fluxes and vegetation phenology in the world's oldest prairie restoration ( $ 65 years) and an adjacent prairie remnant in southern Wisconsin from 2001-2004 to quantify structural and functional differences. While the species distributions and frequency differed, the number of species measured per 1 m 2 quadrat were not significantly different (15.8 AE 4.4 and 14.1 AE 2.1 for remnant and planted [order for all reported values in abstract]; P 5 0.29), and the annual average aboveground net primary productivity (271 AE 51 and 330 AE 55 g C m À2 ) and peak leaf area index (2.9-4.9 m 2 m À2 ) were comparable under similar fire management. Total root biomass was not significantly different in 2002 (1736 AE 1062 and 1690 AE 459 g dry matter m À2 ) or 2003 (3029 AE 2081 and 2146 AE 898 g m À2 ), but annual average soil respiration (1229 AE 77 and 1428 AE 24 g C m À2 yr À1 ) was significantly higher in the restoration (Po0.0001). However, the prairie remnant contained 37% greater soil C (Po0.0001) in the top 25 cm. Soil respiration response to 10 cm soil temperature (Q 10 ) varied with respect to prairie and soil moisture conditions as annual Q 10 values ranged from 2.5 to 3.6. We calculated a range of net ecosystem production (NEP) values using estimated heterotrophic respiration and three root turnover values. Average NEP varied from À1.4 to 1.9 and À2.3 to 1.3 Mg C ha À1 yr À1 for the remnant and planted prairies, respectively. While these two prairies share similar structural components and functional attributes, the large uncertainty in NEP casts doubt as to whether we can verify these prairies as C sources or sinks without direct measures of heterotrophic respiration and root turnover. We argue that quantitative studies of C exchange in prairies, which differ in restoration methodology, management intensity, and fire frequency, are needed to solidify the relationship between prairie structure and potentially desired functions such as C sequestration.

Contrasting ecosystem recovery on two soil textures: implications for carbon mitigation and grassland conservation

“…Restored prairies often contain lower plant species diversity than extant prairie remnants that have never been cultivated (Kindscher and Tieszen 1998, Sluis 2002, Camill et al 2004, Polley et al 2005. Kucharik et al (2006) suggested that low species diversity in grassland restorations may constrain recovery of soil C, whereas Matamala et al (2008) demonstrated that species richness was not a good predictor of soil C accrual during prairie restoration. Inclusion of legumes in grassland restorations has been shown to increase soil C accrual (Robles andBurke 1997, Fornara andTilman 2008).…”

Impacts of Ridge-Furrow Planting on Salt Stress and Cotton Yield under Drip Irrigation

“…However, Zhang et al [55] found that yield of RF was lower than that of F in the Huang-Huai-Hai plain of China for winter wheat because the narrow furrow lowered seeding density per area. In addition, there is a decrease in yield with RF when too much water is present in the root zone, as the water may impede root respiration [56]. Therefore, the implementation of RF should consider crop species, crop density, and soil moisture condition.…”

Experimental Consideration, Treatments, and Methods in Determining Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates

“…However, only about 10% of soil surface CO 2 efflux is derived from decomposition of older, more recalcitrant C compounds (Gaudinski et al, 2000). When coupled with potential C input from above-and belowground biomass, C loss from soil surface as CO 2 efflux can be used to determine annual C sequestered as shown by researchers using a C budgeting approach (Dugas et al, 1999;Frank and Dugas, 2001;Flanagan et al, 2002;Yazaki et al, 2004;Kucharik et al, 2006). During a long-term experiment (20-50 yr), most of the SOC sequestered in early years could be released in later years and before the end of the experiment.…”