Carbon–nitrogen interactions in European forests and semi-natural vegetation – Part 1: Fluxes and budgets of carbon, nitrogen and greenhouse gases from ecosystem monitoring and modelling

Abstract

Abstract. The impact of atmospheric reactive nitrogen (Nr) deposition on carbon (C) sequestration in soils and biomass of unfertilized, natural, semi-natural and forest ecosystems has been much debated. Many previous results of this dC∕dN response were based on changes in carbon stocks from periodical soil and ecosystem inventories, associated with estimates of Nr deposition obtained from large-scale chemical transport models. This study and a companion paper (Flechard et al., 2020) strive to reduce uncertainties of N effects on C sequestration by linking multi-annual gross and net ecosystem productivity estimates from 40 eddy covariance flux towers across Europe to local measurement-based estimates of dry and wet Nr deposition from a dedicated collocated monitoring network. To identify possible ecological drivers and processes affecting the interplay between C and Nr inputs and losses, these data were also combined with in situ flux measurements of NO, N2O and CH4 fluxes; soil NO3- leaching sampling; and results of soil incubation experiments for N and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as surveys of available data from online databases and from the literature, together with forest ecosystem (BASFOR) modelling. Multi-year averages of net ecosystem productivity (NEP) in forests ranged from −70 to 826 g C m−2 yr−1 at total wet + dry inorganic Nr deposition rates (Ndep) of 0.3 to 4.3 g N m−2 yr−1 and from −4 to 361 g C m−2 yr−1 at Ndep rates of 0.1 to 3.1 g N m−2 yr−1 in short semi-natural vegetation (moorlands, wetlands and unfertilized extensively managed grasslands). The GHG budgets of the forests were strongly dominated by CO2 exchange, while CH4 and N2O exchange comprised a larger proportion of the GHG balance in short semi-natural vegetation. Uncertainties in elemental budgets were much larger for nitrogen than carbon, especially at sites with elevated Ndep where Nr leaching losses were also very large, and compounded by the lack of reliable data on organic nitrogen and N2 losses by denitrification. Nitrogen losses in the form of NO, N2O and especially NO3- were on average 27 % (range 6 %–54 %) of Ndep at sites with Ndep < 1 g N m−2 yr−1 versus 65 % (range 35 %–85 %) for Ndep > 3 g N m−2 yr−1. Such large levels of Nr loss likely indicate that different stages of N saturation occurred at a number of sites. The joint analysis of the C and N budgets provided further hints that N saturation could be detected in altered patterns of forest growth. Net ecosystem productivity increased with Nr deposition up to 2–2.5 g N m−2 yr−1, with large scatter associated with a wide range in carbon sequestration efficiency (CSE, defined as the NEP ∕ GPP ratio). At elevated Ndep levels (> 2.5 g N m−2 yr−1), where inorganic Nr losses were also increasingly large, NEP levelled off and then decreased. The apparent increase in NEP at low to intermediate Ndep levels was partly the result of geographical cross-correlations between Ndep and climate, indicating that the actual mean dC∕dN response at individual sites was significantly lower than would be suggested by a simple, straightforward regression of NEP vs. Ndep.

Soil solution in Swiss forest stands: A 20 year's time series

“…None of the commonly accepted eutrophication indicators mentioned above apply to all plots. This conclusion is confirmed by [ 73 ]. It must be stated that the confidence interval for the relation between N leaching and N deposition becomes very lager at higher N inputs due to the different site conditions with respect to soils and climate.…”

Pan-European rural monitoring network shows dominance of NH<sub>3</sub> gas and NH<sub>4</sub>NO<sub>3</sub> aerosol in inorganic atmospheric pollution load

“…3 . Because of the large numbers of atmospheric N species and their complex atmospheric chemistry, quantifying the deposition of N r is hugely complex and is a key source of uncertainty for ecosystem effect assessment (Bobbink et al, 2010;Fowler and Reis, 2007;Schrader et al, 2018;Sutton et al, 2007). Input by dry deposition can be estimated using a combination of measured and/or modelled concentration fields with high-resolution inferential models (e.g.…”

Satellite-derived leaf area index and roughness length information for surface–atmosphere exchange modelling: a case study for reactive nitrogen deposition in north-western Europe using LOTOS-EUROS v2.0

“…The results showed that root mean square error (RMSE) was 4.4 m and R 2 was 0.7 after removal of seven outliers. For the FLUXNET forest sites used in this study, we compared the forest canopy heights from GLAS to the maximum forest canopy height at the FLUXNET sites taken from (Flechard et al, 2020). For all but one site (DE-Hai), the forest canopy heights from GLAS were lower than this value (Table S3).…”

“…The nitrogen (N) cycle has been continuously disrupted by human activity over the past century (Fowler et al, 2015;Galloway et al, 2004Galloway et al, , 2008, resulting in a doubling of the total reactive nitrogen (N r ) fixation globally and even a tripling in Europe. As a result, excessive amounts of N r , defined as all N compounds except N 2 , have manifested in the environment contributing to acidification and eutrophication of sensitive terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Bobbink et al, 2010a;Paerl et al, 2014).…”

“…The parameterization of the atmosphere-biosphere exchange of N r components that is used in models is largely based on surface exchange measurements and is therefore very uncertain, especially for NH 3 (Schrader et al, 2016). The deposition strengths in models may vary tremendously depending on the used deposition parameterization and velocities (Wu et al, 2018;Schrader and Brummer, 2014;Flechard et al, 2013). Moreover, inter-model discrepancies in deposition fluxes may also arise from differences in the used input variables.…”