Evaluation of Two Methods for Estimating Belowground Production in a Freshwater Swamp Forest

Symbula, Millie; Day, Frank P.

doi:10.2307/2426013

Cited by 46 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Annual BPP estimates from this study are consistent with those published for freshwater marshes (Brinson et al 1981;Birch & Cooley 1982;Symbula and Day 1988;Chimner & Ewel 2005), and with those found in a C. Jamaicense marsh in northern SRS (Daoust & Childers 2004 ), but generally lower than those published for coastal salt marshes (Valieta et al 1976;Schubauer & Hopkinson 1984 ). This latter resul.t is expected as salt marshes generally have greater nutrient availability than oligotrophic Everglades' marshes, and species occurring in oligotrophic systems have lower production per unit P than species common to more nutrient rich systems (Chapin 1980).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Patterns in belowground primary productivity and belowground biomass in marshes of the Everglades' oligohaline ecotone

Juszli¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. I am also greatly indebted to Colin Saunders for his much needed SAS programming skills and statistical help. Thank you to Jenny Richards and Carlos Coronado-Molina for their invaluable insight and patience to help me better understand sawgrass biomass allocation and ecotone process and function. And lastly I would like to thank Dan Childers, for not only paying my bills for the past three years, but providing me an opportunity to expand my knowledge of wetland ecology and for his "work hard, play hard" mentality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Patterns in belowground primary productivity and belowground biomass in marshes of the Everglades' oligohaline ecotone

Juszli¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…or because more than one reference supplied duplicate information for the same site. Relevant studies by biome were: boreal forest (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32), deserts (33)(34)(35)(36)(37), sclerophyllous shrublands and forests (38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45), temperate coniferous forest (46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56), temperate deciduous forest (46,47,49,50,52,(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67), temperate grasslands (36,(68)(69)(70)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…or because more than one reference supplied duplicate information for the same site. Relevant studies by biome were: boreal forest (27-32), deserts (33-37), sclerophyllous shrublands and forests (38-45), temperate coniferous forest (46-56), temperate deciduous forest (46,47,49,50,52,(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64)(65)(66)(67), temperate grasslands (36, 68-77), tropical deciduous forest (22,(78)(79)(80)(81)(82)(83), tropical evergreen forest (22,(84)(85)(86)(87)(88)(89)(90)(91)(92)(93), tropical grassland͞savanna (94-98), and tundra (99-103). Some studies provided data for multiple times and locations within a site and these data were averaged for the particular site.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents

Jackson

Mooney

Schulze

1997

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

1,263

945

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global biogeochemical models have improved dramatically in the last decade in their representation of the biosphere. Although leaf area data are an important input to such models and are readily available globally, global root distributions for modeling water and nutrient uptake and carbon cycling have not been available. This analysis provides global distributions for fine root biomass, length, and surface area with depth in the soil, and global estimates of nutrient pools in fine roots. Calculated root surface area is almost always greater than leaf area, more than an order of magnitude so in grasslands. The average C:N:P ratio in living fine roots is 450:11:1, and global fine root carbon is more than 5% of all carbon contained in the atmosphere. Assuming conservatively that fine roots turn over once per year, they represent 33% of global annual net primary productivity.Fine roots (Յ2 mm in diameter) are the primary pathway for water and nutrient uptake by plants, the same role that leaves play for carbon and energy uptake. Fine roots are also a prominent, possibly the prominent, sink for carbon acquired in terrestrial net primary productivity (1-4). Primary production allocated below ground is often greater than that allocated above ground, and annual carbon and nutrient inputs to the soil from fine roots frequently equal or exceed those from leaves (1-5). Despite their importance for nutrient cycling, resource capture, and global biogeochemistry, fine roots are poorly represented in global models. The lack of representation is in sharp contrast to the prevalence of canopy leaf area data as an important input (6-10). The input of leaf area, which can be estimated regionally by remote sensing (11), allows carbon and energy gain to be simulated biochemically in terrestrial models (12). Part of the cause for the discrepancy in representing roots and shoots is the difficulty in estimating root distributions (2,13,14). This analysis provides the first global fine root database for improving global models and estimates of carbon cycling. These data should enhance hydrological models [where fine roots control water absorption by plants and affect groundwater and atmospheric fluxes (15, 16)], improve estimates of nitrogen cycling and the consequences of nitrogen loading (17), and allow the biochemical modeling of nutrient uptake globally (18,19). METHODSThis research differs from a previous analysis (20) by calculating fine rather than total root distributions (those roots active in water and nutrient uptake), by estimating root biomass, length, surface area, and nutrient contents, by taking into account the proportion of live root biomass in each biome, and by calculating a global budget for each parameter. To estimate fine root distributions by depth, a database of 253 field studies was analyzed (20). A study was included if fine roots were measured in three or more increments to at least 1-m soil depth (minimum depth for tundra was the level of permafrost). More than 40 references met these criteria and ma...

show abstract

“…Litterfall accounts for an average of 43% of the aboveground primary production in wetland forests. Vex3' little is known about belowground processes, although there is evidence that roots contribute as much as or more to the detrital pool than does litterfall (Symbula and Day 1988).…”

Section: Biomass and Biomass Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of forest management practices on southern forested wetland productivity

Conner¹

1994

Wetlands

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In the interest of increasing productivity of forested wetlands for timber production and/or wildlife value, management schemes that deal mainly with water-level control have been developed. The three forest types in the southeastern U.S. most commonly affected are cypress/tupelo forests, bottomland hardwood forests, and wet pine sites (including pocosins). In forested wetlands, hydrology is the most important factor influencing productivity. In bottomland and cypress/tupelo forests, water-level control can have mixed results. Alterations in natural hydrologic patterns leading to increased flooding or drainage can cause decreased growth rates or even death of the forest. Bottomland hardwoods respond favorably in the short term to water-level management, but the long-term response is currently under study, in wet pine sites, timber volume can be increased significantly by water-level management, but the impact upon other ecological functions is less understood. It is difficult to adequately describe productivity relations in wetland forests because of the great diversity in habitat types and the lack of data on how structure and function might be affected by forestry operations. There is a definite need for more long-term, regional studies involving multidisciplinary efforts.

show abstract

Evaluation of Two Methods for Estimating Belowground Production in a Freshwater Swamp Forest

Cited by 46 publications

References 25 publications

Patterns in belowground primary productivity and belowground biomass in marshes of the Everglades' oligohaline ecotone

Patterns in belowground primary productivity and belowground biomass in marshes of the Everglades' oligohaline ecotone

A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents

Effect of forest management practices on southern forested wetland productivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About