Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

C3 and C4 Biomass Allocation Responses to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen: Contrasting Resource Capture Strategies

  • Published:
Estuaries and Coasts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plants alter biomass allocation to optimize resource capture. Plant strategy for resource capture may have important implications in intertidal marshes, where soil nitrogen (N) levels and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are changing. We conducted a factorial manipulation of atmospheric CO2 (ambient and ambient + 340 ppm) and soil N (ambient and ambient + 25 g m−2 year−1) in an intertidal marsh composed of common North Atlantic C3 and C4 species. Estimation of C3 stem turnover was used to adjust aboveground C3 productivity, and fine root productivity was partitioned into C3–C4 functional groups by isotopic analysis. The results suggest that the plants follow resource capture theory. The C3 species increased aboveground productivity under the added N and elevated CO2 treatment (P < 0.0001), but did not under either added N or elevated CO2 alone. C3 fine root production decreased with added N (P < 0.0001), but fine roots increased under elevated CO2 (P = 0.0481). The C4 species increased growth under high N availability both above- and belowground, but that stimulation was diminished under elevated CO2. The results suggest that the marsh vegetation allocates biomass according to resource capture at the individual plant level rather than for optimal ecosystem viability in regards to biomass influence over the processes that maintain soil surface elevation in equilibrium with sea level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts, R. 1989. Above-ground biomass and nutrient dynamics of Calluna vulgaris and Molinia caerulea in a dry heathland. Oikos 56: 31–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts, R. 2009. Nitrogen supply effects on leaf dynamics and nutrient input into the soil of plant species in a sub-arctic tundra ecosystem. Polar Biology 32(2): 207–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, E.A., and S.P. Long. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy. New Phytologist 165: 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arp, W.J., B.G. Drake, et al. 1993. Interactions between C-3 and C-4 salt-marsh plant-species during 4 years of exposure to elevated atmospheric CO2. Vegetatio 104: 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazzaz, F.A. 1990. The response of natural ecosystems to the rising global CO2 levels. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, G.A., and A.K. Knapp. 2001. Leaf optical properties in higher plants: Linking spectral characteristics to stress and chlorophyll concentration. American Journal of Botany 88: 677–684.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Craine, J.M. 2009. Resource strategies of wild plants. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, P.S., B.G. Drake, et al. 1989. Growth and senescence in plant-communities exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations on an estuarine marsh. Oecologia 78: 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake, B.G., P.W. Leadley, et al. 1989. An open top chamber for field studies of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on saltmarsh vegetation. Functional Ecology 3: 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehleringer, J.R., R.F. Sage, et al. 1991. Climate change and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6: 95–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Emery, N.C., P.J. Ewanchuk, et al. 2001. Competition and salt-marsh plant zonation: Stress tolerators may be dominant competitors. Ecology 82: 2471–2485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, J.E., J.P. Megonigal, G. Peresta, and B.G. Drake. 2007. Salinity and sea level mediate elevated CO2 effects on C3–C4 plant interactions and tissue nitrogen in a Chesapeake Bay tidal wetland. Global Change Biology 13(1): 202–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, C.M., J. Ledford, and R.J. Norby. 2008. CO2 enrichment increases carbon and nitrogen input from fine roots in a deciduous forest. New Phytologist 179: 837–847.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, et al. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeak Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, J.A., and J.P. Megonigal. 2010. Ecosystem response to elevated CO2 levels limited by nitrogen-induced plant species shift. Nature 466: 96–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, J.A., B.G. Drake, et al. 2002. Extensive belowground carbon storage supports roots and mycorrhizae in regenerating scrub oaks. Oecologia 131: 542–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, J.A., K.L. McKee, et al. 2009a. Elevated CO2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 6182–6186.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, J.A., M.V. Sigrist, J. Duls, D.R. Cahoon, J.C. Lynch, and J.P. Megonigal. 2009b. Global change and marsh elevation dynamics: Experimenting where land meets sea and biology meets geology. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences 38: 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, L.A., and M.E. Luther. 1995. Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies. Limnology and Oceanography 40: 1474–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, L.A., A.C. Hine, et al. 1995. Surficial sediment transport and deposition processes in a Juncus roemerianus marsh, west-central Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 322–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.T. 2006. Competition among marsh macrophytes by means of geomorphological displacement in the intertidal zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, et al. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83: 2869–2877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudd, S.M., A. D’Alpaos, and J.T. Morris. 2010. How does vegetation affect sedimentation on tidal marshes? Investigating particle capture and hydrodynamic controls on biologically mediated sedimentation. Journal of Geophysical Research—Earth Surface 115: f3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyman, J.A., R.J. Walters, et al. 2006. Marsh vertical accretion via vegetative growth. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 370–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, M.R., H.M. Nepf, et al. 2004. Observations of particle capture on a cylindrical collector: Implications for particle accumulation and removal in aquatic systems. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poorter, H., and M.L. Navas. 2003. Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: On winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytologist 157: 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pregitzer, K.S., D.R. Zak, P.S. Curtis, M.E. Kubiske, J.A. Teeri, and C.S. Vogel. 1995. Atmospheric CO2, soil-nitrogen and turnover of fine roots. New Phytologist 129(4): 579–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redfield, A.C. 1965. Ontogeny of a salt marsh estuary. Science 147: 50–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D.J. 1995. Sediment dynamics, deposition and erosion in temperate salt marshes. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 295–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, H.L., and C. Dantonio. 1996. The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: Opinion. Plant and Soil 185: 75–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, H.H., G.B. Runion, and S.V. Krupa. 1994. Plant-responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment with emphasis on roots and the rhizosphere. Environmental Pollution 83: 155–189.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, H.A., and N.B. Rybicki. 2010. Long-term reductions in anthropogenic nutrients link to improvements in Chesapeake Bay habitat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 16566–16570.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, C.J., J.P. Megonigal, et al. 2006. Comparison of belowground biomass in C-3- and C-4-dominated mixed communities in a Chesapeake Bay brackish marsh. Plant and Soil 280: 305–322.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schlapfer, B., and P. Ryser. 1996. Leaf and root turnover of three ecologically contrasting grass species in relation to their performance along a productivity gradient. Oikos 75: 398–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokstad, E. 2009. Obama moves to revitalize Chesapeake Bay restoration. Science 324(5931): 1138–1139.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suter, D., M. Frehner, et al. 2002. Elevated CO2 increases carbon allocation to the roots of Lolium perenne under free-air CO2 enrichment but not in a controlled environment. New Phytologist 154: 65–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., and D. Wedin. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for 5 grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72: 685–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.E. 2004. Coastal wetland subsidence arising from local hydrologic manipulations. Estuaries 27: 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.E. 2011. Beneath the salt marsh canopy: Loss of soil strength with increasing nutrient loads. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1084–1093.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Valiela, I., and J.M. Teal. 1974. Nutrient limitation in salt marsh vegetation. In Ecology of halophytes, ed. R.J. Reimold and W.H. Queen, 574. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wand, S.J.E., G.F. Midgley, et al. 1999. Responses of wild C4 and C3 grass (Poaceae) species to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration: A meta-analytic test of current theories and perceptions. Global Change Biology 5: 723–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Duls, J. Keller, M. Sigrist, G. Peresta, B. Drake, E. Sage, A. Martin, D. McKinley, and N. Mudd for the construction and maintenance of the field site at the Smithsonian Climate Change Facility. The field study was supported by the USGS Global Change Research Program (cooperative agreement 06ERAG0011), the US Department of Energy (DE-FG02-97ER62458), US Department of Energy’s Office of Science (BER) through the Coastal Center of the National Institute of Climate Change Research at Tulane University, the National Science Foundation’s Long-term Research Environmental Biology program (DEB-0950080) and Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program, and the Smithsonian Institution. Use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply endorsement by the US Government. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for the comments that greatly improved this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Forest Ecology and Biogeosciences, and Statistical Science, University of Idaho, PO Box 83844-1133, Moscow, ID, 83844, USA

    K. P. White

  2. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, PO Box 28, 647 Contees Wharf Road, Edgewater, MD, 21037, USA

    J. A. Langley & J. P. Megonigal

  3. Biology Department, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Ave, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    J. A. Langley

  4. US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, BARC—East Building 308, Beltsville, MD, 20705, USA

    D. R. Cahoon

Authors
  1. K. P. White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. A. Langley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. R. Cahoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. P. Megonigal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to J. A. Langley or J. P. Megonigal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

White, K.P., Langley, J.A., Cahoon, D.R. et al. C3 and C4 Biomass Allocation Responses to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen: Contrasting Resource Capture Strategies. Estuaries and Coasts 35, 1028–1035 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9500-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-012-9500-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation