Date: 01 May 2012
C3 and C4 Biomass Allocation Responses to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen: Contrasting Resource Capture Strategies
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
Aerts, R. 1989. Above-ground biomass and nutrient dynamics of Calluna vulgaris and Molinia caerulea in a dry heathland. Oikos 56: 31–38.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Bazzaz, F.A. 1990. The response of natural ecosystems to the rising global CO2 levels. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 167–196.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Craine, J.M. 2009. Resource strategies of wild plants. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Ehleringer, J.R., R.F. Sage, et al. 1991. Climate change and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6: 95–99.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
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.
Leonard, L.A., and M.E. Luther. 1995. Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies. Limnology and Oceanography 40: 1474–1484.CrossRef
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.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Hoboken: Wiley.
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.CrossRef
Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, et al. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83: 2869–2877.CrossRef
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.
Nyman, J.A., R.J. Walters, et al. 2006. Marsh vertical accretion via vegetative growth. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 370–380.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Redfield, A.C. 1965. Ontogeny of a salt marsh estuary. Science 147: 50–55.CrossRef
Reed, D.J. 1995. Sediment dynamics, deposition and erosion in temperate salt marshes. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 295–295.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Stokstad, E. 2009. Obama moves to revitalize Chesapeake Bay restoration. Science 324(5931): 1138–1139.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Tilman, D., and D. Wedin. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for 5 grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72: 685–700.CrossRef
Turner, R.E. 2004. Coastal wetland subsidence arising from local hydrologic manipulations. Estuaries 27: 265–272.CrossRef
Turner, R.E. 2011. Beneath the salt marsh canopy: Loss of soil strength with increasing nutrient loads. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1084–1093.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
- C3 and C4 Biomass Allocation Responses to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen: Contrasting Resource Capture Strategies
Estuaries and Coasts
Volume 35, Issue 4 , pp 1028-1035
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Chesapeake Bay
- Sea level rise
- Tidal marsh
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Departments of Forest Ecology and Biogeosciences, and Statistical Science, University of Idaho, PO Box 83844-1133, Moscow, ID, 83844, USA
- 2. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, PO Box 28, 647 Contees Wharf Road, Edgewater, MD, 21037, USA
- 3. Biology Department, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Ave, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA
- 4. US Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, BARC—East Building 308, Beltsville, MD, 20705, USA