Plant and Soil

, Volume 165, Issue 1, pp 149–160

Modeling the belowground response of plants and soil biota to edaphic and climatic change—What can we expect to gain?

  • Stan D. Wullschleger
  • Jonathan P. Lynch
  • Glenn M Berntson
Modelling

Abstract

As atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase, so too will the emphasis placed on understanding the belowground response of plants to edaphic and climatic change. Controlled-exposure studies that address the significance of an increased supply of carbon to roots and soil biota, and the consequences of this to nutrient cycling will play a prominent role in this process. Models will also contribute to understanding the response of plants and ecosystems to changes in the earth's climate by incorporating experimental results into conceptual or quantitative frameworks from which potential feedbacks within the plant-soil system can be identified. Here we present five examples of how models can be used in this analysis and how they can contribute to the development of new hypotheses in the areas of root biology, soil biota, and ecosystem processes. Two examples illustrate the role of coarse and fine roots in nitrogen and phosphorus uptake from soils, the respiratory costs associated with this acquisition of nutrients, and the significance of root architecture in these relationships. Another example focuses on a conceptual model that has helped raise new ideas about the effects of elevated CO2 on root and microbial biomass, and on nutrient dynamics in the rhizosphere. Difficulties associated with modeling the contribution of mycorrhizal fungi to whole-plant growth are also discussed. Finally, several broad-scale models are used to illustrate the importance of root turnover, litter decomposition, and nitrogen mineralization in determining an ecosystem's response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. We conclude that models are appropriate tools for use both in guiding existing studies and in identifying new hypotheses for future research. Development of models that address the complexities of belowground processes and their role in determining plant and ecosystem function within the context of rising CO2 concentrations and associated climate change should be encouraged.

Key words

climate change CO2 enrichment modeling root biology soil biota 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ågren G I, McMurtrie, Parton W J, Pastor J and Shugart H H 1991 State-of-the-art of models of production-decomposition linkages in conifer and grassland ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 1, 118–138.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen C P and Rygiewicz P T 1991 Stress interactions and mycorrhizal plant response: Understanding carbon allocation priorities. Environ. Poll. 73, 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen C P, Laurence J A and Hogsett W E 1992 To what extent do mycorrhizae need to be considered in carbon budgets and process modeling efforts? In Proceedings 12th North American Forest Biology Workshop, The Role of Physiology and Genetics in Forest Ecosystem Research and Monitoring. p 145. August 17–20, Sault ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Bazzaz F A and McConnaughay K D M 1992 Plant-plant interactions in elevated CO2 environments. Aust. J. Bot. 40, 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berntson G M and Woodward F I 1992 The root system architecture and development of Senecio vulgaris in elevated CO2 and drought. Func. Ecol. 6, 324–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comins H N and McMurtrie R E 1993 Long-term biotic response of nutrient-limited forest ecosystems to CO2 enrichment; equilibrium behaviour of integrated plant-soil models. Ecol. Appl. (In press).Google Scholar
  7. Couteaux M-M, Mousseau M, Celerier M-L and Bottner P 1991 Increased atmospheric CO2 and litter quality: decomposition of sweet chestnut leaf litter with animal food webs of different complexities. Oikos 61, 54–64.Google Scholar
  8. Curtis P S, Drake B G and Whigham D F (1989) Nitrogen and carbon dynamics in C3 and C4 estuarine marsh plants grown under elevated CO2 in situ. Oecologia 78, 297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitter A H, Strickland T R, Harvey M L and Wilson G W 1991 Architectural analysis of plant root systems. 1. Architectural correlates of exploitation efficiency. New Phytol. 118, 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson I R (1990) Plant respiration in relation to growth, maintenance, ion uptake and nitrogen assimilation. Plant Cell Environ. 13, 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. King D A 1993 A model analysis of the influence of root and foliage allocation on forest production and competition between trees. Tree Physiol. 12, 119–135.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Körner C and Arnone J AIII 1992 Responses to elevated carbon dioxide in artificial tropical ecosystems. Science 257, 1672–1675.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. McGuire A D, Melillo J M, Joyce L A, Kicklighter D W, Grace A L, MooreIII B and Vorosmarty C J 1992 Interactions between carbon and nitrogen dynamics in estimating net primary productivity for potential vegetation in North America. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 6, 101–124.Google Scholar
  14. McMurtrie R E 1985 Forest productivity in relation to carbon partitioning and nutrient cycling: a mathematical model. In Attributes of Trees as Crop Plants, Eds. M G RCannell and J EJackson, pp 194–207. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, England.Google Scholar
  15. McMurtrie R E 1991 Relationship of forest productivity to nutrient and carbon supply—a modeling analysis. Tree Physiol. 9, 87–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller S L Durall D M and Rygiewicz 1989 Temporal allocation of 14C to extramatrical hyphae of ectomycorrhizal ponderosa pine seedlings. Tree Physiol. 5, 239–249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nielsen K L, Lynch J P, Jablokow A G and Curtis P S 1994 Carbon cost of root systems: an architectural approach. Plant and Soil (This volume).Google Scholar
  18. Norby R J, O'Neill E G and Luxmoore R J 1986a Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the growth and mineral nutrition of Quercus alba seedlings in nutrient-poor soil. Plant Physiol. 82, 83–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Norby R J, Pastor J and Melillo J M 1986b Carbon-nitrogen interactions in CO2-enriched white oak: physiological and long-term perspectives. Tree Physiol. 2, 233–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Norby R J, O'Neill E G, Hood W G and Luxmoore R J 1987 Carbon allocation, root exudation and mycorrhizal colonization of Pinus echinata seedlings grown under CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiol. 3, 203–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ojima D S, Kittle T G F, Rosswall T and Walker B H 1991 Critical issues for understanding global change effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 1, 316–325.Google Scholar
  22. O'Neill E G, Luxmoore R J and Norby R J 1987a Elevated atmospheric CO2 effects on seedling growth, nutrient uptake, and rhizosphere bacterial populations of Liriodendron tulipifera L. Plant and Soil 104, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O'Neill E G, Luxmoore R J and Norby R J 1987b Increases in mycorrhizal colonization and seedling growth in Pinus echinata and Quercus alba in an enriched CO2 atmosphere. Can. J. For. Res. 17, 878–883.Google Scholar
  24. O'Neill E G, O'Neill R V and Norby R J 1991 Hierarchy theory as a guide to mycorrhizal research on large-scale problems. Environ. Poll. 73, 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Post W M, Pastor J, King A W and Emanuel W R 1992 Aspects of the interaction between vegetation and soil under global change. Water Air Soil Poll. 64, 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raich J W, Rastetter E B, Melillo J M, Kicklighter D W, Steudler P A, Perterson B J, Grace A L, MooreIII B and Vorosmarty C J 1991 Potential net primary productivity in South America: Application of a global mode. Ecol. Appl. 1, 399–429.Google Scholar
  27. Rastetter E B, Ryan M G, Shaver G R, Melillo J M, Nadelhoffer K J, Hobbie J E and Aber J D 1991 A general biogeochemical model describing the responses of the C and N cycles in terrestrial ecosystems to changes in CO2, climate, and N deposition. Tree Physiol. 9, 101–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Reekie E G and Bazzaz F A 1989 Competition and patterns of resource use among seedlings of five tropical trees grown at ambient and elevated CO2. Oecologia 79, 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reid C P P 1990 Mycorrhiza. In The Rhizosphere. Ed. J Lynch. pp 281–315. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers H H, Prior S A and O'Neill E G 1992 Cotton root and rhizosphere responses to free-air CO2 enrichment. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 11, 251–263.Google Scholar
  31. Stulen I and denHertog J 1993 Root growth and functioning under atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Vegetatio 104/105, 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thornley J H M 1991 A transport-resistance model of forest growth and partitioning. Ann. Bot. 68, 211–226.Google Scholar
  33. Tolley L C and Strain B R 1984 Effects of CO2 enrichment and water stress on growth of Liquidambar styraciflua and Pinus taeda seedlings. Can. J. Bot. 62, 2135–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van derWerf A, Visser A J, Schieving F and Lambers H 1993 Evidence for optimal partitioning of biomass and nitrogen at a range of nitrogen availabilities for a fast- and slow-growing species. Funct. Ecol. 7, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weinstein D A, Beloin R M and Yanai R D 1991 Modeling changes in red spruce carbon balance and allocation in response to interacting ozone and nutrient stresses. Tree Physiol. 9, 127–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zak D R, Pregitzer K S, Curtis P S, Teeri J A, Fogel R and Randlett D L 1993 Elevated atmospheric CO2 and feedbacks between carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant and Soil 151, 105–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stan D. Wullschleger
    • 1
  • Jonathan P. Lynch
    • 2
  • Glenn M Berntson
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Sciences DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  2. 2.Department of HorticultureThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Biological LaboratoriesHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations