Comparison of different approaches of radiation use efficiency of biomass formation estimation in Mountain Norway spruce
- 317 Downloads
Radiation use efficiency values estimation based on the biomass increment (one approach) and on NPP from eddy covariance (two approaches) estimation of NPP brings the values of 0.13, 0.40, and 0.47 g (C) MJ −1 , respectively.
The productivity of terrestrial ecosystems is primarily reliant on the absorption of solar radiation energy and its conversion into biomass. Monteith (1977) first introduced the concept of radiation use efficiency (RUE), which expresses the effectiveness of a plant stand to use solar radiation for the formation of new biomass and to maintain existing biomass. The presented paper uses a long-term, decadal, time series of biomass data, which is based on forest inventory data and an allometric relation, and on the application of eddy covariance (EC) estimation of Net Primary Production (NPP). These approaches provide different values of light use efficiency (LUE). LUE is based on direct carbon exchange estimation, LUE i , which denotes instantaneous efficiency based on the relationship between the daily sum of incident global radiation (GR i ) and NPP and LUES, calculated as the ratio between the sum of NPP and the sum of GR i per growing season. RUE is based on direct yearly biomass increment expressed in carbon units (carbon = 0.5 × biomass) divided by the sum of GR i per year. The obtained values amount to 0.13, 0.40, and 0.47 g(C) MJ−1 for RUE, LUES, and LUE i , respectively. The higher value of LUE i reflects a direct relation with the efficiency of photosynthetic carbon pumping. In contrast, the RUE value, based on biomass inventories, is the result of woody mass formation that is caused by several mutually related physiological processes and “wastages” of radiation utilization.
KeywordsSolar radiation Biomass increment Carbon flux light use efficiency
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), Grant Number LO1415 and within the CzeCOS program, Grant Number LM2015061. Authors thank Alice Dvorská for the initial cooperation and useful remarks. We also thank Ryan McGloin for valuable language corrections.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All benefits from a state or commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript and to the authors are acknowledged.
- Aubinet M, Grelle A, Ibrom A, Rannik Ü, Moncrieff J, Foken T, Kowalski AS, Martin PH, Berbigier P, Bernhofer Ch, Clement R, Elbers J, Granier A, Grünwald T, Morgenstern K, Pilegaard K, Rebmann C, Snijders W, Valentini R, Vesala T (2000) Estimates of the Antal net carbon and water exchange of European forests: the EUROFLUX methodology. Adv Ecol Res 30:113–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chapin FS III, Woodwell GM, Randerson JT, Rastetter EB, Lovett GM, Baldocchi DD, Clark DA, Harmon ME, Schimel DS, Valentini R, Wirth C, Aber JD, Cole JJ, Goulden ML, Harden JW, Heimann M, Howarth RW, Matson PA, McGuire AD, Melillo JM, Mooney HA, Neff JC, Houghton RA, Pace ML, Ryan MG, Running SW, Sala OE, Schlesinger WH, Schulze ED (2006) Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems 9:1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coombs J, Hall DO, Long SP, Scurlock JMO (1985) Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Dungan RJ, Whitehead D (2006) Modelling environmental limits to light use efficiency for a canopy of two broad-leaved tree species with contrasting leaf habit. NZJ Ecol 30:251–259Google Scholar
- Formánek P, Rejšek K, Vránová V, Klejdus B (2008) Selected diamino acids in soils of differently managed mountain meadow and forest ecosystems: assessment of their role in the ecosystem nutrition. In: Schäfer HA, Wohlbier LM (eds) Diamino Amino Acids, 2nd edn. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 182–218Google Scholar
- Geider RJ, Delucia EH, Falkowski PG, Finzi AC, Grime JP, Grace J, Kana TM, La Roche J, Long SP, Osborne BA, Platt T, Prentice IC, Raven JA, Schlesinger WH, Smetacek V, Stuart V, Sathyendranath S, Thomas RB, Vogelmann TC, Williams P, Woodward FI (2001) Primary productivity of planet earth: biological determinants and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Glob Chang Biol 7:849–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Grace JC, Jarvis PG, Norman JM (1987) Modelling the interception of solar energy in intensively managed stands. NZJ For Sci 17:193–209Google Scholar
- Kratochvílová I, Janouš D, Marek MV, Barták M, Říha L (1989) Production activity of mountain cultivated Norway spruce stands under the impact of air pollution. 1. General description of problems. Ekol CSFR 8:407–419Google Scholar
- Landsberg JJ, Sands P (2010) Physiological ecology of forest production: principles, processes and models. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Linder S (1985) Potential and actual production in Australian forest stands. In: Landsberg JJ, Parson W (eds) Research for forest management. CSIRO, Melbourne, pp 11–35Google Scholar
- Luyssaert S, Inglima I, Jung M, Richardson AD, Reichstein M, Pappale D, PIiao SL, Schulze ED, Wingate L, Matteuci G, Aragao L, Aubinet M, Beer C, Bernhofer C, Black KG, Bonal D, Bonnefond JM, Chambers J, Ciais P, Cook B, Davis KJ, Dolman AJ, Gielen B, Goulden M, Grace J, Granier A, Grelle A, Griffis T, Grünwald T, Guidolotti G, Hanson PJ, Harding R, Hollinger DY, Hutyra IR, Kolari P, Kruijt B, Kutsch W, Lagergren F, Laurila T, Law BE, le Maire G, Lindroth A, Loustau D, Malhi Y, Mateus J, Migliavacca J, Misson I, Montagnani I, Moncrieff J, Moors E, Munger JW, Nnikinmaa E, Ollinger SV, Pita G, Rebmann C, Roupsard O, Saigusa N, Sanz MJ, Ssierra C, Smith ML, Tang J, Valentini R, Vesala T, Janssens IA (2007) CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob Chang Biol 13:2509–2537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marek MV, Pirochtová M, Marková I (1992) Production activity of mountain cultivated Norway spruce stands under the impact of air pollution. 2. Vertical distribution of photosynthetic activity in the stand canopy. Ekol CSFR 11:121–132Google Scholar
- Marek MV, Marková I, Kalina J, Janouš D (1997) Effect of thinning on parameters of photosynthesis characteristics of Norway spruce canopy 1: Light penetration and photosynthesis. Lesnictvi (Prague) 43:141–153Google Scholar
- Marek MV, Šprtová M, Špunda V, Kalina J (1999) Response of sun versus shade foliage photosynthesis to radiation in Norway spruce. Phyton 39:131–138Google Scholar
- Marková I, Rožnovský J, Janous D (2003) Evaluation and reconstruction of global radiation at Bílý Kříž (The Czech Republic). Ekol Bratislava 22:85–97Google Scholar
- Pokorný R, Tomášková I (2007) Allometric relationships for surface area and dry mass of Norway spruce aboveground organs. J For Sci 53:548–554Google Scholar
- Trnka M, Eitzinger J, Hlavinka P et al (2009) Climate-driven changes of production regions in Central Europe. Plant Soil Environ 55:257–266Google Scholar
- Turner DP, Gower ST, Cohen WB et al (2002) Effects of spatial variability in light use efficiency on satellite based NPP model monitoring. Remote Sens 80:397–405Google Scholar
- Yuan W, Liu S, Zhou G, Tieszen LL, Baldocchi D, Bernhofer C, Gholz H, Goldstein AH, Goulden ML, David Y, Hollinger DY, Hu Y, Lawn BE, Stoy PC, Vesala T, Wofsy SC (2007) Deriving a light use efficiency model from eddy covariance flux data for predicting daily gross primary production across biomes. Agric For Meteorol 143:189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar