, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 699–714 | Cite as

Primary Productivity and Water Balance of Grassland Vegetation on Three Soils in a Continuous CO2 Gradient: Initial Results from the Lysimeter CO2 Gradient Experiment

  • Philip A. Fay
  • Alexia M. Kelley
  • Andrew C. Procter
  • Dafeng Hui
  • Virginia L. Jin
  • Robert B. Jackson
  • Hyrum B. Johnson
  • H. Wayne Polley


Field studies of atmospheric CO2 effects on ecosystems usually include few levels of CO2 and a single soil type, making it difficult to ascertain the shape of responses to increasing CO2 or to generalize across soil types. The Lysimeter CO2 Gradient (LYCOG) chambers were constructed to maintain a linear gradient of atmospheric CO2 (~250 to 500 μl l−1) on grassland vegetation established on intact soil monoliths from three soil series. The chambers maintained a linear daytime CO2 gradient from 263 μl l−1 at the subambient end of the gradient to 502 μl l−1 at the superambient end, as well as a linear nighttime CO2 gradient. Temperature variation within the chambers affected aboveground biomass and evapotranspiration, but the effects of temperature were small compared to the expected effects of CO2. Aboveground biomass on Austin soils was 40% less than on Bastrop and Houston soils. Biomass differences between soils resulted from variation in biomass of Sorghastrum nutans, Bouteloua curtipendula, Schizachyrium scoparium (C4 grasses), and Solidago canadensis (C3 forb), suggesting the CO2 sensitivity of these species may differ among soils. Evapotranspiration did not differ among the soils, but the CO2 sensitivity of leaf-level photosynthesis and water use efficiency in S. canadensis was greater on Houston and Bastrop than on Austin soils, whereas the CO2 sensitivity of soil CO2 efflux was greater on Bastrop soils than on Austin or Houston soils. The effects of soil type on CO2 sensitivity may be smaller for some processes that are tightly coupled to microclimate. LYCOG is useful for discerning the effects of soil type on the CO2 sensitivity of ecosystem function in grasslands.


carbon dioxide climate change grassland hydrology net primary productivity photosynthesis soil moisture soil respiration Solidago canadensis 



We thank A. Gibson, A. Griffith, K. Jones, C. Kolodziejczyk, A. Naranjo, K. Tiner, and scientists and staff involved in the previous CO2 gradients for their contributions to this experimental approach, and to the development of LYCOG and to this manuscript. R.B.J. acknowledges financial support from the Department of Energy’s Program for Ecosystem Research (#ER64242).


  1. Ainsworth EA, Long SP. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson LJ, Maherali H, Johnson HB, Polley HW, Jackson RB. 2001. Gas exchange and photosynthetic acclimation over subambient to elevated CO2 in a C-3-C-4 grassland. Global Change Biology 7: 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady NC, Weil RR2002. The nature and properties of soils. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.960p.Google Scholar
  4. Diamond DD, Smeins FE. 1984. Remnant grassland vegetation and ecological affinities of the upper costal prairie of Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 29: 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunne JA, Saleska SR, Fischer ML, Harte J. 2004. Integrating experimental and gradient methods in ecological climate change research. Ecology 85: 904–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein HE, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK. 2002. Regional patterns of decomposition and primary production rates in the US Great Plains. Ecology 83: 320–327.Google Scholar
  7. Fay PA, Carlisle JD, Knapp AK, Blair JM, Collins SL. 2003. Productivity responses to altered rainfall patterns in a C4-dominated grassland. Oecologia 137: 245–251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R. 2007. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Avery KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, editors. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p129–234.Google Scholar
  9. Gibson DJ, Hulbert LC. 1987. Effects of fire, topography and year-to-year climatic variation on species composition in tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio 72: 175–186.Google Scholar
  10. Gill RA, Anderson LJ, Polley HW, Johnson HB, Jackson RB. 2006. Potential nitrogen constraints on soil carbon sequestration under low and elevated atmospheric CO2. Ecology 87: 41–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gill RA, Polley HW, Johnson HB, Anderson LJ, Maherali H, Jackson RB. 2002. Nonlinear grassland responses to past and future atmospheric CO2. Nature 417: 279–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hagedorn F, Spinnler D, Bundt M, Blaser P, Siegwolf R. 2003. The input and fate of new C in two forest soils under elevated CO2. Global Change Biology 9: 862–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hassink J. 1996. Preservation of plant residues in soils differing in unsaturated protective capacity. Soil Science Society of America Journal 60: 487–491.Google Scholar
  14. Jenkinson DA. 1977. Studies on the decomposition of plant material in soil. Journal of Soil Science 28: 424–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson JMF, Barbour NW, Weyers SL. 2007. Chemical composition of crop biomass impacts its decomposition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:155–62Google Scholar
  16. Johnson HB, Polley HW, Mayeux HS. 1993. Increasing CO2 and plant-plant interactions: effects on natural vegetation. Vegetatio 104–105: 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson HB, Polley HW, Whitis RP. 2000. Elongated chambers for field studies across atmospheric CO2 gradients. Functional Ecology 14: 388–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kettler TA, Doran JW, Gilbert TL. 2001. Simplified method for soil particle-size determination to accompany soil-quality analyses. Soil Science Society of America Journal 65: 849–852.Google Scholar
  19. Kimball BA. 1992. Cost comparisons among free-air CO2 enrichment, open-top chamber, and sunlit controlled-environment chamber methods of CO2 exposure. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 11: 265–270.Google Scholar
  20. Lee JS, Usami T, Oikawa T. 2001. High performance of CO2-temperature gradient chamber newly built for studying the global warming effect on a plant population. Ecological Research 16: 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luo Y, Zhou X. 2006. Soil Respiration and the Environment. Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mayeux HS, Johnson HB, Polley HW, Dumesnil MJ, Spanel GA. 1993. A controlled environment chamber for growing plants across a subambient CO2 gradient. Functional Ecology 7: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mielnick PC, Dugas WA, Johnson HB, Polley HW, Sanabria J. 2001. Net grassland carbon flux over a subambient to superambient CO2 gradient. Global Change Biology 7: 747–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Noy-Meir I. 1973. Desert ecosystems: environment and producers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oades JM. 1988. The retention of organic matter in soils. Biogeochemistry 5: 35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paul EA, Morris SJ, Bohm S. 2001. The determination of soil C pool sizes and turnover rates: biophysical fractionation and tracers. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Follett RF, Stewart BA, Eds. Assessment methods for soil carbon. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p 193–206.Google Scholar
  27. Piper JK. 1995. Composition of prairie plant communities on productive versus unproductive sites in wet and dry years. Canadian Journal of Botany 73: 1635–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Derner JD. 2003. Increasing CO2 from subambient to superambient concentrations alters species composition and increases above-ground biomass in a C-3/C-4 grassland. New Phytologist 160: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Fay PA, Sanabria J. 2008. Initial response of evapotranspiration from tallgrass prairie vegetation to CO2 at subambient to elevated concentrations. Functional Ecology 22: 163–171.Google Scholar
  30. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS. 1992a. Carbon dioxide and water fluxes of C3 annuals and C4 perennials at subambient CO2 concentrations. Functional Ecology 6: 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS. 1992b. Growth and gas exchange of oats (Avena sativa) and wild mustard (Brassica kaber) at subambient CO2 concentrations. International Journal of Plant Sciences 153: 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Marino BD, Mayeux HS. 1993a. Increase in C3 plant water-use efficiency and biomass over Glacial to present CO2 concentrations. Nature 361: 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS, Malone SR. 1993b. Physiology and growth of wheat across a subambient carbon dioxide gradient. Annals of Botany 71: 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS. 1994. Increasing CO2: comparative responses of the C4 grass Schizachyrium and grassland invader Prosopis. Ecology 75: 976–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS. 1995. Nitrogen and water requirements of C3 plants grown at glacial to present carbon dioxide concentrations. Functional Ecology 9: 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polley HW, Johnson HB, Mayeux HS, Brown DA, White JWC. 1996. Leaf and plant water use efficiency of C4 species grown at glacial to elevated CO2 concentrations. International Journal of Plant Sciences 157: 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rawson HM, Gifford RM, Condon BN. 1995. Temperature gradient chambers for research on global environment change. I. Portable chambers for research on short-stature vegetation. Plant Cell and Environment 18: 1048–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers A, Ainsworth EA, Kammann C. 2006. FACE Value: Perspectives on the Future of Free-Air CO2 Enrichment Studies. Nosberger J, Long SP, Norby RJ, Stitt M, editors. Managed Ecosystems and CO2: Case Studies, Processes, and Perspectives. Berlin: Springer. p431–449.Google Scholar
  39. SAS Institute Inc The SAS System for Windows. [9.1.3]. 2003. Cary, NC, SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  40. Ward JK, Tissue DT, Thomas RB, Strain BR. 1999. Comparative responses of model C3 and C4 plants to drought in low and elevated CO2. Global Change Biology 5: 857–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© GovernmentEmployee: USDA Agricultural Research Service 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip A. Fay
    • 1
  • Alexia M. Kelley
    • 2
  • Andrew C. Procter
    • 2
  • Dafeng Hui
    • 3
  • Virginia L. Jin
    • 1
  • Robert B. Jackson
    • 2
  • Hyrum B. Johnson
    • 1
  • H. Wayne Polley
    • 1
  1. 1.USDA-ARS Grassland Soil and Water Research LaboratoryTempleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth SciencesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesTennessee State UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations