Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 139–153 | Cite as

Above- and below-ground phytomass and net primary production in boreal mire ecosystems of Western Siberia

  • Natalia P. Kosykh
  • Natalia G. Koronatova
  • Natalia B. Naumova
  • Argenta A. Titlyanova
Original Paper

Abstract

We measured phytomass stock and production in Western Siberian mire ecosystems (palsa, ridge, oligotrophic and mesotrophic hollows, fen). To determine the contribution of different phytomass fractions into total production, we developed a method to estimate below-ground production (BNP). Standing crop of living above-ground phytomass on treeless plots varied from 300 to 660 g m−2, reaching maximum on palsa, where 81% of phytomass consisted of Sphagnum mosses and lichens. In the hollows and the fen, Sphagnum percentage varied from 70 to 95%. Standing crop of living below-ground phytomass varied from 325 to 1,210 g m−2. It consisted of woody stems, stem bases, rhizomes and roots, with the latter contributing from 30 to 60%. Total production of mire ecosystems in northern taiga of Western Siberia ranged from 350 to 960 g m−2 year−1 and depended on microtopography of the ecosystem (the presence of permafrost and water table depth). Production of treeless plant communities located on the elevated sites depended on the presence of permafrost: in comparison with the ridge, palsa production was lower. Production on the low sites increased with increase pH and reached maximum (960 g m−2 year−1) in poor fens. Bryophytes were the major producers above ground. Their production varied from 100 to 272 g m−2 year−1 and reached maximum on ridges. BNP contributed 37–66%, increasing due to increased contribution of sedges.

Keywords

Mire ecosystems Standing phytomass Sphagnum mosses Above-ground production Below-ground production Western Siberia 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We carried out this study with financial support from the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences and INTAS projects 99-01718, 03-51-6294. We are deeply grateful to the late Dr. Sergey V. Vasiliev for his leadership and inspiration.

References

  1. Aerts R, De Caluwe H (1994) Nitrogen use efficiency of Carex species in relation to nitrogen supply. Ecology 75:2362–2372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts R, De Caluwe H, Konings H (1992) Seasonal allocation of biomass and nitrogen in four Carex species from mesotrophic and eutrophic fens as affected by nitrogen supply. J. Ecol. 80:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alm J, Saarnio S, Nykдnen H, Silvola J, Martikainen PJ (2001) Atmospheric changes and carbon cycling in boreal peatlands. In: Vasiliev SV (ed) West Siberian peatlands and carbon cycle: past and present. Nauka, Novosibirsk, Russia, pp 69–71Google Scholar
  4. Arkhipov SA, Vdovin VV, Mizerov BV, Nikolaev VA (1970) Western Siberian plain. Nauka, Moskow, Russia (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Backēus I (1990) Production and depth distribution of fine roots in a boreal open bog. Annl Bot Fennici 27:261–265Google Scholar
  6. Backēus I (1985) Aboveground production and growth dynamics of vascular bog plants in Central Sweden. Acta Phytogeogr Suecica 74:5–102Google Scholar
  7. Bazilevich NI (1993) Biological productivity of Northern Eurasia ecosystems. Nauka, Moskow, Russia (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Bisbee KE, Gower ST, Norman JM, Nordheim EV (2001) Environmental controls on ground cover species composition and productivity in a boreal black spruce forest. Oecologia 129:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bleuten W (2001) Hydrology and hydrochemistry of 2 peatland key sites in West Siberia. In: Vasiliev SV (ed) West Siberian peatlands and carbon cycle: past and present. Nauka, Novosibirsk, Russia, pp 156–159Google Scholar
  10. Clymo RS (1970) The growth of Sphagnum: methods of measurement. J Ecol 58:13–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman DC (1976) A review of root production processes and their influence on soil biota in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Anderson JM, Macfadyen A (eds) The role of terrestrial and aquatic organisms in decomposition processes. Blackwell, USA, pp 417–434Google Scholar
  12. Elling AE, Knighton MD (1984) Sphagnum moss recovery after harvest in Minnesota bog. J Soil Water Conserv 39:209–211Google Scholar
  13. Gorham E (1991) Northern peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol Appl 1:182–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grigal DF (1985) Sphagnum production in forested bogs of northern Minnesota. Can J Bot 63:1204–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grogan P, Chapin FS III (2000) Initial effects of experimental warming on above- and below-ground components of net ecosystem CO2 exchange in arctic tundra. Oecologia 125:512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC Climate Change (1995) The science of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K (eds) Contribution of working group I to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–572Google Scholar
  17. Kosykh NP (2003) Peatland Ecosystems of the Taiga Zone in the Western Siberia: Phytomass and Production. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tomsk, Russia (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. Kosykh NP, Mironycheva-Tokareva NP, Bleuten W (2003) Productivity of peatlands in southern taiga of the Western Siberia. In: Proceedings of the trance-regional ecological conference “Comprehensive ecological exploration of Siberian landscapes”, Bulletin of Tomsk State University, Vol. 7. Tomsk, Russia, pp 142–153 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  19. Moore TR, Bubier JL, Frolking SE, Lafleur PM, Roulet NT (2002) Plant biomass and production and CO2 exchange in an ombtrotrophic bog. J Ecol 90:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pakarinen P, Gorham E (1983) Mineral element composition of Sphagnum fuscum peats collcted from Minnesota, Manitoba and Ontario. In: Proceedings of international symposium on peat utilization. Bemidji, MN, USA, pp 417–429Google Scholar
  21. Peregon A, Maksyuyov S, Kosykh N, Mironycheva-Tokareva N, Tamura M, Inoue G (2005) Application of the multi-scale remote sensing and GIS to mapping net primaryproductionin West Siberian wetlands. Phyton (Horn, Austria) 45(4):543-550Google Scholar
  22. Reader RJ, Stewart JM (1972) The relationship between net primary production and accumulation for a peatland in southern-eastern Manitoba. Ecology 53:1024–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reference book on climate of USSR (1972) Vol. 17, parts I, II, III, VIII. Omsk, USSR (in Russian)Google Scholar
  24. Saarinen T (1996) Biomass and production of two vascular plants in a boreal mesotrophic fen. Can J Bot 74:934–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheffer RA, Aerts R (2000) Root decomposition and soil nutrient and carbon cycling in two temperate fen ecosystems. Oikos 91:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Semenova NM, Lapshina ED (2001) Description of West Siberian plain. In: Bleuten W, Lapshina ED (eds) Carbon storage and atmospheric exchange by West Siberian peatlands. Tomsk, Russia, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  27. Solonevich NG (1971) To a question of technique of biological productivity definition of mire plant communities. Bot J 4:497–511 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  28. Thormann MN, Bayley SE (1997) Aboveground net primary production alog a bog-fen—marsh gradient in southern boreal Alberta, Canada. Ecoscience 4:374–384Google Scholar
  29. Titlyanova AA (1977) Biological turnover of carbon in grasslands. Nauka, Novosibirsk, Russia (in Russian)Google Scholar
  30. Titlyanova AA, Romanova IP, Kosykh NP, Mironycheva-Tokareva NP (1999) Pattern and processes in above-ground and below-ground components of herbsland ecosystems. J Veget Sci 10:307–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turunen J, Tomppo E, Tolonen K, Reinikainen A (2002) Estimating carbon accumulation rates of undrained mires in Finland—application to boreal and subarctic regions. Holocene 12:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Varlyguin DL, Liss OL (2001) Acrotelm carbon budget: research on the raised bogs of Central West Siberia. In: Vasiliev SV (ed) West Siberian peatlands and carbon cycle: past and present. Nauka, Novosibirsk, Russia, pp 139–142Google Scholar
  33. Vasander H (1981) Summary: plant biomass and production in an ombrotrophic raised bog. Suo 32:91–94Google Scholar
  34. Vasiliev SV, Kosykh NP, Mironycheva-Tokareva NP (2001) Actual carbon accumulation by crop measurement. In: Bleuten W, Lapshina ED (eds) Carbon storage and atmospheric exchange by West Siberian peatlands. Tomsk, Russia, pp 87–100Google Scholar
  35. Vasiliev SV, Peregon AM (2001) Total actual carbon acumulation in West Siberian Taiga zone. In: Bleuten W, Lapshina ED (eds) Carbon storage and atmospheric exchange by West Siberian peatlands. Tomsk, Russia, pp 101–104Google Scholar
  36. Verhoeven JTA, Arts HHM (1992) Carex litter decomposition and nutrient release in mires with different water chemistry. Aquat Bot 43:365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waddington JM, Rocheforrt L, Campeau S (2003) Sphagnum production and decomposition in a restored cutover peatland. Wetland Ecol Manage 11:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallēn B (1986) Above- and below-ground dry mass of the three main vascular plants on hummocks on a subarctic peat bog. Oikos 46:51–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallēn B (1992) Methods for studying below-ground production in mire ecosystems. Suo 43:155–162Google Scholar
  40. Walter H (1977) The oligotrophic peatlands of western Siberia.—The largest peinohelobiome in the world. Vegetatio 34:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weltzin JF, Harth C, Bridgham SD, Pastor J, Vonderharr M (2001) Production and micrototography of bog bryophytes: response to warming and water-table manipulations. Oecologia 128:557–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yefremov SP, Yefremova TT (2001) Present stocks of peat and organic carbon in bog ecosystems of West Siberia. In: Bleuten W, Lapshina ED (eds) Carbon storage and atmospheric exchange by West Siberian peatlands. Tomsk, Russia, pp 73–78Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia P. Kosykh
    • 1
  • Natalia G. Koronatova
    • 1
  • Natalia B. Naumova
    • 1
  • Argenta A. Titlyanova
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry, SB RASNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations