Ecosystems

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 26–44 | Cite as

Using Light-Use and Production Efficiency Models to Predict Photosynthesis and Net Carbon Exchange During Forest Canopy Disturbance

  • Bruce D. Cook
  • Paul V. Bolstad
  • Jonathan G. Martin
  • Faith Ann Heinsch
  • Kenneth J. Davis
  • Weiguo Wang
  • Ankur R. Desai
  • Ron M. Teclaw
Article

Abstract

Vegetation growth models are used with remotely sensed and meteorological data to monitor terrestrial carbon dynamics at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Many of these models are based on a light-use efficiency equation and two-component model of whole-plant growth and maintenance respiration that have been parameterized for distinct vegetation types and biomes. This study was designed to assess the robustness of these parameters for predicting interannual plant growth and carbon exchange, and more specifically to address inconsistencies that may arise during forest disturbances and the loss of canopy foliage. A model based on the MODIS MOD17 algorithm was parameterized for a mature upland hardwood forest by inverting CO2 flux tower observations during years when the canopy was not disturbed. This model was used to make predictions during a year when the canopy was 37% defoliated by forest tent caterpillars. Predictions improved after algorithms were modified to scale for the effects of diffuse radiation and loss of leaf area. Photosynthesis and respiration model parameters were found to be robust at daily and annual time scales regardless of canopy disturbance, and differences between modeled net ecosystem production and tower net ecosystem exchange were only approximately 2 g C m−2 d−1 and less than 23 g C m−2 y−1. Canopy disturbance events such as insect defoliations are common in temperate forests of North America, and failure to account for cyclical outbreaks of forest tent caterpillars in this stand could add an uncertainty of approximately 4–13% in long-term predictions of carbon sequestration.

Keywords

Malacosoma disstria Hübner primary production ecosystem respiration quantum efficiency carbon utilization efficiency MODIS. 

List of symbols

APAR

absorbed photosynthetically active radiation

Cl

carbon, leaf

Ct

carbon, total ecosystem

CI

cloudiness index

ɛ

photosynthetic light-use efficiency

GPP

gross primary production

LAI

leaf area index

NEP

net ecosystem production

Rb

respiration, base

Re

respiration, total ecosystem

RFTC

respiration, forest tent caterpillars

Rg

respiration, growth

Rh

respiration, heterotrophic

Rm(l)

respiration, leaf maintenance

Tmin

temperature, minimum daily canopy air

Ts

temperature, soil

VPD

vapor pressure deficit, mean daytime

References

  1. Aalto T, Ciais P, Chevillard A, Moulin C. 2004. Optimal determination of the parameters controlling biospheric CO2 fluxes over Europe using eddy covariance fluxes and satellite NDVI measurements. Tellus 56B:93–104Google Scholar
  2. Ahl DE, Gower ST, Mackay DS, Burrows SN, Norman JM, Diak GR. 2004. Heterogeneity of light use efficiency in a northern Wisconsin forest: implications for modeling net primary production with remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 93:168–78Google Scholar
  3. Allen CB, Will RE, McGarvey RC, Coyle DR, Coleman MD. 2005. Radiation-Use efficiency and gas exchange responses to water and nutrient availability in irrigated and fertilized stands of sweetgum and sycamore. Tree Physiol 25:191–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Alton PB, North PR, Los SO. 2007. The impact of diffuse sunlight on canopy light-use efficiency, gross photosynthetic product and net ecosystem exchange in three forest biomes. Glob Change Biol 13:776–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amiro BD, Barr AG, Black TA, Iwashita H, Kljun N, McCaughey JH, Morgenstern K, Murayama S, Nesic Z, Orchansky AL, Saigusa N. 2006. Carbon, energy and water fluxes at mature and disturbed forest sites, Saskatchewan, Canada. Agr Forest Meteorol 136:237–51Google Scholar
  6. Amthor JS. 1989. Respiration and crop productivity. Springer, New York. p 215Google Scholar
  7. Amthor JS. 2000. The McCree–deWitt–Penning de Vries–Thornley respiration paradigms: 30 years later. Ann Bot 86:1–20Google Scholar
  8. Anten NPR, Ackerly DD. 2001. Canopy-level photosynthetic compensation after defoliation in a tropical understorey palm. Funct Ecol 15:252–62Google Scholar
  9. Anton NPR, Martínez-Ramos M, Ackerly DD. 2003. Defoliation and growth in an understory palm: quantifying the contributions of compensatory responses. Ecology 84:2905–18Google Scholar
  10. Ayres MP, Lombardero MJ. 2000. Assessing the consequences of global change for forest disturbance from herbivores and pathogens. Sci Total Environ 262:263–86PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Baldocchi D, Tang J, Xu L. 2006. How switches and lags in biophysical regulators affect spatial-temporal variation of soil respiration in an oak-grass savanna. J Geophys Res 111:G02008. DOI 10.1029/2005JG000063Google Scholar
  12. Belsky AJ. 1986. Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. Am Nat 127:870–92Google Scholar
  13. Bird RE, Hulstrom RL. 1981. A simplified clear sky model for direct and diffuse insolation on horizontal surfaces. SERI Technical Report SERI/TR−642–761. Solar Energy Research Institute, GoldenGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolstad PV, Davis KJ, Martin J, Cook BD, Wang W. 2004. Component and whole-system repiration fluxes in northern deciduous forests. Tree Physiol 24:493–504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Zogg GP, Zak DR. 1997. Effect of measurement CO2 concentration on sugar maple root respiration. Tree Physiol 17:421–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Burton AJ, Pregitzer KS, Zogg GP, Zak DR. 1998. Drought reduces root respiration in sugar maple forests. Ecol Appl 8:771–78Google Scholar
  17. Bréda NJJ. 2003. Ground based measurements of leaf area index: a review of methods, instruments and current controversies. J Exp Bot 54:2403–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell GA, Norman JM. 1989. The description and measurement of plant canopy structure. In: Russell G et al. (eds.) Plant Canopies: Their Growth, Form and Function. Cambridge University Press, Society for Experimental Biology, Series 31. pp 1–19Google Scholar
  19. Campbell GS, Norman JM. 1998. An introduction to environmental biophysics, 2nd edn. Springer, New York. p 286Google Scholar
  20. Cannell MGR, Thornley JHM. 2000. Modelling the components of plant respiration: Some guiding principles. Ann Bot 85:45–54Google Scholar
  21. Cannell MGR, Milne R, Sheppard LJ, Unsworth MH. 1987. Radiation interception and productivity of willow. J Appl Ecol 24:261–78Google Scholar
  22. Chen JM, Black TA. 1992. Defining leaf area index for non-flat leaves. Plant Cell Environ 15:421–29Google Scholar
  23. Cook BD, Davis KJ, Wang W, Desai A, Berger BW, Teclaw RM, Martin JG, Bolstad PV, Bakwin PS, Yi C, Heilman W. 2004. Carbon exchange and venting anomalies in an upland deciduous forest in northern Wisconsin, USA. Agr Forest Meteorol 126:271–95Google Scholar
  24. Cooke BJ, Roland J. 2000. Spatial analysis of large-scale patterns of forest tent caterpillar outbreaks. Ecoscience 7:410–22Google Scholar
  25. Dannoura M, Kominami Y, Tamai K, Jomura M, Miyama T, Goto Y, Kanazawa Y. 2006. Development of an automatic chamber system for long-term measurements of CO2 flux from roots. Tellus 58B:502–12Google Scholar
  26. Dewar RC. 1996. The correlation between plant growth and intercepted radiation: an interpretation in terms of optimal plant nitrogen content. Ann Bot 78:125–36Google Scholar
  27. Ellsworth DS, Reich PB. 1993. Canopy structure and vertical patterns of photosynthesis and related leaf traits in a deciduous forest. Oecologia 96:169–78Google Scholar
  28. Escudero A, Mediavilla S. 2003. Decline in photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency with leaf age and nitrogen resorption as determinants of leaf life span. J Ecol 91:880–89Google Scholar
  29. Evans JR, Poorter H. 2001. Photosynthetic acclimation of plants to growth irradiance: the relative importance of specific leaf area and nitrogen partitioning in maximizing carbon gain. Plant Cell Environ 24:755–67Google Scholar
  30. Fitzgerald TD. 1995. The tent caterpillars. Comstock Publishing Associates, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  31. Franklin O. 2007. Optimal nitrogen allocation controls tree responses to elevated CO2. New Phytol 174:811–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Frelich LE. 2002. Forest dynamics and disturbance regimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 276Google Scholar
  33. Gifford RM. 2003. Plant respiration in productivity models: conceptualisation, representation, and issues for global terrestrial carbon-cycle research. Funct Plant Biol 30:171–86Google Scholar
  34. Goetz SJ, Prince SD. 1998. Variability in carbon exchange and light utilization among boreal forest stands: implications for remote sensing of net primary production. Can J Forest Res 28:375–89Google Scholar
  35. Goetz SJ, Prince SD. 1999. Modelling terrestrial carbon exchange and storage: evidence and implications of functional convergence in light-use efficiency. Adv Ecol Res 28:57–92Google Scholar
  36. Goetz SJ, Prince SD, Goward SN, Thawley MM, Small J. 1999. Satellite remote sensing of primary production: an Improved production efficiency modeling approach. Ecol Model 122:239–55Google Scholar
  37. Gower ST, Kucharik CJ, Norman JM. 1999. Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, \( f_{{APAR}} \), and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens Environ 70:29–51Google Scholar
  38. Grace JR. 1986. The influence of gypsy moth on the composition and nutrient content of litter fall in a Pennsylvania oak forest. Forest Sci 32:855–870Google Scholar
  39. Green DS, Erickson JE, Kruger EL. 2003. Foliar morphology and canopy nitrogen as predictors of light-use efficiency in terrestrial vegetation. Agr Forest Meteorol 115:163–71Google Scholar
  40. Gross HL. 1991. Dieback and growth loss of sugar maple associated with defoliation by the forest tent caterpillar. Forest Chron 76:33–42Google Scholar
  41. Gu L, Fuentes JD, Shugart HH, Staebler RM, Black TA. 1999. Response of net ecosystem exchanges of carbon dioxide to changes in cloudiness: results from two North American deciduous forests. J Geophys Res 104(D24):31421–434Google Scholar
  42. Hall RJ, Fernandes RA, Hogg EH, Brandt JP, Butson C, Case BS, Leblanc SGl. 2003. Relating aspen defoliation to changes in leaf area derived from field and satellite remote sensing data. Can J Forest Res 29:299–313Google Scholar
  43. Hanson PJ, Edwards NT, Garten CT, Andrews JA. 2000. Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry 48:115–46Google Scholar
  44. Haxeltine A, Prentice IC. 1996. A General model for the light-use efficiency of primary production. Funct Ecol 10:551–61Google Scholar
  45. Heichel GH, Turner NC. 1983. CO2 assimilation of primary and regrowth foliage of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and red oak (Quercus rubra L.): response to defoliation. Oecologia 57:14–19Google Scholar
  46. Heinsch FA, Reeves MC, Votava P, Kang S, Milesi C, Zhao M, Glassy J, Jolly WM, Loehman R, Bowker CF, Kimball JS, Nemani RR, Running SW. 2003. User’s Guide: GPP and NPP (MOD17A2/A3) Products, NASA MODIS Land Algorithm. University of Montana, MissoulaGoogle Scholar
  47. Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Running SW, Kimball JS, Nemani RR, Davis KJ, Bolstad PV, Cook BD, Desai AR, Ricciuto DM, Law BE, Oechel WC, Kwon H, Luo H, Wofsy SC, Dunn AL, Munger JW, Baldocchi DD, Xu L, Hollinger DY, Richardson AD, Stoy PC, Siqueira MBS, Monson RK, Burns SP, Flanagan LB. 2006. Evaluation of remote sensing based terrestrial productivity from MODIS using regional tower eddy flux network observations. IEEE T Geosci Remote 44:1908–25Google Scholar
  48. Hirose T. 2005. Development of the Monsi-Saeki theory on canopy structure and function. Ann Bot 95:483–94PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Hogg EH, Brandt JP, Kochtubajda B. 2002a. Growth and dieback of aspen forests in northwestern Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Can J Forest Res 32:823–32Google Scholar
  50. Hogg EH, Hart M, Lieffers VJ. 2002b. White tree rings formed in trembling aspen saplings following experimental defoliation. Can J Forest Res 32:1929–34Google Scholar
  51. Hunt ER, Fahnestock JT, Kelly RD, Welker JM, Reiners WA, Smith WK. 2002. Carbon sequestration from remotely-sensed NDVI and net ecosystem exchange. In: Muttiah RS, et al. (eds) Laboratory spectroscopy to remotely sensed spectra of terrestrial ecosystems. Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp 161–74Google Scholar
  52. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2001. Climate Change 2001. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p 881Google Scholar
  53. Ito A, Oikawa T. 2004. Global mapping of terrestrial primary productivity and light-use efficiency with a process-based model. In: Shiyomi M, Kawahata H, Koizumi H, Tsuda A, Awaya Y (eds) Global environmental change in the ocean and on land. TERRAPUB, Tokyo. pp 343–58Google Scholar
  54. Jurik TW. 1986. Seasonal patterns of leaf photosynthetic capacity in successional northern hardwood tree species. Am J Bot 73:131–38Google Scholar
  55. Kosola KR, Dickmann DI, Paul EA. 2001. Repeated insect defoliation effects of growth, nitrogen acquisition, carbohydrates, and root demography of poplars. Oecologia 129:65–74Google Scholar
  56. Kucharik CJ, Norman JM, Gower ST. 1998. Measurements of branch area and adjusting leaf area index indirect measurements. Agr Forest Meteorol 91:69–88Google Scholar
  57. Kull O. 2002. Acclimation of photosynthesis in canopies: models and limitations. Oecologia 133:267–279 Google Scholar
  58. Kull O, Jarvis PG. 1995. The Role of nitrogen in a simple scheme to scale up photosynthesis from leaf to canopy. Plant Cell Environ 18:1174–82Google Scholar
  59. Kyriakidis PC, Dungan JL. 2001. A Geostatistical approach for mapping thematic classification accuracy and evaluating the impact of inaccurate spatial data on ecological model predictions. Environ Ecol Stat 8:311–30Google Scholar
  60. Lavigne MB, Ryan MG. 1997. Growth and maintenance respiration rates of aspen, black spruce and jack pine stems at northern and southern BOREAS sites. Tree Physiol 17:543–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Law BE, Falge E, Gu L, Baldocchi DD, Bakwin P, Berbigier P, Davis K, Dolman AJ, Falk M, Fuentes JD, Goldstein A, Granier A, Grelle A, Hollinger D, Janssens IA, Jarvis P, Jensen NO, Katul G, Mahli Y, Matteucci G, Meyers T, Monson R, Munger W, Oechel W, Olson R, Pilegaard K, Paw UKT, Thorgeirsson H, Valentini R, Verma S, Vesala T, Wilson K, Wofsy S. 2002. Environmental controls over carbondioxide and water vapor exchange of terrestrial vegetation. Agr Forest Meteorol 113:97–120Google Scholar
  62. Liebhold AM, Halverson JA, Elmes GA. 1992. Gypsy moth invasion in North America: a quantitative analysis. J Biogeogr 19:513–20Google Scholar
  63. Lindroth RL, Kinney KK, Platz CL. 1993. Responses of deciduous trees to elevated atmospheric CO2: productivity, phytochemistry, and insect performance. Ecology 74:763–77Google Scholar
  64. Lobell DB, Hicke JA, Asner GP, Field CB, Tucker CJ, Los SO. 2002. Satellite estimates of productivity and light use efficiency in United States agriculture, 1982–98. Glob Change Biol 8:722–35Google Scholar
  65. Lovett GM, Tobiessen P. 1993. Carbon and nitrogen assimilation in red oaks (Quercus rubra L.) subject to defoliation and nitrogen stress. Tree Physiol 12:259–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Lovett GM, Christenson LM, Groffman PM, Jones CG, Hart JE, Mitchell MJ. 2002. Insect defoliation and nitrogen cycling in forests. BioScience 52:335–41Google Scholar
  67. Luo Y, White LW, Canadell JG, DeLucia EH, Ellsworth DS, Finzi A, Lichter J, Schlesinger WH. 2003. Sustainability of terrestrial carbon sequestration: a case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach. Global Biogeochem Cybern 17:1021. DOI 10.1029/2002GB001923Google Scholar
  68. Mattson WJ, Addy ND. 1975. Phytophagous insects as regulators of forest primary production. Science 190:515–22Google Scholar
  69. McMillen GG, McClendon JH. 1979. Leaf angle: an adaptive feature of sun and shade leaves. Bot Gaz 140:437–42Google Scholar
  70. McCree KJ. 1970. An Equation for the rate of respiration of white clover plants grown under controlled conditions. In: Setlik I (ed) Prediction and measurement of photosynthetic productivity. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen. pp 221–29Google Scholar
  71. McCree KJ. 1988. Sensitivity of sorghum grain yield to ontogenetic changes in respiration coefficients. Crop Sci 28:114–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Medyln BE. 1998. Physiological basis of the light use efficiency model. Tree Physiol 18:167–76Google Scholar
  73. Mooney HA, Gulmon SL. 1982. Constraints on leaf structure and function in reference to herbivory. BioScience 32:198–206Google Scholar
  74. Monsi M, Saeki T. 2005. On the factor light in plant communities and its importance for matter production. Ann Bot 95:549–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Monteith J. 1972. Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 9:747–66Google Scholar
  76. Myneni RB, Hoffman S, Knyazikhim Y, Privette JL, Glassy J, Tian Y, Wang Y, Song X, Zhang Y, Smith GR, Lotsch A, Friedl M, Morisette JT, Votava P, Nemani RR, Running SW. 2002. Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens Environ 83:214–31Google Scholar
  77. Naidu SL, DeLucia EH. 1997. Acclimation of shade-developed leaves on saplings exposed to late-season canopy gaps. Tree Physiology 17:367–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Nemani RR, Keeling CD, Hashimoto H, Jolly WM, Piper SC, Tucker CJ, Myneni RB, Running SW. 2003. Climate-driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999. Science 300:1560–63PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Neumann HH, Hartog GD, Shaw RH. 1989. Leaf area measurements based on hemispheric photographs and leaf-litter collection I a deciduous forest during autumn leaf-fall. Agr Forest Meteorol 45:325–45Google Scholar
  80. Parker J, Houston DR. 1971. Effects of repeated defoliation on root and root collar extractives of sugar maple trees. Forest Sci 17:91–5Google Scholar
  81. Potter CS, Randerson JT, Field CB, Matson PA, Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Klooster SA. 1993. Terrestrial ecosystem production: a process model based on global satellite and surface data. Global Biogeochem Cybern 7:811–41Google Scholar
  82. Potter C, Klooster S, Myneni R, Genovese V, Tan PN, Kumar V. 2003. Continental-scale comparisons of terrestrial carbon sinks estimated from satellite data and ecosystem modeling 1982–1998. Global Planet Change 39:201–13Google Scholar
  83. Pregitzer KW, King JS, Burton AJ, Brown SE. 2000. Response of tree fine roots to temperature. New Phytol 147:105–15Google Scholar
  84. Prince SD, Goward SN. 1995. Global primary production: a remote sensing approach. J Biogeogr 22:815–835Google Scholar
  85. Rambal S, Joffre R, Ourcival JM, Cavender-Bares J, Rocheteau A. 2004. The growth respiration component in eddy CO2 flux from a Quercus ilex Mediterranean forest. Global Change Biol 10:1460–69Google Scholar
  86. Randerson JT, Chapin FS III, Harden JW, Neff JC, Harmon ME. 2002. Net ecosystem production: a comprehensive measure of net carbon accumulation by ecosystems. Ecol Appl 12:937–47Google Scholar
  87. Raske AG. 1975. Cold-Hardiness of first instar larvae of the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria. Can Entomol 107:75–80Google Scholar
  88. Reich PB, Walter MB, Ellsworth DS. 1991. Leaf age and season influence the relationships between leaf nitrogen, leaf mass per area and photosynthesis in maple and oak trees. Plant Cell Environ 14:251–59Google Scholar
  89. Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS, Vose JM, Volia JC, Gresham C, Bowman WD. 1998. Relationships of leaf dark respiration to leaf nitrogen, specific leaf area and leaf like-span: a test across biomes and functional groups. Oecologia 114:471–82Google Scholar
  90. Reynolds BC, Hunter MD. 2001. Responses of soil respiration, soil nutrients, and litter decomposition to inputs from canopy herbivores. Soil Biol Biochem 33:1641–52Google Scholar
  91. Roland J. 1993. Large-Scale forest fragmentation increases the duration of tent caterpillar outbreaks. Oecologia 93:25–30Google Scholar
  92. Rosati A, DeJong TM. 2003. Estimating photosynthetic radiation use efficiency using incident light and photosynthesis of individual leaves. Ann Bot 91:869–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Ruimy A, Jarvis PG, Baldocchi DD, Saugier B. 1995. CO2 fluxes over plant canopies and solar radiation: a review. Adv Ecol Res 26:1–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ruimy A, Kergoat L, Field CB, Saugier B. 1996. The Use of CO2 flux measurements in models of the global terrestrial carbon budget. Glob Change Biol 2:287–296Google Scholar
  95. Ruimy A, Kergoat L, Bondeau A, Participants of the Potsdam NPP model intercomparison. 1999. Comparing global models of terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP): analysis of differences in light absorption and light-use effiency. Glob Change Biol 5:56–64Google Scholar
  96. Running SW, Nemani RR, Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Reeves M, Hashimoto H. 2004. A Continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. BioScience 54:547–60Google Scholar
  97. Russell G, Jarvis PG, Monteith JL. 1989. Absorption of radiation by canopies and stand growth. In: Russell G, Marshal B, Jarvis PG (eds) Plant canopies: their growth, form and function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp 21–39Google Scholar
  98. Russell CA, Kosola KR, Paul EA, Robertson GP. 2004. Nitrogen cycling in poplar stands defoliated by insects. Biogeochemistry 68:365–81Google Scholar
  99. Ryan MG, Lavigne MB, Gower ST. 1997. Annual carbon cost of autotrophic respiration in boreal forest ecosystems in relation to species and climate. J Geophys Res 102(D24):28; 871–28.883Google Scholar
  100. Sack L, Cowan PD, Holbrook NM. 2003. The Major veins of mesomorphic leaves revisited: tests for conductive overload in Acer saccharum IAceraceae) and Quercus rubra (Fagacea). Am J Bot 90:32–9Google Scholar
  101. Still CJ, Randerson JT, Fung IY. 2004 Large-scale plant light-use efficiency inferred from the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2. Glob Change Biol 10:1240–52Google Scholar
  102. Terashima I, Hikosaka K. 1995. Comparative ecophysiology of leaf and canopy photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ 18:1111–28Google Scholar
  103. Thimijan RW, Heins RD. 1983. Photometric, radiometric, and quantum light units of measure: a review of procedures for interconversion. HortScience 18:818–21Google Scholar
  104. Thornley JHM. 1970. Respiration, growth and maintenance in plants. Nature 227:304–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Cohen WB, Gower ST, Zhao M, Running SW, Wofsy SC, Urbanski S, Dunn AL, Munger JW. 2003a. Scaling gross primary production (GPP) over boreal and deciduous forest landscapes in support of MODIS GPP product validation. Remote Sens Environ 88:256–70Google Scholar
  106. Turner DP, Urbanski S, Bremer D, Wofsy SC, Meyers T, Gower ST, Gregory M. 2003b. A Cross-Biome comparison of daily light use efficiency for gross primary production. Glob Change Biol 9:383–95Google Scholar
  107. Turner DP, Ollinger S, Smith ML, Krankina O, Gregory M. 2004. Scaling net primary production to a MODIS footprint in support of Earth observing system product validation. Int J Remote Sens 25:1961–79Google Scholar
  108. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Cohen WB, Maeirsperger TK, Gower ST, Kirschbaum AA, Running SW, Zhao M, Wofsy SC, Dunn AL, Law BE, Campbell JL, Oechel WC, Kwon HJ, Meyers TP, Small EE, Kurc SA, Gamon JA. 2005. Site-Level evaluation of satellite-based global terrestrial gross primary production and net primary production monitoring. Glob Change Biol 11:666–84Google Scholar
  109. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Cohen WB, Gower ST, Running SW, Zhao M, Costa MH, Kirschbaum AA, Ham JM, Saleska SR, Ahl DA. 2006a. Evaluation of MODIS NPP and GPP products across multiple biomes. Remote Sens Environ 102:282–92Google Scholar
  110. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Styles JM, Yang Z, Cohen WB, Law BE, Thorton PE. 2006b. A diagnostic carbon flux model to monitor the effects of disturbance and interannual variation in climate on regional NEP. Tellus 58B:476–90Google Scholar
  111. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Zhao M, Kurc SA, Dunn AL, Wofsy SC, Small EE, Running SW. 2006c. Assessing interannual variation in MODIS-based estimates of gross primary production. IEEE T Geosci Remote 44:1899–907Google Scholar
  112. van Iersel MW. 2003. Carbon use efficiency depends on growth respiration, maintenance respiration, and relative growth rate. A case study with lettuce. Plant Cell Environ 26:1441–49Google Scholar
  113. van Iersel MW, Seymour L. 2000. Growth respiration, maintenance respiration, and carbon fixation of vinca: a time series analysis. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 125:702–6Google Scholar
  114. Vitousek PM, Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH, Matson PA. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36:368–73Google Scholar
  115. Vose JM, Swank WT. 1990. A conceptual model of forest growth emphasizing stand leaf area. In: Dixon RK (ed.) Process modeling of forest growth responses to Environmental Stress. Timber Press, Inc., Portland. pp 278–287Google Scholar
  116. Vose JM, Sullivan NH, Clinton BD, Bolstad PV. 1995. Vertical leaf area distribution, light transmittance, and application of the Beer–Lambert law in four mature hardwood stands in the southern Appalachians. Can J Forest Res 25:1036–43Google Scholar
  117. Volney WJA, Fleming RA. 2000. Climate change and impacts of boreal forest insects. Agr Ecosyst Environ 82:283–94Google Scholar
  118. Wargo PM, Parker J, Houston DR. 1972. Starch content in roots of defoliated sugar maple. Forest Sci 18:203–4Google Scholar
  119. Weber, S, Scanlon K, Janickl N. 2001. Approximate area affected by forest tent caterpillar [map]. 1;1,500,000. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, December 2001. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/Forestry/FH/FTC/OutbreakHistory/2001.htm (13 July 2006)
  120. Wetzel BW, Kulman HM, Witter JA. 1973. Effects of cold temperatures on hatching of the forest tent caterpillar, Malacosoma disstria. Can Entomol 105:1145–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Widén B, Majdi H. 2001. Soil CO2 efflux and root respiration at three sites in a mixed pine and spruce forest: seasonal and diurnal variation. Can J Forest Res 31:786–96Google Scholar
  122. Wilson KB, Baldocchi DD, Hanson PJ. 2000a. Spatial and seasonal variability of photosynthetic parameters and their relationship to leaf nitrogen in a deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 20:565–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Wilson KB, Baldocchi DD, Hanson PJ. 2000b. Quantifying stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to carbon assimilation resulting from leaf aging and drought in mature deciduous tree species. Tree Physiol 20:787–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Witter JA, Mattson WJ, Kulman HM. 1975. Numerical analysis of a forest tent caterpillar outbreak in northern Minnesota. Can Entomol 107:837–54Google Scholar
  125. Woodwell GM, Whittaker RH. 1968. Primary production in terrestrial ecosystems. Am Zool 8:19–30Google Scholar
  126. Zaehle S, Sitch S, Smith B, Hatterman F. 2005. Effects of parameter uncertainties on the modeling of terrestrial biosphere dynamics. Global Biogeochem Cycles 19:GB3020.DOI 10.1029/2004GB002395Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce D. Cook
    • 1
  • Paul V. Bolstad
    • 1
  • Jonathan G. Martin
    • 2
  • Faith Ann Heinsch
    • 3
  • Kenneth J. Davis
    • 4
  • Weiguo Wang
    • 5
  • Ankur R. Desai
    • 6
  • Ron M. Teclaw
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forest ScienceOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.College of Forestry and ConservationThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  4. 4.Department of MeteorologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  5. 5.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, US Department of EnergyRichlandUSA
  6. 6.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesThe University of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  7. 7.North Central Research Station, USDA Forest ServiceRhinelanderUSA

Personalised recommendations