Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 139, Issue 1, pp 69–83 | Cite as

How long do elements cycle in terrestrial ecosystems?

Article

Abstract

We explore the question of how long elements cycle in terrestrial ecosystems and show that to address this question, a broader conceptual framework is needed that specifies ages and transit times. We calculated age and transit time distributions of five elements in a forest and two grassland ecosystems. Moreover, we assessed how ages and transit times of elements change in various scenarios. Mean age and mean transit time of all elements were smaller in the two grassland ecosystems than in the forest ecosystem due to the smaller element stocks in the grasslands in relation to the inputs. Phosphorus (P) had the largest mean transit time and mean age of all elements in the forest ecosystem (450 and 469 years) as well as in the high elevation grassland (82 and 80 years). Mean ages and mean transit times changed linearly with the stock in one pool. Changes in the internal cycling of elements in the ecosystem that did not imply the introduction of another pool had no effect on age and transit time. However, the introduction of a stable P pool in the mineral soil led to a divergence of mean transit time and mean age of P. Taken together, based on the probabilistic approach proposed here, we were able to precisely calculate not only the mean times elements need to transit different ecosystems and the ages they reach while cycling the ecosystems, but also the probability distribution of ages and transit times.

Keywords

Element cycling Ecosystem nutrient cycling Absorbing Markov chain Probabilistic inference Element age Transit time 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Both authors thank the Emmy-Noether program of the German Research Foundation for funding. MS also thanks the German Research Foundation for funding the project SP 1389/5-1 in the priority program 1803 “Earthshape”.

Supplementary material

10533_2018_452_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (354 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 354 kb). Appendix A R Code for all case studies and scenarios
10533_2018_452_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (5 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 283 kb). Figure S0 Mean age and mean transit time of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in a high elevation moorland sheep farming system and in an improved hill sheep farming system calculated based on the data presented in Fig. 2. The dashed line has a slope of 1
10533_2018_452_MOESM3_ESM.png (123 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PNG 122 kb). Figure S1 Stocks and rates of phosphorus (P) in a Eucalyptus regnans forest in south-eastern Australia. Pools are given in bold, fluxes are given in italics, and inputs and outputs of the total ecosystem are marked in red. Fluxes and stocks are the same as in Fig. 1 but two addition P pools (intermediate available P and hardly available P) that exchange P with the easily available P pool are added to the minerals soil
10533_2018_452_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (32 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 32 kb). Figure S2 Age of (A) nitrogen, (B) phosphorus, (C), potassium, (D) magnesium, and (E) calcium in the vegetation, in the organic layer, and in the mineral soil in a temperate Eucalyptus regnans forest. The mean age of each element is indicated by a dashed line and is given in brackets
10533_2018_452_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (12 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 11 kb). Figure S3 Age of (A) nitrogen, (B) phosphorus, and (C) potassium in the sheep, in the vegetation and in the mineral soil in a high elevation moorland sheep farming ecosystem. The mean age of each element is indicated by a dashed line and is given in brackets
10533_2018_452_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (10 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 10 kb). Figure S4 Age of (A) nitrogen, (B) phosphorus, and (C) potassium in the sheep, in the vegetation and in the mineral soil in an improved hill sheep farming ecosystem. The mean age of each element is indicated by a dashed line and is given in brackets
10533_2018_452_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (19 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 19 kb). Figure S5 Age of (A) nitrogen, (B) phosphorus, and (C) potassium in the sheep, in the vegetation and in the mineral soil in an improved hill sheep farming ecosystem in the original case study and in two scenarios. The mean age of each element is indicated by a dashed line and is given in brackets

References

  1. Aerts R, Chapin FS (1999) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agren GI, Bosatta E (1996) Theoretical ecosystem ecology: understanding element cycles. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DH (1983) Compartmental modeling and tracer kinetics. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics Vol. 50. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. Attiwill PM, Adams MA (1993) Nutrient cycling in forests. New Phytol 124(4):561–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolin B, Rodhe H (1973) A note on the concepts of age distribution and transit time in natural reservoirs. Tellus 25(1):58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleveland CC, Houlton BZ, Smith WK, Marklein AR, Reed SC, Parton W, Del Gosso SJ, Running SW (2013) Patterns of new versus recycled primary production in the terrestrial biosphere. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(31):12733–12737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies JAC, Tipping E, Rowe EC, Boyle JF, Graf Pannatier E, Martinsen V (2016) Long-term P weathering and recent N deposition control contemporary plant-soil C, N, and P. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 30(2):231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finn JT (1976) Measures of ecosystem structure and function derived from analysis of flows. J Theor Biol 56(2):363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frissel MJ (ed) (1978) Cycling of mineral nutrients in agricultural ecosystems. Development of Agricultural Management. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacquez JA, Simon CP (1993) Qualitative theory of compartmental systems. SIAM Rev 35(1):43–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leguerrier D, Bacher C, Benoît E, Niquil N (2006) A probabilistic approach of flow-balanced network based on Markov chains. Ecol Model 193(3):295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liang C, Cheng G, Wixon DL, Balser TC (2011) An absorbing markov cChain approach to understanding the microbial role in soil carbon stabilization. Biogeochemistry 106(3):303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luo Y, Weng E (2011) Dynamic disequilibrium of the terrestrial carbon cycle under global change. Trend Ecol Evol 26(2):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manzoni S, Katul GG, Porporato A (2009) Analysis of soil carbon transit times and age distributions using network theories. J Geophys Res 114:G04025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Metzler H, Sierra CA (2018) Linear autonomous compartmental models as continuous-time Markov chains: transit-time and age distributions. Math Geosci 50(1):1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9690-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Metzler H, Müller M, Sierra CA (2018) Transit-time and age distributions for nonlinear time-dependent compartmental systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(6):1150–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705296115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neuts MF (1981) Matrix-geometric solutions in stochastic models: An algorithmic approach. Courier CorporationGoogle Scholar
  18. Odum EP (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parton WJ, Neff J, Vitousek P (2005) Modelling phosphorus, carbon and nitrogen dynamics in terrestrial ecosystems. In: Turner B, Frossard E, Baldwin D (eds) Organic phosphorus in the environment. CABI, Oxford, pp 325–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patten BC, Higashi M (1984) Modified cycling index for ecological applications. Ecol Model 25(1–3):69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rasmussen M, Hastings A, Smith MJ, Agusto FB, Chen-Charpentier BM, Hoffman FM, Jiang J, Todd-Brown KEO, Wang Y, Wang Y-P, Luo Y (2016) Transit times and mean ages for nonautonomous and autonomous compartmental systems. J Math Biol 73(6):1379–1398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rastetter EB, Shaver GR (1992) A model of multiple-element limitation for acclimating vegetation. Ecology 73(4):1157–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodhe H (2000) Modeling biogeochemical cycles. In: Jacobson MC, Charlson RJ, Rodhe H, Orians GH (eds) Earth system science: from biogeochemical cycles to global change. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 62–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sierra CA, Müller M (2015) A general mathematical framework for representing soil organic matter dynamics. Ecol Monogr 85:505–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sierra CA, Müller M, Trumbore SE (2014) Modeling radiocarbon dynamics in soils: SoilR version 1.1. Geosci Model Dev 7(5):1919–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sierra CA, Müller M, Metzler H, Manzoni S, Trumbore SE (2017) The muddle of ages, turnover, transit, and residence times in the carbon cycle. Global Change Biol 23(5):1763–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spohn M (2016) Element cycling as driven by stoichiometric homeostasis of soil microorganisms. Basic Appl Ecol 17(6):471–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sterner RW, Elser JJ (2002) Ecological stoichiometry: the biology of elements from molecules to the biosphere. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson MV, Randerson JT (1999) Impulse response functions of terrestrial carbon cycle models: method and application. Global Change Biol 5(4):371–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Uhlig D, Schuessler JA, Bouchez J, Dixon JL, von Blanckenburg F (2017) Quantifying nutrient uptake as driver of rock weathering in forest ecosystems by magnesium stable isotopes. Biogeosciences 14(12):3111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vitousek P (2004) Nutrient cycling and limitation: Hawaii as a model system. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Soil Biogeochemistry, University of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for BiogeochemistryJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations