Autumnal warming does not change root phenology in two contrasting vegetation types of subarctic tundra
- 138 Downloads
Background and aims
Root phenology is important in controlling carbon and nutrient fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, yet, remains largely unexplored, especially in the Arctic. We compared below- and aboveground phenology and ending of the growing season in two contrasting vegetation types of subarctic tundra: heath and meadow, and their response to experimental warming in autumn.
Root phenology was measured in-situ with minirhizotrons and compared with aboveground phenology assessed with repeat digital photography.
The end of the growing season, both below- and aboveground, was similar in meadow and heath and the belowground growing season ended later than aboveground in the two vegetation types. Root growth was higher and less equally distributed over time in meadow compared to heath. The warming treatment increased air and soil temperature by 0.5 °C and slightly increased aboveground greenness, but did not affect root growth or prolong the below- and aboveground growing season in either of the vegetation types.
These results imply that vegetation types differ in root dynamics and suggest that other factors than temperature control autumnal root growth in these ecosystems. Further investigations of root phenology will help to identify those drivers, in which including responses of functionally contrasting vegetation types will help to estimate how climate change affects belowground processes and their roles in ecosystem function.
KeywordsBelowground Climate change Fine roots Plant phenology Root growth Subarctic tundra
Growing Degree Days
open top chambers
plant functional type
photosynthetic photon flux density
This study was partly funded by the Kempe Foundation, Stiftelsen Oscar och Lili Lamms Minne, and the Humboldt-Ritter-Penck Foundation of the Berlin Geographical Society (Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin). We thank Ellen Dorrepaal, Jacob Eckstein, Lea Fink, Laurenz Teuber and the staff of the Abisko Scientific Research Station for support.
- ACIA, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004) Impacts of a warming arctic: arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Barichivich J, Briffa KR, Myneni RB, Osborn TJ, Melvin TM, Ciais P, Piao S, Tucker C (2013) Large-scale variations in the vegetation growing season and annual cycle of atmospheric CO2 at high northern latitudes from 1950 to 2011. Glob Chang Biol 19:3167–3183. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12283 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Billings WD, Peterson KM, Shaver GR (1978) Growth, turnover, and respiration rates of roots and tillers in tundra graminoids, vegetation and production ecology of an Alaskan Arctic tundra. Springer, pp 415–434Google Scholar
- Chapin FS (1978) Phosphate uptake and nutrient utilization by barrow tundra vegetation, vegetation and production ecology of an Alaskan arctic tundra. Springer, pp 483–507Google Scholar
- Elmendorf SC, Henry GHR, Hollister RD, Björk RG, Bjorkman AD, Callaghan TV, Collier LS, Cooper EJ, Cornelissen JHC, Day TA, Fosaa AM, Gould WA, Grétarsdóttir J, Harte J, Hermanutz L, Hik DS, Hofgaard A, Jarrad F, Jónsdóttir IS, Keuper F, Klanderud K, Klein JA, Koh S, Kudo G, Lang SI, Loewen V, May JL, Mercado J, Michelsen A, Molau U, Myers-Smith IH, Oberbauer SF, Pieper S, Post E, Rixen C, Robinson CH, Schmidt NM, Shaver GR, Stenström A, Tolvanen A, Totland O, Troxler T, Wahren C-H, Webber PJ, Welker JM, Wookey PA (2012) Global assessment of experimental climate warming on tundra vegetation: heterogeneity over space and time. Ecol Lett 15:164–175. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01716.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. SPM. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley P (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–30Google Scholar
- Johannessen OM, Kuzmina SI, Bobylev LP, Miles MW (2016) Surface air temperature variability and trends in the Arctic: new amplification assessment and regionalisation. Tellus A 68Google Scholar
- Jonasson S, Michelsen A, Schmidt IK, Nielsen EV (1999) Responses in microbes and plants to changes temperature, nutrient, and light regimes in the arctic. Ecology 80(6):1828–1843Google Scholar
- Marion GM, Henry GH, Freckman DW, Johnstone J, Jones G, Jones MH, Levesque E, Molau U, Mølgaard P, Parsons AN, others (1997) Open-top designs for manipulating field temperature in high-latitude ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol 3:20–32Google Scholar
- McCormack LM, Eissenstat DM, Prasad AM, Smithwick EAH (2013) Regional scale patterns of fine root lifespan and turnover under current and future climate. Glob Chang Biol 19(6):1697–1708Google Scholar
- Pendall E, Bridgham S, Hanson PJ, Hungate B, Kicklighter DW, Johnson DW, Law BE, Luo Y, Megonigal JP, Olsrud M, Ryan MG, Wan S (2004) Below-ground process responses to elevated CO2 and temperature. A discussion of observations, measurement methods, and models. New Phytol 162:311–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01053.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Piao S, Ciais P, Friedlingstein P, Peylin P, Reichstein M, Luyssaert S, Margolis H, Fang J, Barr A, Chen A, Grelle A, Hollinger DY, Laurila T, Lindroth A, Richardson AD, Vesala T (2008) Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451:49–52. doi: 10.1038/nature06444 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Post E, Forchhammer MC, Bret-Harte MS, Callaghan TV, Christensen TR, Elberling B, Fox AD, Gilg O, Hik DS, Høye TT, others (2009) Ecological dynamics across the Arctic associated with recent climate change. Science 325:1355–1358Google Scholar
- Radville L, McCormack ML, Post E, Eissenstat DM (2016a) Root phenology in a changing climate. Journal of experimental botany:erw062. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erw062