Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 1028–1035 | Cite as

C3 and C4 Biomass Allocation Responses to Elevated CO2 and Nitrogen: Contrasting Resource Capture Strategies

Article

Abstract

Plants alter biomass allocation to optimize resource capture. Plant strategy for resource capture may have important implications in intertidal marshes, where soil nitrogen (N) levels and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are changing. We conducted a factorial manipulation of atmospheric CO2 (ambient and ambient + 340 ppm) and soil N (ambient and ambient + 25 g m−2 year−1) in an intertidal marsh composed of common North Atlantic C3 and C4 species. Estimation of C3 stem turnover was used to adjust aboveground C3 productivity, and fine root productivity was partitioned into C3–C4 functional groups by isotopic analysis. The results suggest that the plants follow resource capture theory. The C3 species increased aboveground productivity under the added N and elevated CO2 treatment (P < 0.0001), but did not under either added N or elevated CO2 alone. C3 fine root production decreased with added N (P < 0.0001), but fine roots increased under elevated CO2 (P = 0.0481). The C4 species increased growth under high N availability both above- and belowground, but that stimulation was diminished under elevated CO2. The results suggest that the marsh vegetation allocates biomass according to resource capture at the individual plant level rather than for optimal ecosystem viability in regards to biomass influence over the processes that maintain soil surface elevation in equilibrium with sea level.

Keywords

Biomass Chesapeake Bay Productivity Sea level rise Tidal marsh Turnover 

References

  1. Aerts, R. 1989. Above-ground biomass and nutrient dynamics of Calluna vulgaris and Molinia caerulea in a dry heathland. Oikos 56: 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, R. 2009. Nitrogen supply effects on leaf dynamics and nutrient input into the soil of plant species in a sub-arctic tundra ecosystem. Polar Biology 32(2): 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ainsworth, E.A., and S.P. Long. 2005. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy. New Phytologist 165: 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arp, W.J., B.G. Drake, et al. 1993. Interactions between C-3 and C-4 salt-marsh plant-species during 4 years of exposure to elevated atmospheric CO2. Vegetatio 104: 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazzaz, F.A. 1990. The response of natural ecosystems to the rising global CO2 levels. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter, G.A., and A.K. Knapp. 2001. Leaf optical properties in higher plants: Linking spectral characteristics to stress and chlorophyll concentration. American Journal of Botany 88: 677–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Craine, J.M. 2009. Resource strategies of wild plants. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Curtis, P.S., B.G. Drake, et al. 1989. Growth and senescence in plant-communities exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations on an estuarine marsh. Oecologia 78: 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake, B.G., P.W. Leadley, et al. 1989. An open top chamber for field studies of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on saltmarsh vegetation. Functional Ecology 3: 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehleringer, J.R., R.F. Sage, et al. 1991. Climate change and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6: 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emery, N.C., P.J. Ewanchuk, et al. 2001. Competition and salt-marsh plant zonation: Stress tolerators may be dominant competitors. Ecology 82: 2471–2485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erickson, J.E., J.P. Megonigal, G. Peresta, and B.G. Drake. 2007. Salinity and sea level mediate elevated CO2 effects on C3–C4 plant interactions and tissue nitrogen in a Chesapeake Bay tidal wetland. Global Change Biology 13(1): 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iversen, C.M., J. Ledford, and R.J. Norby. 2008. CO2 enrichment increases carbon and nitrogen input from fine roots in a deciduous forest. New Phytologist 179: 837–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, et al. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeak Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langley, J.A., and J.P. Megonigal. 2010. Ecosystem response to elevated CO2 levels limited by nitrogen-induced plant species shift. Nature 466: 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Langley, J.A., B.G. Drake, et al. 2002. Extensive belowground carbon storage supports roots and mycorrhizae in regenerating scrub oaks. Oecologia 131: 542–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langley, J.A., K.L. McKee, et al. 2009a. Elevated CO2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 6182–6186.Google Scholar
  18. Langley, J.A., M.V. Sigrist, J. Duls, D.R. Cahoon, J.C. Lynch, and J.P. Megonigal. 2009b. Global change and marsh elevation dynamics: Experimenting where land meets sea and biology meets geology. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences 38: 391–400.Google Scholar
  19. Leonard, L.A., and M.E. Luther. 1995. Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies. Limnology and Oceanography 40: 1474–1484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonard, L.A., A.C. Hine, et al. 1995. Surficial sediment transport and deposition processes in a Juncus roemerianus marsh, west-central Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 322–336.Google Scholar
  21. Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Morris, J.T. 2006. Competition among marsh macrophytes by means of geomorphological displacement in the intertidal zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morris, J.T., P.V. Sundareshwar, et al. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83: 2869–2877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mudd, S.M., A. D’Alpaos, and J.T. Morris. 2010. How does vegetation affect sedimentation on tidal marshes? Investigating particle capture and hydrodynamic controls on biologically mediated sedimentation. Journal of Geophysical Research—Earth Surface 115: f3.Google Scholar
  25. Nyman, J.A., R.J. Walters, et al. 2006. Marsh vertical accretion via vegetative growth. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer, M.R., H.M. Nepf, et al. 2004. Observations of particle capture on a cylindrical collector: Implications for particle accumulation and removal in aquatic systems. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poorter, H., and M.L. Navas. 2003. Plant growth and competition at elevated CO2: On winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytologist 157: 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pregitzer, K.S., D.R. Zak, P.S. Curtis, M.E. Kubiske, J.A. Teeri, and C.S. Vogel. 1995. Atmospheric CO2, soil-nitrogen and turnover of fine roots. New Phytologist 129(4): 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Redfield, A.C. 1965. Ontogeny of a salt marsh estuary. Science 147: 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed, D.J. 1995. Sediment dynamics, deposition and erosion in temperate salt marshes. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 295–295.Google Scholar
  31. Reynolds, H.L., and C. Dantonio. 1996. The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: Opinion. Plant and Soil 185: 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers, H.H., G.B. Runion, and S.V. Krupa. 1994. Plant-responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment with emphasis on roots and the rhizosphere. Environmental Pollution 83: 155–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruhl, H.A., and N.B. Rybicki. 2010. Long-term reductions in anthropogenic nutrients link to improvements in Chesapeake Bay habitat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 16566–16570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saunders, C.J., J.P. Megonigal, et al. 2006. Comparison of belowground biomass in C-3- and C-4-dominated mixed communities in a Chesapeake Bay brackish marsh. Plant and Soil 280: 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schlapfer, B., and P. Ryser. 1996. Leaf and root turnover of three ecologically contrasting grass species in relation to their performance along a productivity gradient. Oikos 75: 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stokstad, E. 2009. Obama moves to revitalize Chesapeake Bay restoration. Science 324(5931): 1138–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suter, D., M. Frehner, et al. 2002. Elevated CO2 increases carbon allocation to the roots of Lolium perenne under free-air CO2 enrichment but not in a controlled environment. New Phytologist 154: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tilman, D., and D. Wedin. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for 5 grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72: 685–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner, R.E. 2004. Coastal wetland subsidence arising from local hydrologic manipulations. Estuaries 27: 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner, R.E. 2011. Beneath the salt marsh canopy: Loss of soil strength with increasing nutrient loads. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1084–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valiela, I., and J.M. Teal. 1974. Nutrient limitation in salt marsh vegetation. In Ecology of halophytes, ed. R.J. Reimold and W.H. Queen, 574. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wand, S.J.E., G.F. Midgley, et al. 1999. Responses of wild C4 and C3 grass (Poaceae) species to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration: A meta-analytic test of current theories and perceptions. Global Change Biology 5: 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Forest Ecology and Biogeosciences, and Statistical ScienceUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterEdgewaterUSA
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentVillanova UniversityVillanovaUSA
  4. 4.US Geological SurveyPatuxent Wildlife Research CenterBeltsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations