Plant and Soil

, Volume 229, Issue 2, pp 259–270 | Cite as

Time-dependent responses of soil CO2 efflux components to elevated atmospheric [CO2] and temperature in experimental forest mesocosms

  • Guanghui Lin
  • Paul T. Rygiewicz
  • James R. Ehleringer
  • Mark G. Johnson
  • David T. Tingey
Article

Abstract

We previously used dual stable isotope techniques to partition soil CO2 efflux into three source components (rhizosphere respiration, litter decomposition, and soil organic matter (SOM) oxidation) using experimental chambers planted with Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco] seedlings. The components responded differently to elevated CO2 (ambient + 200 μmol mol−1) and elevated temperature (ambient + 4 °C) treatments during the first year. Rhizosphere respiration increased most under elevated CO2, and SOM oxidation increased most under elevated temperature. However, many studies show that plants and soil processes can respond to altered climates in a transient way. Herein, we extend our analysis to 2 years to evaluate the stability of the responses of the source components. Total soil CO2 efflux increased significantly under elevated CO2 and elevated temperature in both years (1994 and 1995), but the enhancement was much less in 1995. Rhizosphere respiration increased less under elevated temperature in 1995 compared with 1994. Litter decomposition also tended to increase comparatively less in 1995 under elevated CO2, but was unresponsive to elevated temperature between years. In contrast, SOM oxidation was similar under elevated CO2 in the 2 years. Less SOM oxidation occurred under elevated temperature in 1995 compared with 1994. Our results indicate that temporal variations can occur in CO2 production by the sources. The variations likely involve responses to antecedent physical disruption of the soil and physiological processes.

climate change CO2 enrichment Douglas-fir forests elevated atmospheric temperature soil respiration stable isotopes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apple M E, Lucash M S, Olszyk D M and Tingey D T 1998 Morphogenesis of Douglas-fir buds is altered at elevated temperature but not at elevated CO2. Environ. Exp. Bot. 40, 159–172.Google Scholar
  2. Cheng W 1999 Rhizosphere feedbacks in elevated CO2. Tree Physiol. 19, 313–320.Google Scholar
  3. Curtis P S, Zak D R, Pregitzer K S and Teeri J A 1994 Aboveand belowground responses of Populus grandidentata to elevated atmospheric CO2 and soil N availability. Plant Soil 165, 45–51.Google Scholar
  4. Ehleringer J R, Buchmann N and Flanagan L B 2000 Carbon isotope ratios in belowground carbon cycle processes. Ecol. Appl. 10, 412–422.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson D W, Geisinger D R, Walker R F, Newman J, Vose J M, Elliot K and Ball J T 1994 Soil pCO2, soil CO2 efflux, and root activity in CO2-fumigated and nitrogen-fertilized ponderosa pine. Plant Soil 165, 129–138.Google Scholar
  6. Lin G, Ehleringer J R, Rygiewicz P T, Johnson M G and Tingey D T 1999 Elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on different components of soil CO2 efflux in Douglas-fir mesocosms. Global Change Biol. 9, 157–168.Google Scholar
  7. Lodge D J and Ingham E R 1991 A comparison of agar film techniques for estimating fungal biovolumes in litter and soil. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 34, 131–144.Google Scholar
  8. Norby R J, Gunderson C A, Wullschleger S D, O'Neill F G and McCraken M K 1992 Productivity and compensatory responses of yellow-poplar trees in elevated CO2. Nature 357, 322–324.Google Scholar
  9. Olszyk D, Wise C, Van Ess E and Tingey D 1998 Elevated temperature but not elevated CO2 affects long-term patterns of stem diameter and height of Douglas-fir seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 28, 1046–1054.Google Scholar
  10. Pajari B 1995 Soil CO2 efflux in a poor upland site of Scots pine stand subjected to elevated temperatures and atmospheric carbon concentration. Plant Soil 169, 563–570.Google Scholar
  11. Paterson E, Hall J M, Rattray E A S, Griffith B S, Ritz K and Killham K 1997 Effects of elevated CO2 on rhizosphere carbon flow and soil microbial processes. Global Change Biol. 3, 363–377.Google Scholar
  12. Peterjohn W T, Melillo J M, Bowles F P, and Steudler P A 1993 Soil warming and trace gas fluxes - experimental design and preliminary flux results. Oecologia 93, 18–24.Google Scholar
  13. Phillips D L and Gregg J W 2001 Uncertainty in source partitioning using stable isotopes. Oecologia. In Press. Google Scholar
  14. Rogers H H, Runion G B and Krupa S V 1994 Plant responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment with emphasis on roots and rhizosphere. Environ. Pollut. 83, 155–189.Google Scholar
  15. Rygiewicz P T, Martin K J and Tuininga A R 2000 Morphotype community structure of ectomycorrhizas on Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Mirb. Franco) seedlings grown under elevated atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Oecologia 124, 299–308.Google Scholar
  16. Socki R A, Karlsson H R and Gibson E K 1992 Extraction technique for the determination of oxygen-18 in water using pre-evacuated glass vials. Anal. Chem. 64, 829–831.Google Scholar
  17. Tingey D T, McVeety B D, Waschmann R, Johnson M G, Phillips D L, Rygiewicz P T and Olszyk D M 1996 A versatile sunlit controlled-environment facility for studying plant and soil processes. J. Environ. Quality 25, 614–625.Google Scholar
  18. Van Veen J A, Liljeroth E, Lekkerkerk L J A, and Van de Geijin S C 1991 Carbon fluxes in plant-soil systems at elevated atmospheric CO2 levels. Ecol. Appl. 1, 175–181.Google Scholar
  19. Vose J M, Elliott K J, Johnson D W, Walker R F, Johnson M G and Tingey D T 1995 Effects of elevated CO2 and N fertilization on soil CO2 efflux from ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in open-top chambers. Can. J. For. Res. 25, 1243–1251.Google Scholar
  20. Vose J M, Elliott K J, Johnson D W, Tingey D T and Johnson M G 1997 Soil respiration responses to 3 years of elevated CO2 and N fertilization in from ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Doug. Ex Laws.). Plant Soil 190, 19–28.Google Scholar
  21. Zak D R, Pregitzer K S, Curtis P S, Teeri J A, Fogel R and Randlett D L 1993 Elevated atmospheric CO2 and feedback between carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant Soil 151, 105–117.Google Scholar
  22. Zak, D R and Pregitzer, K S 1998 Integration of ecophysiological and biogeochemical approaches to ecosystem dynamics. In Successes, Limitations and Frontiers in Ecosystem Science. Eds. M Pace and P Groffman. pp 372–403. Springler-Verlag New York, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guanghui Lin
    • 1
  • Paul T. Rygiewicz
    • 2
  • James R. Ehleringer
    • 3
  • Mark G. Johnson
    • 2
  • David T. Tingey
    • 2
  1. 1.Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Biosphere 2 Center of Columbia UniversityOracleUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research LaboratoryCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Stable Isotope Ratio Facility for Environmental Research, Department of BiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations