Community Ecology

, Volume 9, Supplement 1, pp 49–55 | Cite as

Soil CO2 efflux in three wet meadow ecosystems with different C and N status

  • K. Zemanová
  • H. Čížková
  • K. Edwards
  • H. Šantrůčková


Data on soil respiration of three wet meadow ecosystems in the Czech Republic are presented. There were three study sites: two sites with peaty soil, one of them aneutrophic (nitrogen rich) and second of them oligotrophic. Third site was mesot-rophic with mineral soil. Soil respiration was measured in situ as CO2 efflux using a Licor 6400 equipped with a soil chamber during the vegetation seasons, since June until October 2006. Soil respiration rates were significantly affected by soil temperature, although they differed among the sites, just as nutrient availability differed on each site. Despite of seasonal variation, the nutrient rich site on organic soil consistently yielded the highest respiration rates, and nutrient poor site yielded the lowest respiration rates. The highest CO2 emissions rates in situ were measured in June, when the soil temperature was 19°C. The rates reached up to 10.31 μmol CO2 m-2 s-1 at eutrophic site, at peaty oligotrophic site 7.03 μmol CO2 m-2 s-1, and 8.38 μmol CO2 m-2 at mineral mesotrophic site, respectively. When we used a temperature dependency exponential model to avoid the effect of different soil temperature, the pattern observed in the field was even clearer. The peaty eutrophic soil was more sensitive to temperature then the mineral and peaty oligotrophic soil and C mineralization was more enhanced there.


wet meadow soil CO2 efflux eutrophication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aerts R. and H. de Caluwe. 1999. Nitrogen deposition effects on carbon dioxide and methane emissions from temperate peatland soils. Oikos 84: 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ågren G.I., Bosatta E. and Magill A.H. 2001. Combining theory and experiment to understand effects of inorganic nitrogen on litter decomposition. Oecologia 128:94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bender, M. and R. Conrad. 1992. Kinetics of CH4 oxidation in oxic soils exposed to ambient 29 air or high CH4 mixing ratios. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol 101: 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollens, U., S. Güsewell and F. Klötzli. 2001. Vegetation changes in two Swiss fens affected by eutrophication and desiccation. Botanica Helvetica 111: 121–137.Google Scholar
  5. Borken, W., F. Beese, R. Brumme and N. Lamersdorf. 2002. Longterm reduction in nitrogen and proton inputs did not affect atmospheric methane uptake and nitrous oxide emission from a German spruce forest soil. Soil Bio. Biochem. 34: 1815–1819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowden R.D., E. Davidson, K. Savage, C. Arabiaa and P. Steudler. 2004. Chronic nitrogen additions reduce total soil respiration and microbial respiration in temperate forest soils at the Harvard Forest. Forest Ecology and Management 196: 43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brinson, M.M. and A.I. Malvarez. 2002. Temperate freshwater wetlands: Types, status, and threats. Environmental Conservation 29: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conrad, R. and F. Rothfuss. 1991. Methane oxidation in the soil surface layer of a flooded 16 ricefield and the effect of ammonium. Biol. Fertil. Soils 12: 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Corstanje, R., K.R. Reddy and K.M. Portier. 2006. Typha latifolia and Cladium jamaicense litter decay in response to exogenous nutrient enrichment. Aquatic Botany 84: 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Vries, W., J. Kros, O. Oenema and J. de Klein. 2003. Uncertainties in the fate of nitrogen. II: A quantitative assessment of the uncertainties in major nitrogen fluxes in the Netherlands. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 66: 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elhottová, D., Šantrčková, H. and Petersen, S. 1998. Changes of microbial biomass during sample storage at 4°C, In: Šimek, M., Šantrůčková, H., Krištůfek, V. (eds.): Sampling, storage and processing of soil samples for biological and chemical analyses. ÚPB AV ČR, České Budějovice, 65– 68. [in Czech]Google Scholar
  12. Ettema, C.H., R. Lowrance and D.C. Coleman. 1999. Riparian soil response to surface nitrogen input: Temporal changes in denitrification, labile and microbial C and N pools, and bacterial and fungal respiration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 31: 1609–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galatowitsch, S.M., D.C. Whited, R. Lehtinen, J. Husveth and K. Schik. 2000. The vegetation of wet meadows in relation to their land-use. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 60: 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giani, L. and E. Ahrensfeld. 2002. Pedobiochemical indicators for eutrophication and the development of “black spots” in tidal flat soils on the North Sea coast. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 165: 537–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grime, J.P., J.G. Hodgson and R. Hunt. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species. Unwin Hyman, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanson, R. S. and T. E. Hanson. 1996. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 60: 439–6 471.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. HiranoT., Honghyun K. and Tanaka Y. 2003. Long-term halfhourly measurement of soil CO2 concentration and soil respiration in a temperate deciduous forest. J Geophys Res 108(D20):4631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jäggy, W. 1976. Die Bestimmung der CO2-Bildung als Mass der bodenbiologischen Aktivität. Schweiz Landwirtschaft Forschung Band. 15: 317–380.Google Scholar
  19. Koerselman, W., M.B. van Kerkhoven and J.T.A. Verhoeven. 1993. Release of inorganic N, P and K in peat soils; effect of temperature, water chemistry and water level. Biogeochemistry 20: 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuzyakov, Y. and A. A. Larionova. 2005. Root and rhizomicrobial respiration: A review of approaches to estimate respiration by autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms in soil. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci.-Z. Pflanzenernahr. Bodenkd.168: 503–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Květ, J., J. Lukavská and M. Tetter. 2002. Biomasss and net primary production in graminoid vegetation. In: Květ, J., Jeník, J. and Soukupová, L. (ed.): Freshwater Wetlands and Their Sustainable Future. A Case Study of the Třeboň Basin Biosphere Reserve. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 293–304.Google Scholar
  22. Květ, J., Tetter, M., Kirmeš, F. and Suchy, K. 1996. Grassland productivity as a basis for agricultural use of the Lužnice floodplain. In: Prach, K., Jeník, J. and Large, A.R.G. (eds.): Floodplain Ecology and Management. SPB Academic Publishing, Amsterdam, pp. 245–250.Google Scholar
  23. Kuzyakov, Y. 2006. Sources of CO2 efflux from soil and review of partioning methods. Soil Biology and Boichemistry 38:425–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lloyd, J. and J.A. Taylor. 1994. On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct. Ecol. 8: 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Pavelka, M., Acosta, M., Marek, M.V., Kutsch, W. and Janous, D. 2007. Dependence of the Q10 values on the depth of the spil temeprature measuring point. Plant and Soil 292: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Picek, T., F. Lusby, H. Čížková, H. Šantrůcková, M. Šimek, J. Květ, and L. Pechar. 2000. Microbial activities in soils of a healthy and a declining reed stand. Hydrobiologia 418: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Picek T., Kaštovská, Ε., Edwards, Κ. and Zemanová, K. 2008. Short term effects of eutrophication on carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystem. Community Ecology IN PRESS Google Scholar
  29. Pokorny J., J. Květ and J.P. Ondok. 1990. Functioning of the plant component in densely stocked fishpond. Bulletin of Ecology 21 : 44–48.Google Scholar
  30. Prach, K. and Soukupová, L. 2002. Alterations in the wet meadows vegetation complex. In: Květ, J., Jeník., J. and Soukupová, L. (ed.): Freshwater Wetlands and Their Sustainable Future. A Case Study of the Třeboň Basin Biosphere Reserve. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 243–254.Google Scholar
  31. Robarts, R.D. and M.J. Waiser. 1998. Effects of atmospheric change and agriculture on the biogeochemistry and microbial ecology of prairie wetlands. Great Plains Research 8: 113–136.Google Scholar
  32. Rychnovská, M. 1979. Ecosystem synthesis of meadows. Energy flow. In: Coupland, R.T. (ed.) Grassland Ecosystems of the World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 165–170.Google Scholar
  33. Šantrůcková, H., T. Picek, M. Šimek, V. Bauer, J. Kopecky, L. Pechar, J. Lukavská, and H. Čížková. 2001. Decomposition processes in soil of a healthy and a declining Phragmites australis stand. Aquatic Botany 69: 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schalitz, G., W. Breunig and K. Richter. 1985. Intensive forage production of flooded bottomland grassland in GDR. In: Proceedings of the 10 th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, As-Norway, pp. 246–250.Google Scholar
  35. Scheu, S. and M. Schaefer. 1998. Bottom-up control of the soil macrofauna community in a beechwood on limestone: Manipulation of food resources. Ecology 79: 1573–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seitzinger, S.P. 1994. Linkages between organic matter mineralization and denitrification in eight riparian wetlands. Biogeochemistry 25: 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skopcová, Κ. 2005. Nitrogen transformations in catchments of lakes of Bohemian forest. MSc. Thesis. 46 pp. [In Czech]Google Scholar
  38. Smolander, A., A. Kurka, V. Kitunen, and E. Mälkönen. 1994. Microbial biomass C and N, and respiratory activity in soil of repeatedly limed and N- and P-fertilized Norway spruce stands. Soil Biol. Bioch. 26: 957–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soukupová, L. 1986. Study of life strategies in marshland graminoids. PhD Thesis, Institute of Botany of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prùhonice. [In Czech]Google Scholar
  40. Van Oorschot, M.M.P. 1994. Plant production, nutrient uptake, and mineralization in river marginal wetlands: the impact of nutrient additions due to former land-use, pp. 133–150. In: Mitsch, W.J. (ed.), Global Wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  41. Van Vuuren, M.M.I., F. Berendse and W. de Visser. 1993. Species and site differences in the decomposition of litters and roots from wet heathlands. Canadian Journal of Botany 71: 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vance E.D., Brookes P.C. and Jenkinson D.S. 1987. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass. C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 19: 703–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verville J.H., Hobbie S.E., Chapin III F.S. and Hooper D.U. 1998. Response of tundra CH4 and CO2 flux to manipulation of temperatur eand vegetation. Biogeochemistry 41, 215–235p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whalen S.C., W.S. Reeburgh and C.E. Reimers. 1996. Control of tundra methane emissions by microbial oxidation. In: Reynolds J.F., Tenhunen J.D. (eds.). Landscape function and disturbance in Arctic tundra. Springer, New York. pp. 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Zemanová
    • 1
  • H. Čížková
    • 2
    • 3
  • K. Edwards
    • 1
  • H. Šantrůčková
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem Biology, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Systems Biology and Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicTřeboňCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Biological Disciplines, Faculty of AgronomyUniversity of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations