Advertisement

Water and Carbon Fluxes in Ecosystems

  • P. G. Jarvis
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 61)

Abstract

One description of the aim of science is to achieve a sufficient understanding of the functioning of a system to be able to make predictions about the response of that system to a stimulus or perturbation. We may study and analyse ecological systems for many particular reasons and it is widely believed that this is both an intellectually stimulating activity and the way to the solution of practical problems. The question that I wish to address is whether we can expect ever to be able to understand an ecological system well enough to make predictions that are useful in the exacting con- text of ecosystem management. Is the understanding that we can achieve limited only by resources, or are there other more fondamental reasons why we may never be able to understand ecosystem functioning adequately? Shall we ever, for example, be in a position to predict the likely consequences of a major environmental perturbation? The difficulties involved in the retrospective analysis of the causes of forest decline are brought up repeatedly elsewhere in this volume, but could we have predicted the now evident resuit? In similar vein, there is much discussion at the present time about the likely consequences of a doubling in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide for vegetation and climate. What are the prospects of ever being able to make useful predictions about the consequences of such a doubling for, say, a tropical, or even a simpler temperate, forest ecosystem, let alone making them now, in our present state of knowledge, before it actually happens? Our fondamental difficulty stems from the lack of empirical knowledge about the functioning of ecosystems. We may readily acquire empirical information on which we can base hypotheses, at the organisational level of cell, leaf or plant, but these difficulties increase at larger scales. Whilst we may legitimately obtain this knowledge by experimentation at the “micro-ecosystem” level of say a flower head (e. g. Bertsch, Part 3-H or Zwôlfer, Part 3-A) or the “mini-ecosystem” level of say a pond or small lake (e. g. Likens 1985), we are prevented by major practical problems and very substantial ethical difficulties from obtaining information by experiment at the scale of what is more generally thought of as an ecosystem.

Keywords

Stomatal Conductance Tree Canopy Carbon Flux Quantum Flux Density Saturation Deficit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berry JA, Downton WJS (1982) Environmental regulation of photosynthesis. In: Govindjee (ed) Photosynthesis, vol II. Development, carbon metabolism and plant productivity. Academic Press, London New York, pp 263–343Google Scholar
  2. Cohen Y, Fuchs M, Green GC (1981) Improvement of the heat puise method for determining sap flow in trees. Plant Cell Environ 4: 391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Denmead OT, Bradley EF (1985) Flux gradient relationships in a forest canopy. In: Hutchison BA, Hicks BB (eds) The forest-atmosphere interaction. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 421–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Griffiths JH (1983) Field investigation of C02 uptake in Sitka spruce. M Phil Thesis, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  5. Heath OVS (1970) Investigation by experiment. Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Jarvis PG, Leverenz JW (1983) Productivity of temperate, deciduous and evergreen forests. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encycl Plant Physiol New Yer, vol 12D. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 233–280Google Scholar
  7. Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1986) Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Adv Ecol Res 15: 1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jarvis PG, Sandford AP (1986) Temperate forests. In: Baker NR, Long SP (eds) Topics in photo-synthesis, vol 7. Photosynthesis in contrasting environments. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 199–236Google Scholar
  9. Jarvis PG, Miranda HS, Muetzelfeldt RI (1985) Modeling canopy exchanges of water vapor and carbon dioxide in coniferous forest plantations. In: Hutchison BA, Hicks BB (eds) The forest- atmosphere interaction. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 521–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson WE, Hasler AD (1954) Rainbow trout populations in dystrophic lakes. J Wildlife Manage 18: 113–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Likens GE (1985) An experimental approach for the study of ecosystems. J Ecol 73: 381–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lovelock JE (1979) Gaia: a new look at life on earth. Oxford Univ Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. McNaughton KG, Black TA (1973) A study of evapotranspiration from a Douglas fir forest using the energy balance approach. Water Res Res 9: 1579–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McNaughton KG, Spriggs TW (1986) A mixed-layer model for régional evaporation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 34: 243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Medina E, Montes G, Cuevas E, Rokzandic Z (1986) Profiles of C02 concentration and δ13C values in tropical rain forests of the upper Rio Negro Basin, Venezuela. J Trop Ecol 2 (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Morison JIL, Gifford RM (1984) Plant growth and water use with limited water supply in high C02 concentrations. II. Plant dry weight, partitioning and water use efficiency. Aust J Plant Physiol 11: 375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newson MD (1979) Ten years of research in the Plynlimon experimental catchments - implications for the water industry. J Inst Water Eng Sci 33: 321–333Google Scholar
  18. Osmond CB, Björkman O, Anderson DJ (1980) Physiological processes in plant ecology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Priestley CHB, Taylor RJ (1972) On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Mon Weather Rev 100: 81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roberts J, Pymar CF, Wallace JS, Pitman RM (1980) Seasonal changes in leaf area, stomatal and canopy conductances and transpiration from bracken [Pteridium aquiîinum ( L) Kuhn] below a forest canopy. J Appl Ecol 17: 409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulze E-D, Cermák J, Matyssek R, Penka M, Zimmermann R, Vasicek F, Gries W, Kučera J (1985) Canopy transpiration and water fluxes in the xylem of the trunk of Larix and Picea trees - a comparison of xylem flow, porometer and cuvette measurements. Oecologia (Berlin) 66: 475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Slatyer RO, McIlroy IC (1961) Practical microclimatology. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Tan CS, Black TA, Nnyamah JU (1978) A simple diffusion model of transpiration applied to a thinned Douglas-fir stand. Ecology 59: 1221–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 42: 237–245Google Scholar
  25. Troeng E, Linder S (1982) Gas ex change in a 20-year-old stand of Scots pine. II. Variation in net photosynthesis and transpiration within and between trees. Physiol Plant 54: 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Verma SB, Baldocchi DB, Anderson DE, Matt DR, Clement RJ (1986) Eddy fluxes of C02, water vapor and sensible heat over deciduous forest. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 36: 71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waring RH, Whitehead D, Jarvis PG (1980) Transpiration by Scots pine: a comparison between estimates by canopy exchange and isotopic tracers. Can J For Res 10: 555–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. G. Jarvis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations