Is Net Ecosystem Production Equal to Ecosystem Carbon Accumulation?

Net ecosystem production (NEP), defined as the difference between gross primary production and total ecosystem respiration, represents the total amount of organic carbon in an ecosystem available for storage, export as organic carbon, or nonbiological oxidation to carbon dioxide through fire or ultraviolet oxidation. In some of the recent literature, especially that on terrestrial ecosystems, NEP has been redefined as the rate of organic carbon accumulation in the system. Here we argue that retaining the original definition maintains the conceptual coherence between NEP and net primary production and that it is congruous with the widely accepted definitions of ecosystem autotrophy and heterotrophy. Careful evaluation of NEP highlights the various potential fates of nonrespired carbon in an ecosystem.     

中国森林的地下碳分配

通过收集国内33个森林样地的土壤呼吸和年凋落物量数据,分析中国森林地下碳分配（TBCA）模式。结果表明,中国森林土壤呼吸年通量与年凋落物量呈显著的线性相关（R^2=0．3319,P=0．000）,其中成熟林土壤呼吸与年凋落物量间呈显著的线性相关（R^2=0．3245,P=0．004）,但未成熟林土壤呼吸与年凋落物量间的线性相关不显著（R^2=0．3485,P=0．092）。中国森林的地下碳分配变化范围1．460～25．100tChm^-2a^-1,平均值为9．217tChm^-2a^-1;中国森林的TBCA与年均气温相关关系不显著（P=0．196）,但与年均降水量则呈显著正相关（R=0．480,P=0．021）。中国森林TBCA和凋落物对土壤呼吸的平均贡献分别为74．2％和25．8％;中国森林TBCA对土壤呼吸的贡献随土壤呼吸增大而增大,而凋落物对土壤呼吸的贡献则随土壤呼吸的增大而降低。     

Total Belowground Carbon Allocation in a Fast-growing Eucalyptus Plantation Estimated Using a Carbon Balance Approach

Trees allocate a large portion of gross primary production belowground for the production and maintenance of roots and mycorrhizae. The difficulty of directly measuring total belowground carbon allocation (TBCA) has limited our understanding of belowground carbon (C) cycling and the factors that control this important flux. We measured TBCA over 4 years using a conservation of mass, C balance approach in replicate stands of fast growing Eucalyptus saligna Smith with different nutrition management and tree density treatments. We measured TBCA as surface carbon dioxide (CO₂) efflux (“soil” respiration) minus C inputs from aboveground litter plus the change in C stored in roots, litter, and soil. We evaluated this C balance approach to measuring TBCA by examining (a) the variance in TBCA across replicate plots; (b) cumulative error associated with summing components to arrive at our estimates of TBCA; (c) potential sources of error in the techniques and assumptions; (d) the magnitude of changes in C stored in soil, litter, and roots compared to TBCA; and (e) the sensitivity of our measures of TBCA to differences in nutrient availability, tree density, and forest age. The C balance method gave precise estimates of TBCA and reflected differences in belowground allocation expected with manipulations of fertility and tree density. Across treatments, TBCA averaged 1.88 kg C m⁻² y⁻¹ and was 18% higher in plots planted with 10⁴ trees/ha compared to plots planted with 1111 trees/ha. TBCA was 12% lower (but not significantly so) in fertilized plots. For all treatments, TBCA declined linearly with stand age. The coefficient of variation (CV) for TBCA for replicate plots averaged 17%. Averaged across treatments and years, annual changes in C stored in soil, the litter layer, and coarse roots (−0.01, 0.06, and 0.21 kg C m⁻² y⁻¹, respectively) were small compared with surface CO₂ efflux (2.03 kg C m⁻² y⁻¹), aboveground litterfall (0.42 kg C m⁻² y⁻¹), and our estimated TBCA (1.88 kg C m⁻² y⁻¹). Based on studies from similar sites, estimates of losses of C through leaching, erosion, or storage of C in deep soil were less than 1% of annual TBCA. Received 6 March 2001; accepted 7 January 2002.     

Reconciling Carbon-cycle Concepts, Terminology, and Methods

Recent projections of climatic change have focused a great deal of scientific and public attention on patterns of carbon (C) cycling as well as its controls, particularly the factors that determine whether an ecosystem is a net source or sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂). Net ecosystem production (NEP), a central concept in C-cycling research, has been used by scientists to represent two different concepts. We propose that NEP be restricted to just one of its two original definitions—the imbalance between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER). We further propose that a new term—net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB)—be applied to the net rate of C accumulation in (or loss from [negative sign]) ecosystems. Net ecosystem carbon balance differs from NEP when C fluxes other than C fixation and respiration occur, or when inorganic C enters or leaves in dissolved form. These fluxes include the leaching loss or lateral transfer of C from the ecosystem; the emission of volatile organic C, methane, and carbon monoxide; and the release of soot and CO₂ from fire. Carbon fluxes in addition to NEP are particularly important determinants of NECB over long time scales. However, even over short time scales, they are important in ecosystems such as streams, estuaries, wetlands, and cities. Recent technological advances have led to a diversity of approaches to the measurement of C fluxes at different temporal and spatial scales. These approaches frequently capture different components of NEP or NECB and can therefore be compared across scales only by carefully specifying the fluxes included in the measurements. By explicitly identifying the fluxes that comprise NECB and other components of the C cycle, such as net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and net biome production (NBP), we can provide a less ambiguous framework for understanding and communicating recent changes in the global C cycle.     

Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems

Carbon allocation plays a critical role in forest ecosystem carbon cycling. We reviewed existing literature and compiled annual carbon budgets for forest ecosystems to test a series of hypotheses addressing the patterns, plasticity, and limits of three components of allocation: biomass, the amount of material present; flux, the flow of carbon to a component per unit time; and partitioning, the fraction of gross primary productivity (GPP) used by a component. Can annual carbon flux and partitioning be inferred from biomass? Our survey revealed that biomass was poorly related to carbon flux and to partitioning of photosynthetically derived carbon, and should not be used to infer either. Are component fluxes correlated? Carbon fluxes to foliage, wood, and belowground production and respiration all increased linearly with increasing GPP (a rising tide lifts all boats). Autotrophic respiration was strongly linked to production for foliage, wood and roots, and aboveground net primary productivity and total belowground carbon flux (TBCF) were positively correlated across a broad productivity gradient. How does carbon partitioning respond to variability in resources and environment? Within sites, partitioning to aboveground wood production and TBCF responded to changes in stand age and resource availability, but not to competition (tree density). Increasing resource supply and stand age, with one exception, resulted in increased partitioning to aboveground wood production and decreased partitioning to TBCF. Partitioning to foliage production was much less sensitive to changes in resources and environment. Overall, changes in partitioning within a site in response to resource supply and age were small (<15% of GPP), but much greater than those inferred from global relationships. Across all sites, foliage production plus respiration, and total autotrophic respiration appear to use relatively constant fractions of GPP – partitioning to both was conservative across a broad range of GPP – but values did vary across sites. Partitioning to aboveground wood production and to TBCF were the most variable – conditions that favored high GPP increased partitioning to aboveground wood production and decreased partitioning to TBCF. Do priorities exist for the products of photosynthesis? The available data do not support the concept of priorities for the products of photosynthesis, because increasing GPP increased all fluxes. All facets of carbon allocation are important to understanding carbon cycling in forest ecosystems. Terrestrial ecosystem models require information on partitioning, yet we found few studies that measured all components of the carbon budget to allow estimation of partitioning coefficients. Future studies that measure complete annual carbon budgets contribute the most to understanding carbon allocation.     

氮添加对内蒙古温带典型草原生态系统碳交换的影响

生态系统碳交换(NEE)是评估碳循环及平衡的重要指标,由生态系统总初级生产力(GPP)和生态系统呼吸(ER)共同决定。以往研究表明,N添加能显著促进草地生态系统植物的生长进而提高生态系统的生产力,但N添加如何影响生态系统碳交换的结论仍不明确。同时,对于不同剂量的N添加对生态系统碳交换影响有何差异也不清楚。于2012和2013年在内蒙古草原开展N添加控制实验,设置中等剂量(10 g N m~(-2)a~(-1),N10)和高等剂量(40 g N m~(-2)a~(-1),N40)两个N添加处理,并采用生态系统原位观测箱系统监测不同N处理条件下的NEE动态。结果表明:2年中等剂量N添加处理(N10)下GPP较对照分别增加了15.6%和20%,而ER的变化不显著,该处理下NEE较对照显著降低了230%和337%(即固碳能力增强)。与中等剂量N添加处理结果不同,高等剂量N添加处理下GPP和ER均有不显著的降低趋势,同时,尽管该处理下NEE有升高的趋势(即固碳能力降低),但并不显著。土壤水分改善、土壤温度下降以及叶片N浓度增加可能是中等剂量氮添加促进该生态系统固碳能力的重要机制,而土壤酸化和物种组成改变可能是导致高等剂量N添加下生态系统固碳能力低于中等剂量的重要原因。研究结果表明,不同剂量N添加对生态系统生产力与呼吸的作用机制存在差异,导致生态系统固碳能力有着明显区别。     

Respiratory carbon use and carbon storage in mid‐rotation loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantations: the effect of site resources on the stand carbon balance

We used estimates of autotrophic respiration (R_A), net primary productivity (NPP) and soil CO₂ evolution (S_ff), to develop component carbon budgets for 12‐year‐old loblolly pine plantations during the fifth year of a fertilization and irrigation experiment. Annual carbon use in R_A was 7.5, 9.0, 15.0, and 15.1 Mg C ha^?1 in control (C), irrigated (I), fertilized (F) and irrigated and fertilized (IF) treatments, respectively. Foliage, fine root and perennial woody tissue (stem, branch, coarse and taproot) respiration accounted for, respectively, 37%, 24%, and 39% of R_A in C and I treatments and 38%, 12% and 50% of R_A in F and IF treatments. Annual gross primary production (GPP=NPP+R_A) ranged from 13.1 to 26.6 Mg C ha^?1. The I, F, and IF treatments resulted in a 21, 94, and 103% increase in GPP, respectively, compared to the C treatment. Despite large treatment differences in NPP, R_A, and carbon allocation, carbon use efficiency (CUE=NPP/GPP) averaged 0.42 and was unaffected by manipulating site resources. Ecosystem respiration (R_E), the sum of S_ff, and above ground R_A, ranged from 12.8 to 20.2 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1. S_ff contributed the largest proportion of R_E, but the relative importance of S_ff decreased from 0.63 in C treatments to 0.47 in IF treatments because of increased aboveground R_A. Aboveground woody tissue R_A was 15% of R_E in C and I treatments compared to 25% of R_E in F and IF treatments. Net ecosystem productivity (NEP=GPP‐R_E) was roughly 0 in the C and I treatments and 6.4 Mg C ha^?1 yr^?1 in F and IF treatments, indicating that non‐fertilized treatments were neither a source nor a sink for atmospheric carbon while fertilized treatments were carbon sinks. In these young stands, NEP is tightly linked to NPP; increased ecosystem carbon storage results mainly from an increase in foliage and perennial woody biomass.     

Forest carbon use efficiency: is respiration a constant fraction of gross primary production?

Carbon‐use efficiency (CUE), the ratio of net primary production (NPP) to gross primary production (GPP), describes the capacity of forests to transfer carbon (C) from the atmosphere to terrestrial biomass. It is widely assumed in many landscape‐scale carbon‐cycling models that CUE for forests is a constant value of ∼0.5. To achieve a constant CUE, tree respiration must be a constant fraction of canopy photosynthesis. We conducted a literature survey to test the hypothesis that CUE is constant and universal among forest ecosystems. Of the 60 data points obtained from 26 papers published since 1975, more than half reported values of GPP that were not estimated independently from NPP; values of CUE calculated from independent estimates of GPP were greater than those calculated from estimates of GPP derived from NPP. The slope of the relationship between NPP and GPP for all forests was 0.53, but values of CUE varied from 0.23 to 0.83 for different forest types. CUE decreased with increasing age, and a substantial portion of the variation among forest types was caused by differences in stand age. When corrected for age the mean value of CUE was greatest for temperate deciduous forests and lowest for boreal forests. CUE also increased as the ratio of leaf mass‐to‐total mass increased. Contrary to the assumption of constancy, substantial variation in CUE has been reported in the literature. It may be inappropriate to assume that respiration is a constant fraction of GPP as adhering to this assumption may contribute to incorrect estimates of C cycles. A 20% error in current estimates of CUE used in landscape models (i.e. ranging from 0.4 to 0.6) could misrepresent an amount of C equal to total anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ when scaled to the terrestrial biosphere.     

Production,Respiration, and Overall Carbon Balance in an Old-growth <Emphasis Type="Italic">Pseudotsuga</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">Tsuga</Emphasis> Forest Ecosystem

Ground-based measurements of stores, growth, mortality, litterfall, respiration, and decomposition were conducted in an old-growth forest at Wind River Experimental Forest, Washington, USA. These measurements were used to estimate gross primary production (GPP) and net primary production (NPP); autotrophic respiration (R_a) and heterotrophic (R_h) respiration; and net ecosystem production (NEP). Monte Carlo methods were used to calculate uncertainty (expressed as ± 2 standard deviations of 200–400 calculations). Live carbon (C) stores were 39,800 g C m^–2 (34,800–44,800 g C m^–2). The store of C in detritus and mineral soil was 22,092 g C m^–2 (20,600–23,600 g C m^–2), and the total C stores were 61,899 g C m^–2 (56,600–67,700 g C m^–2). Total NPP was 597 g C m^–2 y^–1 (453 to 741 g C m^–2 y^–1). R_a was 1309 g C m^–2 y^–1 (845–1773 g C m^–2 y^–1), indicating a GPP of 1906 g C m^–2 y^–1 (1444–2368 g C m^–2 y^–1). R_h, including the respiration of heart rots in tree boles, was 577 g C m^–2 y^–1 (479–675 g C m^–2 y^–1). Long-term NEP was estimated to be +20 g C m^–2 y^–1 (–116 to +156 g C m^–2 y^–1), indicating this stand might be a small sink. These estimates contrast with the larger sink estimated at the same site using eddy-flux methods. Several hypotheses to explain this discrepancy were explored, including (a) undetected biomass increases, (b) underestimates of NPP, (c) unmeasured losses, and (d) a temporal mismatch between the two sets of measurements. The last hypothesis appears the most likely.     

Supply-side controls on soil respiration among Oregon forests

To test the hypothesis that variation in soil respiration is related to plant production across a diverse forested landscape, we compared annual soil respiration rates with net primary production and the subsequent allocation of carbon to various ecosystem pools, including leaves, fine roots, forests floor, and mineral soil for 36 independent plots arranged as three replicates of four age classes in three climatically distinct forest types. Across all plots, annual soil respiration was not correlated with aboveground net primary production (R²=0.06, P>0.1) but it was moderately correlated with belowground net primary production (R²=0.46, P<0.001). Despite the wide range in temperature and precipitation regimes experienced by these forests, all exhibited similar soil respiration per unit live fine root biomass, with about 5 g of carbon respired each year per 1 g of fine root carbon (R²=0.45, P<0.001). Annual soil respiration was only weakly correlated with dead carbon pools such as forest floor and mineral soil carbon (R²=0.14 and 0.12, respectively). Trends between soil respiration, production, and root mass among age classes within forest type were inconsistent and do not always reflect cross‐site trends. These results are consistent with a growing appreciation that soil respiration is strongly influenced by the supply of carbohydrates to roots and the rhizosphere, and that some regional patterns of soil respiration may depend more on belowground carbon allocation than the abiotic constraints imposed on subsequent metabolism.