Marshall, John
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Research article2023Peer reviewedOpen access
Components explain, but do eddy fluxes constrain? Carbon budget of a nitrogen-fertilized boreal Scots pine forest
Marshall, John D.; Tarvainen, Lasse; Zhao, Peng; Lim, Hyungwoo; Wallin, Goran; Nasholm, Torgny; Lundmark, Tomas; Linder, Sune; Peichl, Matthias
Abstract
- Nitrogen (N) fertilization increases biomass and soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation in boreal pine forests, but the underlying mechanisms remain uncertain. At two Scots pine sites, one undergoing annual N fertilization and the other a reference, we sought to explain these responses.
- We measured component fluxes, including biomass production, SOC accumulation, and respiration, and summed them into carbon budgets. We compared the resulting summations to ecosystem fluxes measured by eddy covariance.
- N fertilization increased most component fluxes (P < 0.05), especially SOC accumulation (20×). Only fine-root, mycorrhiza, and exudate production decreased, by 237 (SD = 28) g C m−2 yr−1. Stemwood production increases were ascribed to this partitioning shift, gross primary production (GPP), and carbon-use efficiency, in that order. The methods agreed in their estimates of GPP in both stands (P > 0.05), but the components detected an increase in net ecosystem production (NEP) (190 (54) g C m−2 yr−1; P < 0.01) that eddy covariance did not (19 (62) g C m−2 yr−1; ns).
- The pairing of plots, the simplicity of the sites, and the strength of response provide a compelling description of N effects on the C budget. However, the disagreement between methods calls for further paired tests of N fertilization effects in simple forest ecosystems.
Keywords
canopy photosynthesis; carbon flux partitioning; carbon sequestration; carbon-use efficiency; eddy covariance; nitrogen fertilization
Published in
New Phytologist
2023, volume: 239, number: 6, pages: 2166-2179
Publisher: WILEY
SLU Authors
Tarvainen, Lasse
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- University of Gothenburg
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Zhao, Peng
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Lim, Hyungwoo
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- University of Tartu
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Näsholm, Torgny
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Lundmark, Tomas
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Linder, Sune
- Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Peichl, Matthias
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
UKÄ Subject classification
Forest Science
Soil Science
Publication identifier
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18939
Permanent link to this page (URI)
https://res.slu.se/id/publ/122322