CO
            <sub>2</sub>
            Elicits Long-Term Decline in Nitrogen Fixation

Hungate, Bruce A.; Stiling, Peter; Dijkstra, Paul; Johnson, Dale W.; Ketterer, Michael E.; Hymus, Graham J.; Hinkle, C. Ross; Drake, Bert G.

doi:10.1126/science.1095549

Cited by 166 publications

(139 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in a 6-year study of a N-poor calcareous grassland, phosphorus (P) limited the response of legumes to elevated [CO 2 ], which in turn limited N transfer to nonleguminous species in the ecosystem (Niklaus and Kö rner, 2004). A study of a Florida scruboak ecosystem reported that the initial stimulation of N 2 fixation in Galactia elliottii disappeared over time as molybdenum (Mo) became limiting in elevated [CO 2 ] (Hungate et al, 2004). Mo is a required cofactor for the nitrogenase complex, and elevated [CO 2 ] was thought to increase Mo adsorption to soil particles, decreasing the availability of Mo, and causing a systematic decline in N 2 fixation (Hungate et al, 2004).…”

Section: Why Is Elevated [Co 2 ] Particularly Beneficial For Legumes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study of a Florida scruboak ecosystem reported that the initial stimulation of N 2 fixation in Galactia elliottii disappeared over time as molybdenum (Mo) became limiting in elevated [CO 2 ] (Hungate et al, 2004). Mo is a required cofactor for the nitrogenase complex, and elevated [CO 2 ] was thought to increase Mo adsorption to soil particles, decreasing the availability of Mo, and causing a systematic decline in N 2 fixation (Hungate et al, 2004).…”

Section: Why Is Elevated [Co 2 ] Particularly Beneficial For Legumes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mo limitation, which is largely confined to acidic soils, may impact N 2 fixation directly (Hungate et al, 2004). However, Mo limitation is also likely to affect plants dependent on soilborne nitrate because nitrate reductase also requires Mo cofactors (Crawford et al, 2000).…”

Section: Why Is Elevated [Co 2 ] Particularly Beneficial For Legumes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On balance, evidence suggests that in managed systems, legumes are more responsive to elevated [CO 2 ] than other plants (e.g. Ainsworth and Long, 2005); however, in natural ecosystems, nutrient availability can limit the response of legumes to elevated [CO 2 ] (Hungate et al, 2004;van Groenigen et al, 2006). Here, we consider these observations, outline the mechanisms that underlie them, and examine recent work that advances our understanding of how legumes respond to growth at elevated [CO 2 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Will Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentration Amplify the Benefits of Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Why Is Elevated [Co 2 ] Particularly Beneficial For Legumes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Is Elevated [Co 2 ] Particularly Beneficial For Legumes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Is Elevated [Co 2 ] Particularly Beneficial For Legumes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Will Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentration Amplify the Benefits of Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, CO 2 enrichment often stimulates plant growth, and in some experiments, it also increases the growth of legumes and rates of BNF [58,59]-although any such stimulation may be short-lived [60].…”

Section: From Patterns To Ecological Controlsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological nitrogen fixation: rates, patterns and ecological controls in terrestrial ecosystems

Vitousek

Menge

Reed³

et al. 2013

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

597

478

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New techniques have identified a wide range of organisms with the capacity to carry out biological nitrogen fixation (BNF)—greatly expanding our appreciation of the diversity and ubiquity of N fixers—but our understanding of the rates and controls of BNF at ecosystem and global scales has not advanced at the same pace. Nevertheless, determining rates and controls of BNF is crucial to placing anthropogenic changes to the N cycle in context, and to understanding, predicting and managing many aspects of global environmental change. Here, we estimate terrestrial BNF for a pre-industrial world by combining information on N fluxes with 15 N relative abundance data for terrestrial ecosystems. Our estimate is that pre-industrial N fixation was 58 (range of 40–100) Tg N fixed yr −1 ; adding conservative assumptions for geological N reduces our best estimate to 44 Tg N yr −1 . This approach yields substantially lower estimates than most recent calculations; it suggests that the magnitude of human alternation of the N cycle is substantially larger than has been assumed.

show abstract

Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO₂ enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ?

Walker

Zaehle

Medlyn

et al. 2015

Global Biogeochemical Cycles

107

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large uncertainty exists in model projections of the land carbon (C) sink response to increasing atmospheric CO 2 . Free-Air CO 2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments lasting a decade or more have investigated ecosystem responses to a step change in atmospheric CO 2 concentration. To interpret FACE results in the context of gradual increases in atmospheric CO 2 over decades to centuries, we used a suite of seven models to simulate the Duke and Oak Ridge FACE experiments extended for 300 years of CO 2 enrichment. We also determine key modeling assumptions that drive divergent projections of terrestrial C uptake and evaluate whether these assumptions can be constrained by experimental evidence. All models simulated increased terrestrial C pools resulting from CO 2 enrichment, though there was substantial variability in quasi-equilibrium C sequestration and rates of change. In two of two models that assume that plant nitrogen (N) uptake is solely a function of soil N supply, the net primary production response to elevated CO 2 became progressively N limited. In four of five models that assume that N uptake is a function of both soil N supply and plant N demand, elevated CO 2 led to reduced ecosystem N losses and thus progressively relaxed nitrogen limitation. Many allocation assumptions resulted in increased wood allocation relative to leaves and roots which reduced the vegetation turnover rate and increased C sequestration. In addition, self-thinning assumptions had a substantial impact on C sequestration in two models. Accurate representation of N process dynamics (in particular N uptake), allocation, and forest self-thinning is key to minimizing uncertainty in projections of future C sequestration in response to elevated atmospheric CO 2 .

show abstract

CO ₂ Elicits Long-Term Decline in Nitrogen Fixation

Cited by 166 publications

References 4 publications

Will Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentration Amplify the Benefits of Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes?

Will Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentration Amplify the Benefits of Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes?

Biological nitrogen fixation: rates, patterns and ecological controls in terrestrial ecosystems

Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO₂ enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CO 2 Elicits Long-Term Decline in Nitrogen Fixation

Cited by 166 publications

References 4 publications

Will Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentration Amplify the Benefits of Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes?

Will Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentration Amplify the Benefits of Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes?

Biological nitrogen fixation: rates, patterns and ecological controls in terrestrial ecosystems

Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO2 enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

CO ₂ Elicits Long-Term Decline in Nitrogen Fixation

Predicting long‐term carbon sequestration in response to CO₂ enrichment: How and why do current ecosystem models differ?