2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119081
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distinct patterns of below- and aboveground growth phenology and litter carbon inputs along a boreal site type gradient

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some previous studies on boreal forests estimated fine root (litter) production rates of trees and understory plants separately, in which, for example, understory plants accounted for 19-21% (black spruce forests; Steele et al, 1997), 6-29% (drained fen or bog forests with Scots pine, etc. ; Bhuiyan et al, 2017), and 20-47% (Scots pine forests; Ding et al, 2021) of total fine root (litter) production, which were comparable or smaller than our data on understory contribution to fine root growth (25-78%; Figure 6). Therefore, to better understand belowground carbon flux in permafrost forests, it is recommended that future studies will focus more on the roles of understory plants such as Ericaceae shrubs.…”
Section: Implication To Carbon Dynamicssupporting
confidence: 74%
“…Some previous studies on boreal forests estimated fine root (litter) production rates of trees and understory plants separately, in which, for example, understory plants accounted for 19-21% (black spruce forests; Steele et al, 1997), 6-29% (drained fen or bog forests with Scots pine, etc. ; Bhuiyan et al, 2017), and 20-47% (Scots pine forests; Ding et al, 2021) of total fine root (litter) production, which were comparable or smaller than our data on understory contribution to fine root growth (25-78%; Figure 6). Therefore, to better understand belowground carbon flux in permafrost forests, it is recommended that future studies will focus more on the roles of understory plants such as Ericaceae shrubs.…”
Section: Implication To Carbon Dynamicssupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The soil nutrient regime thus clearly influences FRP; however, the directions of the responses have varied among studies in different ecosystems. Recent FRP studies from stands on mineral soils have shown total FRP (pine and understorey) to decrease with increasing site fertility (Ding et al, 2021). For peatlands, total FRP has previously been observed to be higher in more nutrient-rich and floristically diverse sites than in nutrient-poor sites (Finér and Laine, 2000;Bhuiyan et al, 2017).…”
Section: Fine-root Production In Peatland Forestsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dry-mass-based respiration of excised roots was upscaled to the ground area, using an estimate for daily living pine root biomass at the study site in Hyytiälä (SMEAR II station). The daily living root biomass per ground area was calculated for each day of the year, using the total pine root (diameter < 5 mm) biomass of 221 g m -2 at the site (Ding et al 2021) and daily growth measured at the site in 2018 (Ding et al 2020), whereas the turnover rate of the roots was assumed to be 1 yr.…”
Section: Root Incubations (Iii)mentioning
confidence: 99%