Heterotrophic and Autotrophic Soil Respiration under Simulated Dormancy Conditions

Beverly, D.; Franklin, Scott B.

doi:10.4236/ojf.2015.53024

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are similar to the findings observed in other forests3234. In this study, however, a new finding is that T - θ model fits the observations better in the DS than the GS for the all components of R S , indicating that R S and its components can be better predicted through T 5 and θ 5 in the DS than in the GS.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Soil respiration and its environmental response varies by day/night and by growing/dormant season in a subalpine forest

Liu

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparisons of soil respiration (RS) and its components of heterotrophic (RH) and rhizospheric (RR) respiration during daytime and nighttime, growing (GS) and dormant season (DS), have not being well studied and documented. In this study, we compared RS, RH, RR, and their responses to soil temperature (T5) and moisture (θ5) in daytime vs. nighttime and GS vs. DS in a subalpine forest in 2011. In GS, nighttime RS and RH rates were 30.5 ± 4.4% (mean ± SE) and 30.2 ± 6.5% lower than in daytime, while in DS, they were 35.5 ± 5.5% and 37.3 ± 8.5% lower, respectively. DS RS and RH accounted for 27.3 ± 2.5% and 27.6 ± 2.6% of GS RS and RH, respectively. The temperature sensitivities (Q10) of RS and RH were higher in nighttime than daytime, and in DS than GS, while they all decreased with increase of T5. Soil C fluxes were more responsive to θ5 in nighttime than daytime, and in DS than GS. Our results suggest that the DS and nighttime RS play an important role in regulating carbon cycle and its response to climate change in alpine forests, and therefore, they should be taken into consideration in order to make accurate predictions of RS and ecosystem carbon cycle under climate change scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Soil respiration and its environmental response varies by day/night and by growing/dormant season in a subalpine forest

Liu

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The variation in the seasonal contribution of autotrophic Rsoil with highest contribution during the plant growing season was expected and has been observed for several ecosystems (Beverly and Franklin, 2015;Pumpanen et al, 2015;Hanson et al, 2000). The major reason for the seasonal pattern of autotrophic Rsoil is the seasonal pattern of GPP that drives an increase in root respiration during the growing season (Pumpanen et al, 2015).…”

Section: Different Seasonal Contribution Of Respiration Componentsmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Rsoil from the manual chambers differed dramatically from Rstem by showing a fairly similar contribution to Reco during both winter, spring and summer of 52, 45 and 49 %, respectively, while the contribution increased to 79 % during autumn. Unlike the trees, the microorganisms in the soil do not go into dormancy and can continue to be active and respire, albeit at a slower rate, even during winter (Beverly and Franklin, 2015). Freezing temperatures, which causes the soil to freeze and lower Rsoil dramatically can occur at our site.…”

Section: Different Seasonal Contribution Of Respiration Componentsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Partitioning of ecosystem respiration in a beech forest

Brændholt

Ibrom

Larsen

et al. 2018

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrestrial ecosystem respiration (Reco) represents a major component of the global carbon cycle. It consists of many sub-components, such as aboveground plant respiration and belowground root and microbial respiration, each of which may respond differently to abiotic factors, and thus to global climate change. To correctly predict future carbon cycles in forest ecosystems, Reco must therefore be partitioned and understood for each of its various components. In this study we used the eddy covariance technique together with manual and automated closedchambers to quantify the individual components of Reco in a temperate beech forest at diel, seasonal and annual time scales. Reco was measured by eddy covariance while respiration rates from soil, tree stems and isolated coarse tree roots were measured bi-hourly by an automated closed-chamber system. Soil respiration (Rsoil) was measured in intact plots, and heterotrophic Rsoil was measured in trenched plots. Tree stem (Rstem) and coarse root (Rroot) respiration were measured by custom made closed-chambers 2 We found that the contribution of Rstem to total Reco varied across the year, by only accounting for 6 % of Reco during winter and 16 % during the summer growing season. In contrast Rsoil was approximately half of Reco during winter (52 %), spring (45 %) and summer (49 %), while the contribution increased to 79 % during autumn. Based on observed fluxes in the trenched and intact soil plots, we found that autotrophic Rsoil accounted for 34 % of Rsoil during summer, i.e. a relatively low fractional estimate compared to findings from other studies. It is likely that dead roots were still decomposing in the trenched soil plots thus causing overestimation of heterotrophic Rsoil. Diel Rstem and Rroot measurements showed a distinct pattern during summer with the highest respiration rates around 13:00-15:00 CET for Rstem, and the highest respiration seen from 9:00-15:00 for Rroot. In contrast, Rsoil showed the lowest respiration during daytime with no clear difference in the diel pattern between the intact and trenched soil plots. Finally, we calculated annual Rsoil for different transects, and found that annual Rsoil estimated from the previously used transect at the site was underestimated due to Rsoil of the transect not being representative for the spatial heterogeneity of Rsoil at the site. This highlights the importance of performing a sufficient number of chamber measurements at a site to adequately capture the spatial variation and estimate Rsoil correctly.

show abstract

“…On the one hand, deadwood-derived DOC might be stabilized in soil as a result of either: (i) chemical protection from decomposition through association with mineral phases; (ii) physical protection through sequestration within soil structure; or, (iii) biochemical protection through inherent or acquired structural recalcitrance (Six et al 2002;von Luetzow et al 2006;Piaszczyk et al 2019a). On the other hand, deadwood DOC components may prime decomposition of, or release DOC from, existing SOM pools through: (i) stimulation of microbial activity and as such enzymatic activity (Fontaine et al 2003;Gonzalez-Polo et al 2013;Beverly and Franklin 2015;Minnich et al 2021) which in turn primes increased depolymerisation of, and release of DOC from, native soil organic matter; or (ii) abiotic liberation of native dissolved organic compounds from protective associations with minerals (Keiluweit et al 2015). As previously mentioned, deadwood varies with respect to the stage of wood decomposition, or decay class.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The contribution of deadwood to soil carbon dynamics in contrasting temperate forest ecosystems

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deadwood forms a significant carbon pool in forest systems and is a potential source of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) input to soil, yet little is known about how deadwood effects forest soil carbon cycling. Deadwood DOC inputs to soil may be retained through sorption or may prime microbial decomposition of existing organic matter to produce additional DOC. To determine impacts of deadwood on soil C cycling, we analysed surface soil from beneath deadwood or leaf litter only, along chronosequences of stands of lowland oak and upland Sitka spruce. The concentration and quality (by optical indices) of water-extracted soil DOC (water-extractable organic carbon; WEOC), in situ decomposition ‘tea bag index’ (TBI) parameters and enzymatic potential assays (β-D-cellubiosidase, β-glucosidase, β-xylosidase, leucine aminopeptidase, phosphatase, phenol oxidase) were determined. Presence of deadwood significantly (p < 0.05) increased WEOC concentration (~ 1.5 to ~ 1.75 times) in the mineral oak soil but had no effect on WEOC in spruce soils, potentially because spruce deadwood DOC inputs were masked by a high background of WEOC (1168 mg kg−1 soil) and/or were not retained through mineral sorption in the highly organic (~ 90% SOM) soil. TBI and enzyme evidence suggested that deadwood-derived DOC did not impact existing forest carbon pools via microbial priming, possibly due to the more humified/aromatic quality of DOC produced (humification index of 0.75 and 0.65 for deadwood and leaf litter WEOC, respectively). Forest carbon budgets, particularly those for mineral soils, may underestimate the quantity of DOC if derived from soil monitoring that does not include a deadwood component.

show abstract

Heterotrophic and Autotrophic Soil Respiration under Simulated Dormancy Conditions

Cited by 5 publications

References 42 publications

Soil respiration and its environmental response varies by day/night and by growing/dormant season in a subalpine forest

Soil respiration and its environmental response varies by day/night and by growing/dormant season in a subalpine forest

Partitioning of ecosystem respiration in a beech forest

The contribution of deadwood to soil carbon dynamics in contrasting temperate forest ecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About