Response of soil respiration and ecosystem carbon budget to vegetation removal in Eucalyptus plantations with contrasting ages

Nitrogen (N) deposition has been well documented to cause substantial impacts on ecosystem carbon cycling. However, the majority studies of stimulating N deposition by direct N addition to forest floor have neglected some key ecological processes in forest canopy (e.g., N retention and absorption) and might not fully represent realistic atmospheric N deposition and its effects on ecosystem carbon cycling. In this study, we stimulated both canopy and understory N deposition (50 and 100 kg N ha−1 year−1) with a local atmospheric NHx:NOy ratio of 2.08:1, aiming to assess whether canopy and understory N deposition had similar effects on soil respiration (RS) and net ecosystem production (NEP) in Moso bamboo forests. Results showed that RS, soil autotrophic (RA), and heterotrophic respiration (RH) were 2971 ± 597, 1472 ± 579, and 1499 ± 56 g CO2 m−2 year−1 for sites without N deposition (CN0), respectively. Canopy and understory N deposition did not significantly affect RS, RA, and RH, and the effects of canopy and understory N deposition on these soil fluxes were similar. NEP was 1940 ± 826 g CO2 m−2 year−1 for CN0, which was a carbon sink, indicating that Moso bamboo forest the potential to play an important role alleviating global climate change. Meanwhile, the effects of canopy and understory N deposition on NEP were similar. These findings did not support the previous predictions postulating that understory N deposition would overestimate the effects of N deposition on carbon cycling. However, due to the limitation of short duration of N deposition, an increase in the duration of N deposition manipulation is urgent and essential to enhance our understanding of the role of canopy processes in ecosystem carbon fluxes in the future.

Download Full-text

Determination of the carbon budget of a pasture: effect of system boundaries and flux uncertainties

Biogeosciences ◽

10.5194/bg-13-2959-2016 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 13 (10) ◽

pp. 2959-2969 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Raphael Felber ◽

Daniel Bretscher ◽

Andreas Münger ◽

Albrecht Neftel ◽

Christof Ammann

Keyword(s):

Carbon Budget ◽

Agricultural Sector ◽

Ghg Emissions ◽

C Sequestration ◽

Co2 Exchange ◽

System Boundaries ◽

Simultaneous Application ◽

Soil C ◽

Ecosystem Carbon ◽

Eddy Covariance Measurements

Abstract. Carbon (C) sequestration in the soil is considered as a potential important mechanism to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the agricultural sector. It can be quantified by the net ecosystem carbon budget (NECB) describing the change of soil C as the sum of all relevant import and export fluxes. NECB was investigated here in detail for an intensively grazed dairy pasture in Switzerland. Two budget approaches with different system boundaries were applied: NECBtot for system boundaries including the grazing cows and NECBpast for system boundaries excluding the cows. CO2 and CH4 exchange induced by soil/vegetation processes as well as direct emissions by the animals were derived from eddy covariance measurements. Other C fluxes were either measured (milk yield, concentrate feeding) or derived based on animal performance data (intake, excreta). For the investigated year, both approaches resulted in a small near-neutral C budget: NECBtot −27 ± 62 and NECBpast 23 ± 76 g C m−2 yr−1. The considerable uncertainties, depending on the approach, were mainly due to errors in the CO2 exchange or in the animal-related fluxes. The comparison of the NECB results with the annual exchange of other GHG revealed CH4 emissions from the cows to be the major contributor in terms of CO2 equivalents, but with much lower uncertainty compared to NECB. Although only 1 year of data limit the representativeness of the carbon budget results, they demonstrate the important contribution of the non-CO2 fluxes depending on the chosen system boundaries and the effect of their propagated uncertainty in an exemplary way. The simultaneous application and comparison of both NECB approaches provides a useful consistency check for the carbon budget determination and can help to identify and eliminate systematic errors.

Download Full-text