scholarly journals Response of water fluxes and biomass production to climate change in permanent grassland soil ecosystems

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 6087-6106
Author(s):  
Veronika Forstner ◽  
Jannis Groh ◽  
Matevz Vremec ◽  
Markus Herndl ◽  
Harry Vereecken ◽  
...  

Abstract. Effects of climate change on the ecosystem productivity and water fluxes have been studied in various types of experiments. However, it is still largely unknown whether and how the experimental approach itself affects the results of such studies. We employed two contrasting experimental approaches, using high-precision weighable monolithic lysimeters, over a period of 4 years to identify and compare the responses of water fluxes and aboveground biomass to climate change in permanent grassland. The first, manipulative, approach is based on controlled increases of atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature. The second, observational, approach uses data from a space-for-time substitution along a gradient of climatic conditions. The Budyko framework was used to identify if the soil ecosystem is energy limited or water limited. Elevated temperature reduced the amount of non-rainfall water, particularly during the growing season in both approaches. In energy-limited grassland ecosystems, elevated temperature increased the actual evapotranspiration and decreased aboveground biomass. As a consequence, elevated temperature led to decreasing seepage rates in energy-limited systems. Under water-limited conditions in dry periods, elevated temperature aggravated water stress and, thus, resulted in reduced actual evapotranspiration. The already small seepage rates of the drier soils remained almost unaffected under these conditions compared to soils under wetter conditions. Elevated atmospheric CO2 reduced both actual evapotranspiration and aboveground biomass in the manipulative experiment and, therefore, led to a clear increase and change in seasonality of seepage. As expected, the aboveground biomass productivity and ecosystem efficiency indicators of the water-limited ecosystems were negatively correlated with an increase in aridity, while the trend was unclear for the energy-limited ecosystems. In both experimental approaches, the responses of soil water fluxes and biomass production mainly depend on the ecosystems' status with respect to energy or water limitation. To thoroughly understand the ecosystem response to climate change and be able to identify tipping points, experiments need to embrace sufficiently extreme boundary conditions and explore responses to individual and multiple drivers, such as temperature, CO2 concentration, and precipitation, including non-rainfall water. In this regard, manipulative and observational climate change experiments complement one another and, thus, should be combined in the investigation of climate change effects on grassland.

2022 ◽  
pp. 99-114
Author(s):  
Helena Esteves Correia ◽  
Daniela de Vasconcelos Teixeira Agu Costa

Agricultural production is influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, air humidity, soil water, light intensity, and CO2 concentration. However, climate change has influenced the values of average temperature, precipitation, global atmospheric CO2 concentration, or ozone level. Thus, climate change could lead to different situations on plants and consequently influence agricultural production. With this chapter, the authors intend to research how climate change influences some plant metabolisms (such as photosynthesis, photorespiration, transpiration, among others) and therefore agricultural production.


2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 730-740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nereu Augusto Streck

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) of the Earth´s atmosphere is increasing, which has the potential of increasing greenhouse effect and air temperature in the future. Plants respond to environment CO2 and temperature. Therefore, climate change may affect agriculture. The purpose of this paper was to review the literature about the impact of a possible increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature on crop growth, development, and yield. Increasing CO2 concentration increases crop yield once the substrate for photosynthesis and the gradient of CO2 concentration between atmosphere and leaf increase. C3 plants will benefit more than C4 plants at elevated CO2. However, if global warming will take place, an increase in temperature may offset the benefits of increasing CO2 on crop yield.


2015 ◽  
Vol 66 (8) ◽  
pp. 831 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliseu G. Fabbrin ◽  
Yolanda Gogorcena ◽  
Átila F. Mogor ◽  
Idoia Garmendia ◽  
Nieves Goicoechea

Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) is an important fodder and is a potential feedstock for fuel ethanol production in dry areas. Our objectives were to assess the effect of elevated CO2 and/or reduced irrigation on biomass production and levels of sugars and proteins in leaves of pearl millet and to test whether mycorrhizal inoculation could modulate the effects of these abiotic factors on growth and metabolism. Results showed that mycorrhizal inoculation and water regime most influenced biomass of shoots and roots; however, their individual effects were dependent on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At ambient CO2, mycorrhizal inoculation helped to alleviate effects of water deficit on pearl millet without significant decreases in biomass production, which contrasted with the low biomass of mycorrhizal plants under restricted irrigation and elevated CO2. Mycorrhizal inoculation enhanced water content in shoots, whereas reduced irrigation decreased water content in roots. The triple interaction between CO2, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and water regime significantly affected the total amount of soluble sugars and determined the predominant soluble sugars in leaves. Under optimal irrigation, elevated CO2 increased the proportion of hexoses in pearl millet that was not inoculated with AMF, thus improving the quality of this plant material for bioethanol production. By contrast, elevated CO2 decreased the levels of proteins in leaves, thus limiting the quality of pearl millet as fodder and primary source for cattle feed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (02) ◽  
pp. 73-77
Author(s):  
Supriya Tiwari ◽  
N. K. Dubey

Increasing Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important component of global climate change that has drawn the attention of environmentalists worldwide in the last few decades. Besides acting as an important greenhouse gas, it also produces a stimulatory effect, its instantaneous impact being a significant increase in the plant productivity. Atmospheric CO2 levels have linearly increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) during pre-industrial times to the current level of more than 390 ppm. In past few years, anthropogenic activities led to a rapid increase in global CO2 concentration. Current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projection indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase over this century, reaching 730-1020 ppm by 2100. An increase in global temperature, ranging from 1.1 to 6.4oC depending on global emission scenarios, will accompany the rise in atmospheric CO2. As CO2 acts as a limiting factor in photosynthesis, the immediate effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is improved plant productivity, a feature commonly termed as “CO2 fertilization”. Variability in crop responses to the elevated CO2 made the agricultural productivity and food security vulnerable to the climate change. Several studies have shown significant CO2 fertilization effect on crop growth and yield. An increase of 30 % in plant growth and yield has been reported when CO2 concentration has been doubled from 330 to 660 ppm. However, the fertilization effect of elevated CO2 is not very much effective in case of C4 plants which already contain a CO2 concentration mechanism, owing to their specific leaf 2 anatomy called kranz anatomy. As a result, yield increments observed in C4plants are comparatively lower than the C3 plants under similar elevated CO2 concentrations. This review discusses the trends and the causes of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, its effects on the crop productivity and the discrepancies in the response of C3 and C4 plants to increasing CO2 concentrations.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. Port ◽  
V. Brovkin ◽  
M. Claussen

Abstract. In this study, vegetation–climate and vegetation–carbon cycle interactions during anthropogenic climate change are assessed by using the Earth System Model of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI ESM) that includes vegetation dynamics and an interactive carbon cycle. We assume anthropogenic CO2 emissions according to the RCP 8.5 scenario in the time period from 1850 to 2120. For the time after 2120, we assume zero emissions to evaluate the response of the stabilising Earth System by 2300. Our results suggest that vegetation dynamics have a considerable influence on the changing global and regional climate. In the simulations, global mean tree cover extends by 2300 due to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration and global warming. Thus, land carbon uptake is higher and atmospheric CO2 concentration is lower by about 40 ppm when considering dynamic vegetation compared to the static pre-industrial vegetation cover. The reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration is equivalent to a lower global mean temperature. Moreover, biogeophysical effects of vegetation cover shifts influence the climate on a regional scale. Expanded tree cover in the northern high latitudes results in a reduced albedo and additional warming. In the Amazon region, declined tree cover causes a regional warming due to reduced evapotranspiration. As a net effect, vegetation dynamics have a slight attenuating effect on global climate change as the global climate cools by 0.22 K due to natural vegetation cover shifts in 2300.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 597-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hugh MacDougall

Abstract. Idealized climate change simulations are used as benchmark experiments to facilitate the comparison of ensembles of climate models. In the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), the 1 % per yearly compounded change in atmospheric CO2 concentration experiment was used to compare Earth system models with full representations of the global carbon cycle in the Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP). However, this “1 % experiment” was never intended for such a purpose and implies a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration at double the rate of the instrumental record. Here, we examine this choice by using an intermediate complexity climate model to compare the 1 % experiment to an idealized CO2 pathway derived from a logistic function. The comparison shows three key differences in model output when forcing the model with the logistic experiment. (1) The model forced with the logistic experiment exhibits a transition of the land biosphere from a carbon sink to a carbon source, a feature absent when forcing the model with the 1 % experiment. (2) The ocean uptake of carbon comes to dominate the carbon cycle as emissions decline, a feature that cannot be captured when forcing a model with the 1 % experiment, as emissions always increase in that experiment. (3) The permafrost carbon feedback to climate change under the 1 % experiment forcing is less than half the strength of the feedback seen under logistic experiment forcing. Using the logistic experiment also allows smooth transition to zero or negative emissions states, allowing these states to be examined without sharp discontinuities in CO2 emissions. The protocol for the CMIP6 iteration of C4MIP again sets the 1 % experiment as the benchmark experiment for model intercomparison; however, clever use of the Tier 2 experiments may alleviate some of the limitations outlined here. Given the limitations of the 1 % experiment as the benchmark experiment for carbon cycle intercomparisons, adding a logistic or similar idealized experiment to the protocol of the CMIP7 iteration of C4MIP is recommended.


2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 300-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shubhangi Lamba ◽  
Marianne Hall ◽  
Mats Räntfors ◽  
Nitin Chaudhary ◽  
Sune Linder ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document