Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on January 11, 2007
Annals of Botany 2007 99(2):345-353; doi:10.1093/aob/mcl266
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow A corrigendum has been published
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/2/345    most recent
mcl266v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zha, T.
Right arrow Articles by Barr, A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zha, T.
Right arrow Articles by Barr, A. G.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Zha, T.
Right arrow Articles by Barr, A. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Total and Component Carbon Fluxes of a Scots Pine Ecosystem from Chamber Measurements and Eddy Covariance

Tianshan Zha1,*, Zisheng Xing2, Kai-Yun Wang3, Seppo Kellomäki4 and Alan G. Barr1

1 Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, 11 Innovation Rd, Saskatoon SK, S7N 3H5, Canada
2 Faculty of Forestry and Environment, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B 6C2, Canada
3 Urban Ecology and Restoration Key Laboratory, East China Normal University, 3663 North Zhongshan Rd, Shanghai 200062, China
4 Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, PO Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland

* For correspondence. E-mail tianshan.zha{at}ec.gc.ca

Received: 17 July 2006    Returned for revision: 11 September 2006    Accepted: 23 October 2006    Published electronically: 11 January 2007


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Distinguishing between, and quantifying, the different components of ecosystem C fluxes is critical in predicting the responses of ecosystem C cycling to climate change. The aims of this study were to quantify the photosynthetic and respiratory fluxes of a 50-year-old Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) ecosystem, and to distinguish respiration of branches with needles from that of stems, and that of soil.

METHODS: The CO2 flux of the ecosystem was continuously measured using the eddy covariance (EC) method, and its components (respiration and photosynthesis of a branch with needles, stem and soil surface) were measured with an automated chamber system, from 2001 to 2004.

KEY RESULTS: All values below are chamber based. The average temperature coefficient (Q10) of respiration was 2·7, 2·2 and 4·0, respectively, for branch (Rbran), stem (Rstem) and the soil surface (Rsoil). Respiration at a reference temperature of 15 °C (R15) was 1·27, 0·49 and 4·02 µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1 for the three components, respectively. Over 4 years, the annual Rbran, Rstem and Rsoil ranged from 196 to 256, 56 to 83 and 439 to 598 g C m–2 ground year–1, respectively, with a 4-year average of 227, 72 and 507 g C m–2 ground year–1. Annual ecosystem respiration (Reco) was 731, 783, 909 and 751 g C m–2 ground year–1 in years 2001–2004, respectively, gross primary production (GPP) was 922, 1030, 1138 and 1001 g C m–2 ground year–1, and net ecosystem production (NEP) was 191, 247, 229 and 251 g C m–2 ground year–1. The average contribution of Rbran, Rstem and Rsoil to Reco was 29, 9 and 62 %, respectively. Overstorey photosynthesis accounted for 96 % of GPP. The average Reco/GPP ratio was 0·78. Net primary production (NPP) in the 4 years was 469, 581, 600 and 551 g C m–2 year–1, respectively, with the NPP/GPP ratio 0·54 averaged over the years.

CONCLUSIONS: Respiration from the soil is the dominant component of ecosystem respiration. Differences between years in Reco were due to differences in temperature during the growing season. Rsoil was more sensitive to temperature than Rbran and Rstem, and differences in Rsoil were responsible for the differences in Reco between years.

Key words: Scots pine, carbon flux, stem, branch, soil, photosynthesis, respiration, ecosystem


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Forests contain 66–80 % of all C stored in above-ground biomass and about 45 % of that found in below-ground terrestrial pools (Waring et al., 1998). Boreal forests cover a broad circumpolar band across the Eurasian and North American continents, and represent approx. 11 % of the Earth's total land area (Bonan and Shugart, 1989; Gower et al., 2001). They are of global importance because of their large carbon (C) stores and C fluxes, which are substantial components of the Earth's C budget (Landsberg and Gower, 1997; Gower et al., 2001). Thus the magnitude of CO2 exchange between these forests and the atmosphere is of major importance. Carbon balance of forest ecosystems has become a particular concern as an important environmental issue because of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration and its influence on climate and vegetation. Forests may be managed in future, not simply for timber and other products, but also for CO2 sequestration to ameliorate global warming. Ecosystem C management demands an understanding of photosynthesis and respiration, two major processes determining ecosystem C balance.

Net CO2 exchange of ecosystems, including respiration, has been measured and reliably quantified by eddy covariance (EC) measurements (Black et al., 1996; Aubinet et al., 2000; Baldocchi et al., 2001; Falge et al., 2002; Zha et al., 2004b). However, EC cannot provide information on the C dynamics of components (e.g. photosynthesis and respiration of parts of the vegetation) of an ecosystem. The importance of respiration in the C balance is uncertain (Grace and Rayment, 2000; Valentini et al., 2000), with uncertainties in estimating respiration from meteorological measurements in darkness (Lee, 1998). Component C fluxes (soil, branch, etc.) may be measured continuously with an automated chamber system to estimate their contribution to the total fluxes (Griffis et al., 2004; Zha et al., 2004a, 2005) over long periods. Long-term measurements of components improve the estimates of long-term dynamics of C fluxes compared with measurements made over a limited period. There is still much uncertainty about respiration and photosynthesis of parts of the forest ecosystem and their relative contributions to the total carbon balance. In particular, the processes controlling the sources and dynamics of CO2 flux from the soil surface remain poorly understood.

The objectives of the present study are (a) to quantify seasonal differences, and those between years, in respiration and photosynthesis for a forest ecosystem and its components; (b) to quantify the relative contribution of respiration of different components to the ecosystem carbon budget; and (c) to compare the estimate of ecosystem from automated chambers with those from the EC.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Site description
The research was conducted in a 50-year-old stand of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) at Huhus (62°52'N, 30°49'E, 145 m a.s.l.), eastern Finland. The climate is characterized by a long, cold winter. The mean monthly temperature is lowest in January, –10·4 °C, and highest in July, 15·8 °C. The average annual precipitation at the site (1961–2000) is 724 mm, of which 38 % falls as snow. The site is flat, and has a homogeneous overstorey and understoreys. Soil is a sandy podzol with the top 50 cm containing an average volumetric mineral fraction of 47 % and organic matter fraction of 21 %, and has a mean bulk density of 1·34 g cm–3. The depth of the soil organic layer is about 15–20 cm. There are 1176 trees ha–1, with a mean height of 13·5 m above the ground and a mean diameter at breast height of 11·2 cm. The soil surface is covered by small patches of litter or lichen (30 and 65 % of area, respectively). The understorey is principally mosses (Dicranum spp, Pleurozium schreberi) and dwarf shrubs (Vaccinium vitis-idaea, Calluna vulgaris), so the site is a Calluna type ecosystem on a sandy soil with a low nitrogen supply.

Measurements of CO2 exchange
Net ecosystem CO2 exchange was measured by EC, and, concurrently, vertical temperature, humidity and radiation profiles as described by Zha et al. (2004b). The component CO2 fluxes of branches with needles, tree stems and soil surface were measured for 60 s every 30 min with automated chamber systems based on a CO2 and H2O analyser (Hartmann and Braun URAS 14, Software Version 1·3, Hartmann and Braun GmbH and Co. KG, Germany), from April to November each year from 2001 to 2004. The chamber system had an open, flow-through design in which CO2 efflux was measured as the difference between the CO2 entering and leaving the chamber. The flow rate of the reference air was 1·0 L min–1 and that of sample air from the chamber was 1·0 L min–1 for stem, and 1·5 L min–1 for both branch and soil, and the rates were regulated by separate pumps and mass flow controllers (5850E, Brooks Instrument, Veenendaal, The Netherlands). The branch and soil chambers were equipped with pneumatically operating lids which closed during the measurement periods for 60 s once every 30 min, and opened between the measurements. Sample air flowed to an analyser through a 20–30 m long Teflon tube with inner diameter 4 mm. Condensation on the gas line was avoided by warming the air tube with heating tapes, which slightly affected the temperature of the sample air. The effect of the dilution and mixing in sampling tube on measurements was minimized by removing the first measurement in the calculation of fluxes.

It was assumed that the variation in C fluxes along a bole is small. Stem respiration was measured on three trees, 10·4, 11·7 and 23·8 cm in diameter 1·3 m height above ground, using a cylindrical respiration chamber of high density foam [expanded polystyrene (EPS), UK-Muovi Oy, Iisalmi, Finland], 16 cm long with two halves, completely encircling a segment of the tree stem at a height of 1·3 m above the ground. The two halves of the chamber were attached to the bark with 20 mm thick neoprene gaskets glued to the inside on both ends. The chambers were covered and lined with aluminium foil to prevent overheating. Details of measurements are given in Zha et al. (2004a, 2005).

Four branch chambers, 14 cm in diameter and 23 cm in height, were installed at four different crown positions (four different whorls along the vertical transect) located in four individual trees. Each chamber enclosed a small branch with needles of classes similar to those on the tree. Needle area was estimated once every month in the growing season from nearby branches with similar size and properties to the enclosed branch. The needle area from the sampling branch was measured using a scanner and the winNEEDLE program (v. 4·0, Régent Instruments Inc., Canada). The photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) inside each of the chambers was measured by an LI-190SB quantum sensor.

Four soil chambers 19 cm in diameter and 20 cm in height were placed on areas representative of the average characteristics of the site. Two centimetres of the lower part of the chamber was inserted into the soil and the chamber was fixed permanently on the ground surface. The PAR inside the chamber was measured by an LI-190SB quantum sensor, mounted 2 cm inside to the upper edge of the chamber.

Calculation of photosynthesis and respiration
The model used to relate daytime (PAR>3 µmol m–2 s–1) CO2 exchange to PAR was (Hollinger et al., 1994):


Formula 266M1

(1)
where Amax is the maximum photosynthetic rate (µmol m–2 s–1), Rday is respiration during daytime, An is daytime net CO2 exchange, and {alpha} is the initial slope of the light response curve (µmol CO2 µmol–1 of photon), i.e. the quantum yield. For this analysis, it is assumed that carbon assimilation is driven by light only, and does not consider any other limitations (temperature, vapour pressure deficit, drought stress, etc.).

The model used to describe the effects of temperature on night-time (PAR≤3 µmol m–2 s–1) CO2 exchange was


Formula 266M2

(2)
where R is respiration, R15 is respiration at a reference temperature of 15°C, T is the temperature, and Q10 is the temperature coefficient of respiration.

The night-time net CO2 exchange was assumed to be caused by respiration, and the annual total for each component was separately estimated by eqn (2) using parameters derived from regression of mean daily respiration at night against the corresponding temperature. Temperatures used in eqn (2) were mean daily air temperature at canopy height (12 m above the ground), stem temperature 5 mm below the bark, and soil temperature at 10 cm below the ground surface. Annual total photosynthetic rates for branches with needles (GPP1) were estimated by eqn (1) in which the parameters derived from the regression of mean daily branch CO2 fluxes against the corresponding PAR. For soil surface CO2 fluxes, the daytime values fit eqn (2) well (R2>0·70). Therefore, the photosynthetic rates of the understorey (GPP2) were estimated as the difference between estimated daytime net CO2 exchange and estimated daytime soil respiration. The daytime net CO2 exchange was estimated with eqn (2) using parameters derived from the daytime soil surface CO2 fluxes and the corresponding soil temperature 10 cm below the ground. Daytime soil respiration was estimated using eqn (2) with parameters from the regression of night soil surface CO2 fluxes against corresponding soil temperatures 10 cm below ground. Analyses of EC data including data screening, gap filling and calculation of total fluxes have been described (Zha et al., 2004b).

Scaling chamber measurements
Soil temperature at 2·5, 3·5 and 10 cm depth below the ground surface in the organic layer were measured using thermocouple probes (HFP01, Seattle, WA, USA). The water content at 0–5 cm depth below the mineral soil surface was monitored using a water content reflectometer (CS615, Campbell Scientific, Shepshed, Leicestershire, UK). Detailed information is given by Kellomäki and Wang (1999), Wang et al. (2004) and Zha et al. (2004b).

The stem temperature was measured at hourly intervals with copper–constantan thermocouples 5 mm under the bark at 15, 285 and 305 cm above the ground throughout the 4 years (2001–2004). The average stem temperature at the three heights was used in the analysis. Diameter growth at breast height was monitored at hourly intervals with a dendrograph (ELPA 93, University of Oulu, Finland) consisting of a stainless-steel band and a displacement potentiometer. The precision was 0·5 mm. The stem respiration per unit ground area was calculated using annual stem volume per unit ground area. Annual stem volume was calculated by measuring both diameters at 1·3 m above ground and tree heights for 32 trees around the tower in October each year. Trees were assumed to have cylindrical dimensions.

Leaf area index (LAI) in 2001 and 2002 that was used to calculate the branch photosynthesis and respiration per unit ground area was reported previously (Wang et al., 2004); that in 2003 and 2004 was estimated by the equation derived from regressing the seasonal LAI in 2001 and 2002 against corresponding tree diameters (y=0·85x–10·71, R2=0·87, where x represents the diameter 1·3 m from the ground).

Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 11·5 for Windows software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Differences between years were analysed using a general linear model (GLM) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). If the difference was significant, Tukey's h.s.d of the post hoc multiple comparison test was performed to compare the differences between years. Student's t-test was used to analyse the difference between EC- and chamber-based estimates. All tests were based on a 0·05 significance level.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Photosynthesis and respiration
Net CO2 exchange during darkness (PAR≤3 µmol ;m–2 s–1) was assumed to be respiration. The respiration of branch (Rbran), stem (Rstem) and soil surface (Rsoil) was exponentially related to the air temperature, stem temperature and soil temperature, respectively (Table 1). The data fitted eqn (2) with R2>0·56. Respiration at the reference temperature of 15°C (R15) for branch, stem and soil surface ranged over 4 years (2001–2004) from 1·04 to 1·74, 0·44 to 0·58 and 3·15 to 4·68 µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1, respectively. The 4-year averages (±s.e.) were 1·27±0·16, 0·49±0·03 and 4·02±0·32 µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1. Temperature coefficients of respiration (Q10) for branches ranged, over 4 years, from 2·18 to 3·77 with a 4-year average of 2·7±0·36; the corresponding values for stems were 1·99–2·69 (average 2·2±0·16), and for soil 2·39–5·71 (average 4·0±0·83).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Temperature coefficients (Q10) of respiration of branches with foliage, stems and soil surface (µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1) at a reference temperature of 15 °C(R15) and determination coefficient R2

 
When daytime net CO2 exchange for branches was regressed against PAR, there was a good fit to eqn (1) (R2>0·59, Table 2). Light-saturated rates of gross photosynthetic assimilation (Amax) ranged over 4 years (2001–2004) from 8·06 to 9·43 (4-year average 9·03±0·33) µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1. Quantum yield of branches ranged over 4 years from 0·014 to 0·026 (average 0·022±0·003) µmol µmol–1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Comparison of photosynthetic parameters for branches derived from fitting eqn (1) to net branch CO2 exchange during the day (PAR>3 µmol m–2 s–1)

 
Seasonal and yearly differences in CO2 fluxes
The modelled mean daily respiration for branch, stem and soil surface matched the corresponding observed respiration well (Fig. 2). There were similar seasonal trends in the respiration of branch (Rbran) and stem (Rstem), and from the soil surface (Rsoil), in relation to temperature and radiation (Figs 1 and 2). The largest values were in late July or early August when the mean daily temperature and radiation were highest. The smallest values of respiration occurred in winter. Estimated mean daily Rbran maximized at 1·97, 1·35, 1·52 and 2·02 µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1 in the 4 years (2001–2004), respectively, Rstem maximized at 0·61, 0·63, 0·69 and 0·60 µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1, and Rsoil maximized at 5·92, 4·87, 6·71 and 4·71 µmol CO2 m–2 ground s–1 (Fig. 2).


Figure 2661
View larger version (41K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 1. Daily total precipitation (P), mean daily photosynthetically active radiation above the canopy (PAR), mean daily air temperature 12 m above ground, mean daily soil temperature 10 cm below the soil surface and volumetric soil water content ({theta}soil) 5 cm below the mineral soil surface from 2001 to 2004.

 


Figure 2662
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 2. Observed and modelled mean daily respiration per unit ground area, for a branch with needles (Rbran), stem (Rstem) and soil surface (Rsoil) in 4 years (2001–2004).

 
The monthly total respiration of components was greatest in July and smallest in January or December (Fig. 3). Annual Rbran, Rstem and Rsoil ranges in 2001–2004 and 4-year averages (in parentheses) were 196–256 (225±12) g C m–2, 56–83 (72±6) g C m–2 and 438–598 (497±38) g C m–2, respectively (Table 3).


Figure 2663
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 3. Total monthly respiration per unit ground area for branches with needles (Rbran), stem (Rstem) and soil surface (Rsoil), as well as chamber- (Reco) and EC-based ecosystem respiration (REC) over 4 years (2001–2004).

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Annual estimates of ecosystem and component C fluxes (g C m–2 ground year–1) for the period of 2001–2004

 
The monthly total of photosynthesis was highest in July, except for the understorey in 2002 (Fig. 4). The overstorey photosynthesis (GPP1) ranged over 4 years from 870 to 1101 (average 982±48) g C m–2 year–1, and that for the understorey ranged from 35 to 52 g C (average 41±4) m–2 year–1 (Table 3).


Figure 2664
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 4. Monthly total of photosynthesis per unit ground area for overstorey (GPP1) and understorey (GPP2), as well as chamber- (GPP) and EC-based ecosystem photosynthesis (GPPEC) over 4 years (2001–2004).

 
Component fluxes and contribution
Among the respiration of components per unit ground area, respiration from the soil surface (Rsoil) was largest and stem respiration (Rstem) was smallest throughout the growing season (Figs 2 and 3). Branch respiration (Rbran) accounted for 25–34 % over 4 years, Rstem for 7–10 % and Rsoil for 58–66 %. Overall, Rbran, Rstem and Rsoil accounted for 29, 9 and 62 % of Reco, respectively. Overstorey photosynthesis GPP1 accounted for 94, 97, 97 and 96 % of ecosystem photosynthesis (GPP, sum of overstorey and understorey photosynthesis) in 4 years (2001–2004), respectively, and understorey photosynthesis (GPP2) for 6, 3, 3 and 4 % of GPP. Overall, GPP1 and GPP2 contributed 96 and 4 % to GPP, respectively.

A general equation (based on 54 sets of published data encompassing 54 forest sites) of the relationship between root respiration (Rr) and soil respiration Rsoil (Rr0·5=–7·97+0·93Rsoil0·5, R2=0·87, P<0·001; Bond-Lamberty et al., 2004) was used to calculate root respiration (Rr), thereby estimating ecosystem autotrophic respiration (Ra=Rbran+Rstem+Rr) and net primary production (NPP=GPP–Ra). Estimated NPP ranged over 4 years from 470 to 601 g C m–2 year–1 with a 4-year average of 551±29 g C m–2 year–1. Overall, NPP accounted for 54 % of GPP.

Comparison of total ecosystem CO2 exchange from chamber measurements with eddy covariance
Total ecosystem respiration (Reco) from chamber measurements for 2001 and 2002 was 3 and 10 % smaller than corresponding values from EC, respectively (Table 3), while those values for 2003 and 2004 were 11 and 8 % larger than those from EC. Chamber-based estimates of annual GPP for 2001 and 2002 were close to the corresponding values from EC, while those values in 2003 and 2004 were 16 and 15 % higher than corresponding values from EC, respectively. In contrast, the chamber estimates of annual net ecosystem production (NEP) in 4 years were 11, 20, 36 and 40 % greater than corresponding values from EC, respectively.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Respiration and photosynthesis parameters
There was little change in annual temperature coefficients of respiration (Q10) and respiration at the reference temperature of 15 °C (R15) for branches and stem over the 3 years 2001–2003 (Table 1). However, both respiration parameters for soil surface ranged widely from year to year, exhibiting higher Q10 and R15 in 2001 and 2004. This indicates that soil respiration is more sensitive than branch and stem respiration to temperature. Large changes in soil surface respiration between years may be associated with the differences in soil temperature between years. Mean monthly temperatures in the main growing seasons in 2001 and 2004 were cooler than in the other 2 years (Fig. 5C). Higher Q10 and R15 for the soil surface in both 2001 and 2004 coincided with lower soil temperatures in both years.


Figure 2665
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 5. Monthly mean of phtosynthetically active radiation (PAR), air temperature 12 m above ground (Ta), soil temperature 10 cm below ground (Tsoil) and soil volumetric water content ({theta}soil) 5 cm below the mineral soil surface over 4 years (2001–2004).

 
The quantum yield of branches ({alpha}) varied from 0·014 to 0·026 over 4 years (average 0·022, Table 2), similar to that (0·029) for a mid-latitude Scots pine forest ecosystem (Dolman et al., 2002) and that (0·026) for a Scots pine ecosystem at the same site (Zha et al., 2004b). The average was close to the value of 0·024 for coniferous forests obtained by Ruimy et al. (1996). There is no significant difference in Amax values between years (P=0·129).

Variation between years
There were changes in annual C fluxes of both ecosystem and its components (Table 3). Ecosystem respiration (Reco) from chamber measurements was largest in 2003 and smallest in 2001, corresponding to differences in soil surface respiration between years, greatest in 2003 and smallest in 2001 (Fig. 5C). These differences are associated with soil temperature in the main growing season (July–September; Fig. 5C). Warmer temperature in 2003 led to faster soil respiration, the main contribution to Reco, which thereby was large. Conversely, cooler soil temperatures in 2001 and 2004 led to smaller Rsoil, and thus Reco (Table 3, Fig. 5C). There was no significant relationship between photosynthesis (P=0·225) or respiration (P=0·186) and soil water content. In addition, as the soil was well drained, water logging was not apparent. Therefore, soil water content was probably not a factor limiting photosynthesis and respiration. Similar differences between years in C fluxes of forest ecosystems have been reported (Barr et al., 2004; Epron et al., 2004).

Component fluxes
The contribution of respiration from branch (Rbran), stem (Rstem) and soil surface (Rsoil) to total ecosystem respiration (Reco) was 29, 9 and 62 % averaged over 4 years, respectively. The results are comparable with the 17·6, 6 and 76·4 % for Rbran, Rstem and Rsoil, respectively, of a ponderosa pine forest in Oregon (Law et al., 1999), and close to the proportions of 25·4, 9·5 and 64·8 % in another ponderosa pine forest (Xu et al., 2001). The proportion of soil surface respiration (62 %) is within the estimated range of 48–71 % for soil surface C efflux by Raich and Schlesinger (1992), and similar to the 67 % of a mixed Scots pine and oak forest (Yuste et al., 2005). The contribution of Rsoil to Reco was relatively stable in winter and summer, with slight fluctuations (Fig. 6). However, there was a decline in the contribution of Rsoil to Reco and an increase in the contribution of Rbran and Rstem to Reco in spring (April or May; Fig. 6). An explanation is that wetter soil and cooler temperature caused by snow melting in April and May slowed decomposition of soil organic matter and decreased root respiration (Fig. 5). Needles and stems become active when snow starts melting as the air temperature gradually increases. Therefore, both Rbran and Rstem increased much more than that Rsoil, leading to the decline in contribution of Rsoil to Reco in April and May. A similar trend was observed at another site of Scots pine (Yuste et al., 2005).


Figure 2666
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		FIG. 6. Monthly contributions of branch, stem and soil respiration to corresponding ecosystem respiration over 4 years (2001–2004).

 
Comparison with EC values
A number of studies have reported larger estimates of respiration from chamber measurements than EC (Goulden et al., 1996; Lavigne et al., 1997; Law et al., 2000; Griffis et al., 2004). In the present case, the difference between EC- and chamber-based estimates in both respiration (Reco) and photosynthesis (GPP) differed from year to year. Overall, chamber-based estimates of Reco, GPP and NEP were, respectively, 2, 6 and 27 % greater than from the EC estimate. The estimates of component C fluxes might be underestimated due to dilution in the sampling tube, to measurements of stem respiration in the lower part of the stem (1·3 m above ground) or to neglecting the contribution of small branches in woody tissue respiration.

The Reco/GPP ratio was relatively constant over 4 years. Moreover, the 4-year average for chamber-based Reco/GPP ratios was 0·78 compared with 0·81 from EC, slightly greater than the average of 0·76 of four boreal forest sites (Lindroth et al., 1998; Vesala et al., 1998; Law et al., 2001; Markkanen et al., 2001), but very similar to the ratio of 0·82 for temperate coniferous forests and 0·77 for temperate broad-leaved deciduous forests (FluxNet sites; Falge et al., 2002).

Net primary production
In order to estimate NPP, Rsoil was partitioned into autotrophic (Rr) and heterotrophic respiration (Rh) by using the general equation (Rr0·5=–7·97+0·93Rsoil0·5, r2=0·87, P<0·001; Bond-Lamberty et al., 2004). From this, root respiration accounted for 31–38 % (average 35 %) of total soil surface respiration over 4 years (Table 3). Our estimate is smaller than a mean of 45·8 % for forest species from 37 studies in the literature (Hanson et al., 2000), but within the range of 30–90 % for the contribution of root respiration to total soil surface CO2 efflux (Bowden et al., 1993; Thieron and Laudelout, 1996; Epron et al., 1999). Nakane et al. (1996) concluded that the proportion of root respiration to soil surface CO2 efflux may approach 50 % irrespective of forest type. Given this uncertainty, further measurements of root respiration are required.

The estimated NPP/GPP ratio ranged from 0·51 to 0·56, over 4 years (average 0·54), and is greater than the 0·32 for a 100-year-old Scots pine forest in eastern Finland (Helmisaari et al., 2002) and smaller than the values of 0·66–0·85 reported for Scots pine forests (Gower et al., 1994). The NPP/GPP ratio did not differ significantly between years (P=0·481).

Estimation of component fluxes
The goodness of fit of the regression between temperature and respiration may depend on which temperature profile is chosen. Therefore night-time net CO2 exchanges, from both chamber and EC measurements, were regressed against air (12 m above canopy) and soil (2·5, 3·5 and 10 cm depth below the ground surface) temperatures. There were no significant differences in the regression slopes for these temperatures during the growing season (P>0·163). Therefore, canopy air (12 m above ground), stem and soil (10 cm depth) temperatures were used in data analysis. Night-time net CO2 flux of all components fitted eqn (2) well (R2>0·6, Table 1), while daytime net CO2 exchange for branch and EC fit eqn (1) (R2>0·6, Table 2). We are therefore confident of the estimation of annual respiration of each component.


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Branch (Rbran), stem (Rstem) and soil (Rsoil) respiration changed with the seasons, corresponding to changes of temperature, differences in which between years affected the respiration of components and the total ecosystem respiration (Reco). The main source of differences in Reco between years was Rsoil, which contributed 62 %, compared with 29 % from Rbran and 9 % from Rstem. Overstorey photosynthesis contributed 96 % to GPP, and understorey photosynthesis contributed 4%. Soil respiration was sensitive to temperature, with a 4-year average Q10 of 4·0, indicating that temperature affected Rsoil more than it affected Rbran and Rstem. Estimates of Reco, GPP and NEP from chamber measurements were comparable with those from EC. The Reco/GPP ratios were, on average, 0·78 and 0·81 for chamber- and EC-based estimates, respectively. The NPP/GPP ratio was 0·54.

In conclusion, seasonal and interannual variations in Rbran, Rstem, Rsoil and Reco were mostly controlled by temperature. Respiration from the soil surface dominated the ecosystem respiration.


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LITERATURE CITED
 
This work was part of the Finnish Centre of Excellence Programme (2000–2005) carried out under the Centre of Excellence for Forest Ecology and Management (Project no. 64308). Funding was provided by the Academy of Finland and the Climate Reseach Division, Environment Canada, and partly by the project ‘Global Change and Regional Response’ (NSFC 90511008). We thank Sini Niinistö for providing the soil water content data, and Matti Lemettinen, Alpo Hassinen and Risto Ikonen for maintaining the experimental equipment. We also thank Roger Wilkie of the UNB writing centre, UNB, Canada for his grammatical assistance.


   LITERATURE CITED
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 

    Aubinet M, Grelle A, Ibrom A, Rannik Ü, Moncrieff J, Foken T, et al. (2000) Estimation of the annual net carbon and water exchange of European forests: the EUROFLUX methodology. Advances in Ecological Research 30:113–175.[Web of Science]

    Baldocchi DD, Falge E, Gu L, Olson R, Hollinger D, Running P, et al. (2001) FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82:2415–2434.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Barr AG, Black TA, Hogg EH, Kljun N, Morgenstern K, Nesic Z. (2004) Inter–annual variability in the leaf area index of boreal aspen–hazelnut forest in relation to net ecosystem respiration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 126:237–255.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Black TA, Den Hartog G, Neumann HH, Blanken PD, Yang PC, Russell C, et al. (1996) Annual cycles of water vapour and carbon dioxide fluxes in and above a boreal aspen forest. Global Change Biology 2:219–229.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Bonan GB and Shugart HH. (1989) Environmental factors and ecological processes in boreal forests. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:1–28.[Medline]

    Bond-Lamberty B, Wang C, Gower ST. (2004) A global relationship between the heterotrophic and autotrophic components of soil respiration? Global Change Biology 10:1756–1766.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Bowden RD, Nadelhoffer KJ, Boone RD, Melillo JM, Garrison JB. (1993) Contributions of aboveground litter, belowground litter, and root respiration to total soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:1402–1407.[CrossRef]

    Dolman AJ, Moors EJ, Elbers JA. (2002) The carbon uptake of a mid latitude pine forest growing on sandy soil. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 111:157–170.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Epron D, Farque L, Lucot E, Badot PM. (1999) Soil CO2 efflux in a beech forest: the contribution of root respiration. Annals of Forestry Science 56:289–295.[CrossRef]

    Epron D, Ngao J, Granier A. (2004) Interannual variation of soil respiration in a beech forest ecosystem over a six-year study. Annals of Forestry Science 61:499–505.[CrossRef]

    Falge E, Baldocchi D, Tenhunen J, Aubinet M, Bakwin P, Berbigier P, et al. (2002) Seasonality of ecosystem respiration and gross primary production as derived from fluxnet measurements. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 95:225–236.[CrossRef]

    Goulden ML, Munger JW, Fan S-M, Daube BC, Wofsy SC. (1996) Measurements of carbon sequestration by long-term eddy covariance: methods and critical evaluation of accuracy. Global Change Biology 2:169–182.

    Gower ST, Gholz HL, Nakane K, Baldwin VC. (1994) Production and carbon allocation patterns of pine forests. Ecological Bulletin 43:115–135.

    Gower ST, Krankina O, Olson RJ, Apps M, Linder S, Wang C. (2001) Net primary production and carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecological Applications 11:1395–1411.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Grace J and Rayment M. (2000) Respiration in the balance. Nature 404:809–820.[Medline]

    Griffis TJ, Black TA, Gaumont-Guay D, Drewitt GB, Nesic Z, Barr AG, et al. (2004) Seasonal variation and partitioning of ecosystem respiration in a southern boreal aspen forest. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 125:207–223.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Hanson PJ, Edwards NT, Garten CT, Andrews JA. (2000) Separating root and soil microbial contributions to soil respiration: a review of methods and observations. Biogeochemistry 48:115–146.

    Helmisaari HS, Makkonen K, Kellomäki S, Valtonen E, Mälkönen E. (2002) Below and above-ground biomass, production and nitrogen use in Scots pine stands in eastern Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 165:317–326.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Hollinger DY, Kelliher FM, Byers JN. (1994) Carbon dioxide exchange between an undisturbed old-growth temperate forest and the atmosphere. Ecology 75:134–150.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Kellomäki S and Wang KY. (1999) Short-term environmental control on heat and water fluxes above a boreal coniferous forest: model computation compared with measurements by eddy correlation. Ecological Modelling 124:145–173.[CrossRef]

    Landsberg JJ and Gower ST. (1997) Applications of physiological ecology to forest management(Academic Press, New York).

    Lavigne MB, Ryan MG, Anderson DE, Baldocchi DD, Crill PM, Fitzjarrald DR, et al. (1997) Comparing nocturnal eddy covariance measurements to the estimates of ecosystem respiration made by scaling chamber measurements at six coniferous boreal sites. Journal of Geophysical Research 102:28977–28985.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Law BE, Ryan MG, Anthoni PM. (1999) Seasonal and annual respiration of a ponderosa pine ecosystem. Global Change Biology 5:169–182.

    Law BE, Williams M, Anthoni PM, Balsocchi DD, Unsworth MH. (2000) Measuring and modeling seasonal variation of carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange of Pinus ponderosa forest subject to soil water deficit. Global Change Biology 6:613–630.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Law BE, Thornton PE, Irvine J, Anthoni PM, Van Tuyl S. (2001) Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different developmental stages. Global Change Biology 7:755–777.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Lee X. (1998) On micrometeorological observations of surface–air exchange over tall vegetation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 91:39–49.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Lindroth A, Grelle A, Moren A-S. (1998) Long–term measurements of boreal forest carbon balance real large temperature sensitivity. Global Change Biology 4:443–450.

    Markkanen T, Rannik Ü, Keronen P, Suni T, Vesala T. (2001) Eddy covariance fluxes over a boreal Scots pine forest. Boreal Environmental Research 6:65–78.

    Nakane K, Kohno T, Horikoshi T. (1996) Root respiration rate before and just after clear-felling in a mature, deciduous, broad-leaved forest. Ecological Research 11:111–119.

    Raich JW and Schlesinger WH. (1992) The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus 44B:81–99.

    Ruimy A, Jarvis PG, Baldocchi DD, Saugier B. (1995) CO2 fluxes over plant canopies and solar radiation. A review. Advances in Ecological Research 26:1–68.

    Thierron V and Laudelout H. (1996) Contribution of root respiration to total CO2 efflux from the soil of a deciduous forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26:1142–1148.[CrossRef]

    Valentini R, Matteucci G, Dolman AJ, Schulze ED, Rebmaan C, Moors EJ, et al. (2000) Respiration as the main determinant of carbon balance in European forests. Nature 404:861–865.[CrossRef][Medline]

    Vesala T, Haataja J, Aalto P, Altimir N, Buzorious G, Garam E, et al. (1998) Long-term field measurements of atmosphere–surface interactions in boreal forest combining forest ecology, micrometeorology, aerosol physics and atmospheric chemistry. Trends of Heat and Mass Moment Transfer 4:17–35.

    Wang K-Y, Kellomäki S, Zha TS, Peltola H. (2004) Seasonal variation in energy and water fluxes in a pine forest: an analysis based on eddy covariance and an integrated model. Ecological Modelling 179:259–279.[CrossRef]

    Waring RH, Landsberg JJ, Williams M. (1998) Net primary production of forests: a constant fraction of gross primary production? Tree Physiology 18:129–134.[Abstract]

    Xu M, Debiase TA, Qi Y, Goldstein A, Liu ZG. (2001) Ecosystem respiration in a young ponderosa pine plantation in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California. Tree Physiology 21:309–318.[Abstract]

    Yuste JC, Nagy M, Janssens I A, Carrara A, Ceulemans R. (2005) Soil respiration in a mixed temperate forest and its contribution to total ecosystem respiration. Tree Physiology 25:513–523.[Abstract]

    Zha TS, Kellomäki S, Wang K-Y, Ryyppö A, Niinistö S. (2004a) Seasonal and annual stem respiration of Scots pine trees under boreal conditions. Annals of Botany 94:889–896.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Zha TS, Kellomäki S, Wang K-Y, Rouvinen I. (2004b) Carbon sequestration and ecosystem respiration for 4 years in Scots pine forest. Global Change Biology 10:1492–1503.[CrossRef][Web of Science]

    Zha TS, Kellomäki S, Wang K-Y, Ryyppö A. (2005) Respiratory responses of Scots pine stems to 5 years of exposure to elevated CO2 concentration and temperature. Tree Physiology 25:49–56.[Abstract]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow A corrigendum has been published
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/2/345    most recent
mcl266v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zha, T.
Right arrow Articles by Barr, A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Zha, T.
Right arrow Articles by Barr, A. G.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Zha, T.
Right arrow Articles by Barr, A. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?