Limits...
Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites.

De Kauwe MG, Medlyn BE, Zaehle S, Walker AP, Dietze MC, Wang YP, Luo Y, Jain AK, El-Masri B, Hickler T, Wårlind D, Weng E, Parton WJ, Thornton PE, Wang S, Prentice IC, Asao S, Smith B, McCarthy HR, Iversen CM, Hanson PJ, Warren JM, Oren R, Norby RJ - New Phytol. (2014)

Bottom Line: Observed eCO2 effects on allocation were dynamic.Allocation schemes based on constant fractions or resource limitations performed less well, with some models having unintended outcomes.Our recommendations to reduce uncertainty include: use of allocation schemes constrained by biomass fractions; careful testing of allocation schemes; and synthesis of allocation and turnover data in terms of model parameters.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Change in the percentage of annual Net Primary Productivity (NPP) allocated to the foliage (greenline), wood (orange line) and fine roots (blue line) between ambient and elevated CO2 atOak Ridge.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4260117&req=5

fig03: Change in the percentage of annual Net Primary Productivity (NPP) allocated to the foliage (greenline), wood (orange line) and fine roots (blue line) between ambient and elevated CO2 atOak Ridge.

Mentions: The data indicate that eCO2 had very different effects on allocation patterns at thetwo sites (Figs3). At Oak Ridge, trees in eCO2increased allocation towards fine-root production at the expense of wood and leaves. As aconsequence, root production roughly doubled at soil depths below 0.3 m (Iversen et al., 2008). By contrast, at Duke, theroot biomass proportion also increased at depth (Pritchardet al., 2008), but the root allocation fraction did not change. There was ashift instead from foliage allocation to wood allocation, with the average wood allocation fractionincreasing by 3%, although this shift was not statistically significant (95%CI = −1.4%, 7.4%) (McCarthy et al., 2010).


Where does the carbon go? A model-data intercomparison of vegetation carbon allocation and turnover processes at two temperate forest free-air CO2 enrichment sites.

De Kauwe MG, Medlyn BE, Zaehle S, Walker AP, Dietze MC, Wang YP, Luo Y, Jain AK, El-Masri B, Hickler T, Wårlind D, Weng E, Parton WJ, Thornton PE, Wang S, Prentice IC, Asao S, Smith B, McCarthy HR, Iversen CM, Hanson PJ, Warren JM, Oren R, Norby RJ - New Phytol. (2014)

Change in the percentage of annual Net Primary Productivity (NPP) allocated to the foliage (greenline), wood (orange line) and fine roots (blue line) between ambient and elevated CO2 atOak Ridge.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4260117&req=5

fig03: Change in the percentage of annual Net Primary Productivity (NPP) allocated to the foliage (greenline), wood (orange line) and fine roots (blue line) between ambient and elevated CO2 atOak Ridge.
Mentions: The data indicate that eCO2 had very different effects on allocation patterns at thetwo sites (Figs3). At Oak Ridge, trees in eCO2increased allocation towards fine-root production at the expense of wood and leaves. As aconsequence, root production roughly doubled at soil depths below 0.3 m (Iversen et al., 2008). By contrast, at Duke, theroot biomass proportion also increased at depth (Pritchardet al., 2008), but the root allocation fraction did not change. There was ashift instead from foliage allocation to wood allocation, with the average wood allocation fractionincreasing by 3%, although this shift was not statistically significant (95%CI = −1.4%, 7.4%) (McCarthy et al., 2010).

Bottom Line: Observed eCO2 effects on allocation were dynamic.Allocation schemes based on constant fractions or resource limitations performed less well, with some models having unintended outcomes.Our recommendations to reduce uncertainty include: use of allocation schemes constrained by biomass fractions; careful testing of allocation schemes; and synthesis of allocation and turnover data in terms of model parameters.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, 2109, Australia.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus