| Literature DB >> 22957187 |
Per Bengtson, Jason Barker, Sue J Grayston.
Abstract
Increased temperatures and concomitant changes in vegetation patterns are expected to dramatically alter the functioning of northern ecosystems over the next few decades. Predicting the ecosystem response to such a shift in climate and vegetation is complicated by the lack of knowledge about the links between abovegroundEntities:
Keywords: Carbon sequestration; coupled biogeochemical cycles; elevated CO 2; global warming; microbial C assimilation; nitrogen mineralization; plant–microbial feedbacks; soil respiration
Year: 2012 PMID: 22957187 PMCID: PMC3433989 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Experimental system: ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) seedlings were grown in separate Plexiglas boxes. The boxes were divided lengthwise into two compartments using a membrane (pore size 0.45 μm) that allowed free movement of the soil solution containing root exudates, but excluded plant roots and mycorrhizal hyphae. Each compartment measured 147 × 12 × 150 mm (B × D × H) and contained approximately 210 g of soil.
Figure 2The relationship between root exudation and SOM decomposition.
The rate of root exudation, microbial C and N assimilation, gross N mineralization, total SOM decomposition, and the SOM decomposition that can be assigned to priming in the different treatments
| Ponderosa pine | Sitka spruce | Western hemlock | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No roots | Roots | No roots | Roots | No roots | Roots | |
| Cexuded | 5.43 (0.84) | 9.94 (1.69) | 4.13 (0.65) | 14.2 (3.1) | 6.38 (0.88) | 9.80 (1.51) |
| Nassimilated | 3.67 (0.33) | 4.25 (0.39) | 2.59 (0.91) | 5.72 (0.54) | 3.43 (0.32) | 4.19 (0.38) |
| Cassimilated | 31.6 (4.1) | 36.6 (4.8) | 22.3 (8.1) | 49.2 (6.5) | 29.5 (3.9) | 36.0 (4.7) |
| Nmin | 4.21 (0.39) | 4.58 (0.43) | 2.73 (0.26) | 6.20 (0.58) | 3.64 (0.34) | 4.52 (0.36) |
| SOMdecomposed | 79.6 (12.9) | 92.2 (15.0) | 56.2 (21.3) | 124.0 (20.3) | 74.4 (12.2) | 90.9 (14.8) |
| SOMprimed | 43.6 (12.0) | 56.2 (11.9) | 20.2 (3.9) | 88.0 (13.3) | 38.4 (12.0) | 54.9 (12.0) |
| Priming (%) | 121 | 156 | 56 | 244 | 107 | 152 |
| SOMprimed: SOMdecomposed (%) | 54.8 | 60.9 | 36.0 | 71.0 | 51.6 | 60.4 |
All rates are in mg kg−1 dw soil d−1 and abbreviations are the same as in Material and Methods section. Values between brackets represent the standard deviation of the mean (standard deviation of the mean for Cexuded, Cassimilated, SOMdecomposed, and SOMprimed were derived from the Monte Carlo analysis).
Figure 3The relationship between root exudation and SOM decomposition caused by rhizosphere priming. The solid line represents the priming that was observed in our experiment, and the dotted line the maximum “apparent priming” that could result from direct stimulation of microbial growth by the exuded C.
Figure 4The fraction (%) of the total SOM decomposition that can be assigned to priming at different root exudation rates. There is no or little additional increase in the relative importance of priming for SOM decomposition at root exudation rates exceeding 16 mg C kg−1 soil d−1 (see text for details).
Figure 5The relationship between root exudation and gross N mineralization and immobilization.
Figure 6The relationship between gross N mineralization and SOM decomposition.