| Literature DB >> 28033605 |
Elisa Varolo1,2, Damiano Zanotelli1, Leonardo Montagnani1,3, Massimo Tagliavini1, Stefan Zerbe1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current glacier retreat makes vast mountain ranges available for vegetation establishment and growth. As a result,Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28033605 PMCID: PMC5199236 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area in the upper Matsch valley (Northern Italy).
The glacier extent in 2006 and 1850 is shown. The star indicates the site of measurements.
Comparison of isotopic ratio of carbon in the vegetation communities.
| δ13 C soil | -26.18 ± 0.30 | -25.74 ± 0.58 | 0.020 |
| δ13 C biomass | -26.90 ± 0.47 | -21.18 ± 0.41 | < 0.001 |
Values are given in parts per thousand as averages of five samples ± standard error. P value of the ANOVA test with 12 (δ13C in soil) and 8 (δ13C in biomass) degrees of freedom.
Characterization of NEE fluxes measured for each plot with dark and clear chambers in 2012.
| NEE transparent chamber | NEE opaque chamber | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plot | Average | SD | Min | Max | Cumulated | Average | SD | Min | Max | Cumulated | |
| (μmol CO2 m-2s-1) | (g C m-2day-1) | (μmol CO2 m-2s-1) | (g C m-2day-1) | ||||||||
| F1 | -0.19 | 3.17 | -8.2 | 4.03 | -0.132 (0.028) | 2.84 | 0.99 | 1.26 | 5.56 | 3.215 (0.006) | |
| F2 | 0.67 | 3.8 | -8.8 | 4.36 | -0.369 (0.015) | 2.56 | 0.51 | 1.28 | 3.78 | 2.644 (0.006) | |
| F3 | 0.02 | 1.88 | -3.4 | 2.49 | 0.044 (0.011) | 2.29 | 0.73 | 1.07 | 4.28 | 2.530 (0.010) | |
| F4 | 0.61 | 1.71 | -3.4 | 3.03 | 0.390 (0.020) | 2.21 | 0.63 | 1.22 | 4.58 | 2.260 (0.012) | |
| F5 | 0.22 | 1.82 | -3.9 | 2.59 | 0.294 (0.016) | 1.94 | 0.5 | 0.94 | 3.33 | 2.000 (0.008) | |
| S1 | 0.67 | 0.69 | -2 | 1.99 | 0.737 (0.007) | 1.93 | 1.13 | 0.17 | 5.18 | 1.977 (0.010) | |
| S2 | 0.14 | 1.32 | -3.3 | 1.9 | 0.160 (0.012) | 1.56 | 1.19 | 0.05 | 4.51 | 1.873 (0.007) | |
| S3 | 0.64 | 0.96 | -2.5 | 2.14 | 0.661 (0.010) | 1.92 | 1.24 | 0.6 | 5.2 | 2.360 (0.009) | |
| S4 | 0.62 | 1.23 | -2.9 | 2.5 | 0.648 (0.014) | 2.44 | 1.08 | 1.07 | 5.88 | 2.510 (0.014) | |
| S5 | 0.66 | 0.75 | -1.8 | 2.07 | 0.687 (0.010) | 2.41 | 1.02 | 0.77 | 5.29 | 2.454 (0.020) | |
Fig 2Average daily pattern (mean of three days of measurements ± SD) of net ecosystem exchange (NEE).
Fluxes were measured in 2012 with (a) the transparent chambers and (b) the opaque chambers. Vertical bars indicate the average diurnal pattern of the photosynthetic active photon flux density (PPFD). Dotted lines split the day into the four CAM phases modified from Osmond [48] as follows:
Phase 1: the night; the period characterized by PPFD < 2 μmol m-2s-1.
Phase 2: the morning; PPFD > 2 μmol m-2s-1 until phase 3 starts.
Phase 3: the noon; the four central hours of the day, two hours before and two after the local midday.
Phase 4: the afternoon; starting after phase 3 until PPFD < 2 μmol m-2s-1.
Fig 3NEE of (a) Data reported correspond to a week of measurements in 2012 (7 August 2012–14 August 2012). The solid line indicates the apparent response to light obtained using Eq (1). Each color of the dots indicates one of the four “Osmond phases” in which the flux was measured, according to Fig 2 the four phases are presented for Festuca plots only with the purpose of simplifying the comparison between the two vegetation communities in the same time ranges.
Fig 4Net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of (a) Data reported correspond to a week of measurements in 2012 (7 August 2012–14 August 2012). Each colour of the dots indicates one of the four “Osmond phases” in which the flux was measured according to Fig 2. The four phases are presented for Festuca plots only with the purpose of simplifying the comparison between the two plants in the same time ranges. The solid red line represents the modelled NEE response to temperature obtained by applying Eq (2) only on data of phase 3, when we assumed that no CO2 uptake was occurring in the Sempervivum plots.
Respiration flux at the constant reference temperature T = 10°C (R) and the temperature sensitivity (E)
| Plot | Parameters | Estimate | St. error | MEF | RSE μmol CO2 m-2 s-1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FoST1 | 1.95 | 0.04 | < 0.001 | 0.38 | 0.6 | ||
| 156.64 | 12.89 | < 0.001 | |||||
| FoST2 | 1.84 | 0.08 | < 0.001 | 0.72 | 0.71 | ||
| 352.7 | 24 | < 0.001 | |||||
| FoST3 | 1.6 | 0.03 | < 0.001 | 0.52 | 0.37 | ||
| 182.32 | 14.95 | < 0.001 | |||||
| FoLT | 1.92 | 0.04 | < 0.001 | 0.22 | 0.79 | ||
| 134.45 | 11.89 | < 0.001 | |||||
| 1.83 | 0.08 | ||||||
| 206.53 | 49.7 | ||||||
| SoST1 | 1.78 | 0.05 | < 0.001 | 0.05 | 0.71 | ||
| 64.05 | 17.59 | < 0.001 | |||||
| SoST2 | 1.86 | 0.11 | < 0.001 | 0.47 | 0.97 | ||
| 282.26 | 32.25 | < 0.001 | |||||
| SoST3 | Rref | 2.59 | 0.07 | < 0.001 | 0.38 | 0.91 | |
| 206.45 | 22.96 | < 0.001 | |||||
| SoLT | 2.44 | 0.06 | < 0.001 | 0.24 | 1.19 | ||
| 166.41 | 13.99 | < 0.001 | |||||
| R | 2.17 | 0.4 | |||||
| 179.8 | 90.89 | ||||||
E0 is calculated using Eq (2) for each replicate of Festuca and Sempervivum plot measured in 2013, with standard error and P value. For each replicate, the modelling efficiency (MEF) and relative standard error (RSE) of the model are also given.
Fig 5Daily patterns (mean ± SD) during August 2013 of the net ecosystem exchange (NEE) measured at all the plots, the modelled ecosystem respiration (R) and gross ecosystem exchange (GEE) as obtained after flux partitioning for (a) GEE, indicating gross CO2 uptake, is represented here as negative consistently with the other fluxes.
Fig 6Daily pattern of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) measured with (a) transparent chambers, (b) opaque chambers. Panels (c) and (d) show the diurnal pattern of air temperature and photosynthetic active photon flux density (PPFD). Data are presented as monthly averages ± SD in June, July, August, and September 2013.
Fig 7Box plots of cumulated daily values of net ecosystem exchange (NEE).
Fluxes are measured with the long-term transparent chambers in 2013 (g C m-2 day-1) in (a) Festuca and (b) Sempervivum plots.
Comparison of the C content in the plots of the two vegetation communities.
| C content | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Soil | 1073.87 ± 117.22 | 1360.2 ± 205.57 | 0.260 |
| Above-ground biomass | 195.98 ± 18.19 | 282.70 ± 35.62 | 0.062 |
| Necromass | 66.58 ± 5.81 | 62.59 ± 11.19 | 0.760 |
| Below-ground biomass | 431.71 ± 63.05 | 375.37 ± 25.86 | 0.430 |
| Total soil plant system | 1768.15 ± 128.58 | 2080.86 ± 234.75 | 0.276 |
Soil (0–0.1 m) roots and aboveground vegetation inside the plots are considered (total n of samples = 40). Values are reported as averages of five samples ± standard error for each category in which the soil-plant system was divided. P values given are the result of the ANOVA test with 8 Degrees of Freedom after the normality of distribution and homogeneity of the data variance were ascertained.