César Terrer1, Sara Vicca2, Benjamin D Stocker1,3, Bruce A Hungate4,5, Richard P Phillips6, Peter B Reich7,8, Adrien C Finzi9, I Colin Prentice1. 1. AXA Chair Programme in Biosphere and Climate Impacts, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK. 2. Centre of Excellence PLECO (Plants and Ecosystems), Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, 2610, Belgium. 3. CREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Catalonia, 08193, Spain. 4. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA. 5. Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA. 6. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. 7. Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, 55108, USA. 8. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia. 9. Department of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Abstract
Contents Summary 507 I. Introduction 507 II. The return on investment approach 508 III. CO2 response spectrum 510 IV. Discussion 516 Acknowledgements 518 References 518 SUMMARY: Land ecosystems sequester on average about a quarter of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It has been proposed that nitrogen (N) availability will exert an increasingly limiting effect on plants' ability to store additional carbon (C) under rising CO2 , but these mechanisms are not well understood. Here, we review findings from elevated CO2 experiments using a plant economics framework, highlighting how ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 may depend on the costs and benefits of plant interactions with mycorrhizal fungi and symbiotic N-fixing microbes. We found that N-acquisition efficiency is positively correlated with leaf-level photosynthetic capacity and plant growth, and negatively with soil C storage. Plants that associate with ectomycorrhizal fungi and N-fixers may acquire N at a lower cost than plants associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. However, the additional growth in ectomycorrhizal plants is partly offset by decreases in soil C pools via priming. Collectively, our results indicate that predictive models aimed at quantifying C cycle feedbacks to global change may be improved by treating N as a resource that can be acquired by plants in exchange for energy, with different costs depending on plant interactions with microbial symbionts.
Contents Summary 507 I. Introduction 507 II. The return on investment approach 508 III. CO2 response spectrum 510 IV. Discussion 516 Acknowledgements 518 References 518 SUMMARY: Land ecosystems sequester on average about a quarter of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It has been proposed that nitrogen (N) availability will exert an increasingly limiting effect on plants' ability to store additional carbon (C) under rising CO2 , but these mechanisms are not well understood. Here, we review findings from elevated CO2 experiments using a plant economics framework, highlighting how ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 may depend on the costs and benefits of plant interactions with mycorrhizal fungi and symbiotic N-fixing microbes. We found that N-acquisition efficiency is positively correlated with leaf-level photosynthetic capacity and plant growth, and negatively with soil C storage. Plants that associate with ectomycorrhizal fungi and N-fixers may acquire N at a lower cost than plants associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. However, the additional growth in ectomycorrhizal plants is partly offset by decreases in soil C pools via priming. Collectively, our results indicate that predictive models aimed at quantifying C cycle feedbacks to global change may be improved by treating N as a resource that can be acquired by plants in exchange for energy, with different costs depending on plant interactions with microbial symbionts.
Authors: Colin Averill; Jennifer M Bhatnagar; Michael C Dietze; William D Pearse; Stephanie N Kivlin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Grégoire T Freschet; Loïc Pagès; Colleen M Iversen; Louise H Comas; Boris Rewald; Catherine Roumet; Jitka Klimešová; Marcin Zadworny; Hendrik Poorter; Johannes A Postma; Thomas S Adams; Agnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna; A Glyn Bengough; Elison B Blancaflor; Ivano Brunner; Johannes H C Cornelissen; Eric Garnier; Arthur Gessler; Sarah E Hobbie; Ina C Meier; Liesje Mommer; Catherine Picon-Cochard; Laura Rose; Peter Ryser; Michael Scherer-Lorenzen; Nadejda A Soudzilovskaia; Alexia Stokes; Tao Sun; Oscar J Valverde-Barrantes; Monique Weemstra; Alexandra Weigelt; Nina Wurzburger; Larry M York; Sarah A Batterman; Moemy Gomes de Moraes; Štěpán Janeček; Hans Lambers; Verity Salmon; Nishanth Tharayil; M Luke McCormack Journal: New Phytol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 10.323
Authors: C Terrer; R P Phillips; B A Hungate; J Rosende; J Pett-Ridge; M E Craig; K J van Groenigen; T F Keenan; B N Sulman; B D Stocker; P B Reich; A F A Pellegrini; E Pendall; H Zhang; R D Evans; Y Carrillo; J B Fisher; K Van Sundert; Sara Vicca; R B Jackson Journal: Nature Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Nadejda A Soudzilovskaia; Peter M van Bodegom; César Terrer; Maarten Van't Zelfde; Ian McCallum; M Luke McCormack; Joshua B Fisher; Mark C Brundrett; Nuno César de Sá; Leho Tedersoo Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: R K Braghiere; J B Fisher; K Allen; E Brzostek; M Shi; X Yang; D M Ricciuto; R A Fisher; Q Zhu; R P Phillips Journal: J Adv Model Earth Syst Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 8.469
Authors: William R Wieder; David M Lawrence; Rosie A Fisher; Gordon B Bonan; Susan J Cheng; Christine L Goodale; A Stuart Grandy; Charles D Koven; Danica L Lombardozzi; Keith W Oleson; R Quinn Thomas Journal: Global Biogeochem Cycles Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 5.703