| Literature DB >> 29143143 |
Yu-Hsuan Huang1, Chih-Yu Hung1, I-Rhy Lin1, Tomonori Kume1, Oleg V Menyailo2, Chih-Hsin Cheng3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Soil respiration contributes to a large quantity of carbon emissions in the forest ecosystem. In this study, the soil respiration rates at three Taiwanese forest plantations (two lowland and one mid-elevation) were investigated. We aimed to determine how soil respiration varies between lowland and mid-elevation forest plantations and identify the relative importance of biotic and abiotic factors affecting soil respiration.Entities:
Keywords: Elevation; Litterfall; Soil respiration; Soil temperature; Soil water content; Temperature sensitivity
Year: 2017 PMID: 29143143 PMCID: PMC5688057 DOI: 10.1186/s40529-017-0205-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bot Stud ISSN: 1817-406X Impact factor: 2.787
Stand characteristics and soil properties from surface level to a depth of 10 cm in the selected stands at TN, TC, and NT plantations in Taiwan
| Site | Elevation (m) | MAT (°C) | MAP (mm) | Dominant vegetation | Trees (multi-trunks) density (No. ha−1) | Mean trunk DBH (cm) | Basal area (m2 ha−1) | Canopy height (m) | LAIa | Litterfall (Mg C ha−1 year−1) | Soil texture | pH | Soil organic carbon (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN1 | 14 | 24.3 | 1698 |
| 560 (1566) ± 134 (492) | 16.7 ± 0.6 | 40.7 ± 3.2 | 11.8 | 4.4 | 5.4 ± 0.7 | Loam | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 0.2 |
| TN2 | 13 |
| 321 (2821) ± 91(855) | 12.8 ± 0.7 | 68.5 ± 12.1 | 10.6 | 3.9 | 5.8 ± 1.1 | Sandy loam | 4.8 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | ||
| TC1 | 110 | 23.0 | 1347 |
| 2360 ± 433 | 10.0 ± 0.9 | 21.7 ± 3.8 | 9.3 | 3.3 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | Loam | 3.9 ± 0.1 | 4.9 ± 0.4 |
| TC2 | 110 |
| 2533 ± 985 | 9.9 ± 2.7 | 21.0 ± 3.6 | 8.4 | 3.3 | 3.8 ± 0.2 | Loam | 3.8 ± 0.0 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | ||
| NT1 | 1150 | 16.6 | 2635 |
| 408 ± 22 | 48.6 ± 1.2 | 77.9 ± 5.9 | 29.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | Loam | 4.0 ± 0.3 | 17.2 ± 2.8 |
| NT2 | 1250 |
| 617 ± 8 | 35.3 ± 1.0 | 63.7 ± 4.4 | 26.0 | 3.4 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | Sandy loam | 5.8 ± 0.1 | 3.4 ± 0.8 | ||
| NT3 | 1370 |
| 1358 ± 162 | 23.1 ± 0.4 | 59.7 ± 4.0 | 20.8 | 4.5 | 3.6 ± 0.8 | Loam | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 4.3 ± 0.8 |
Climate data referred to Central Weather Bureau, Taiwan; Stand structure referred to Cheng et al. (2013a, b, 2016b) and Lin et al. (2011)
MAT mean annual temperature, MAP mean annual precipitation
a LAI leaf area index, was determined using a LI-COR 2200 (LI-COR Comp., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA)
Fig. 1Monthly mean air temperature (°C, black circle) and precipitation (mm, gray bar) from January 2010 to December 2010 at TN plantation and from January 2010 to May 2011 at TC and NT plantations
Fig. 2Seasonal patterns of soil temperature (°C), soil water content (%, cm3 cm−3), and soil respiration rate (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) at TN (a, d, g), TC (b, e, h), and NT (c, f, i) plantations in Taiwan. Each symbol is the mean of the measurements, and the standard deviation is plotted as error bars
Estimated parameters of a, b, and c; coefficients of determinations (R2); root mean squared error (RMSE); and temperature sensitivity (Q10) of regressions for modeling soil respiration at TN, TC, and NT plantations in Taiwan
| Model | a | b | c | R2 | RMSE | Q10 | a | b | c | R2 | RMSE | Q10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN1 | TN2 | |||||||||||
| Temperature | 0.592 | 0.089 | 0.430 | 1.965 | 2.44 | 0.269 | 0.120 | 0.605 | 1.920 | 3.31 | ||
| Water content | 1.709 | 0.246 | − 0.003 | 0.654 | 1.648 | 0.053 | 0.870 | − 0.022 | 0.824 | 1.400 | ||
| Temperature and water content |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TC1 | TC2 | |||||||||||
| Temperature | 0.333 | 0.106 | 0.611 | 1.182 | 2.88 | 0.374 | 0.103 | 0.573 | 1.359 | 2.80 | ||
| Water content | 1.073 | 0.095 | 0.032 | 0.565 | 1.290 | 0.971 | 0.214 | 0.013 | 0.523 | 1.506 | ||
| Temperature and water content |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NT1 | NT2 | |||||||||||
| Temperature | 0.573 | 0.086 | 0.676 | 0.444 | 2.37 | 1.347 | 0.036 | 0.100 | 0.826 | 1.44 | ||
| Water content | 3.864 | − 0.138 | 0.002 | 0.336 | 0.663 | 4.057 | − 0.104 | 0.001 | 0.085 | 0.865 | ||
| Temperature and water content |
|
| − |
|
|
|
|
| − |
|
|
|
| NT3 | ||||||||||||
| Temperature | 1.394 | 0.055 | 0.721 | 0.376 | 1.74 | |||||||
| Water content | 4.049 | − 0.086 | 0.003 | 0.278 | 0.631 | |||||||
| Temperature and water content |
|
| − |
|
|
| ||||||
Italic text represents the best model with the highest R2 and lowest RMSE, which was used for estimating annual soil respiration rates
Fig. 3Soil respiration rate (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) measured in the field (black circles) and modeled by the regression equation (solid line) at TN (a, b), TC (c, d), and NT (e–g) plantations in Taiwan
Estimated mean soil respiration rate and annual soil respiration rate in 2010 at TN, TC, and NT plantations in Taiwan
| Mean soil respiration rate (μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) | Annual soil respiration rate (Mg C ha−1 year−1) | |
|---|---|---|
| TN1 | 4.67 | 17.6 |
| TN2 | 5.30 | 20.0 |
| TC1 | 3.78 | 14.3 |
| TC2 | 4.58 | 17.3 |
| NT1 | 2.02 | 7.6 |
| NT2 | 1.86 | 7.0 |
| NT3 | 3.22 | 12.2 |
Correlation coefficients at significant level p < 0.01 for annual soil respiration rate, elevation, mean annual temperature (MAT), mean annual precipitation (MAP), and litterfall production in 10 Taiwanese study stands
| Soil respiration (Mg C ha−1 year−1) | Elevation (m) | MAT (°C) | MAP (mm) | Litterfall (Mg C ha−1 year−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil respiration | 1.00 | ||||
| Elevation | − 0.93 | 1.00 | |||
| MAT | 0.94 | − 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| MAP | − 0.92 | 0.94 | − 0.94 | 1.00 | |
| Litterfall | 0.85 | − 0.81 | 0.85 | − 0.65 | 1.00 |
Fig. 4Linear relationships of annual soil respiration with a elevation, b mean annual temperature, c litterfall, and d mean annual precipitation in Taiwan. Black circles refer to the current study and red circles refer to previous studies (Chang et al. 2008; Kao and Chang 2009; Hsieh et al. 2016)