Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Changes in root architecture under elevated concentrations of CO2and nitrogen reflect alternate soil exploration strategies

      , , , , ,
      New Phytologist
      Wiley-Blackwell

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Root Architecture and Plant Productivity.

          J. Lynch (1995)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A global budget for fine root biomass, surface area, and nutrient contents.

            Global biogeochemical models have improved dramatically in the last decade in their representation of the biosphere. Although leaf area data are an important input to such models and are readily available globally, global root distributions for modeling water and nutrient uptake and carbon cycling have not been available. This analysis provides global distributions for fine root biomass, length, and surface area with depth in the soil, and global estimates of nutrient pools in fine roots. Calculated root surface area is almost always greater than leaf area, more than an order of magnitude so in grasslands. The average C:N:P ratio in living fine roots is 450:11:1, and global fine root carbon is more than 5% of all carbon contained in the atmosphere. Assuming conservatively that fine roots turn over once per year, they represent 33% of global annual net primary productivity.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity.

              Climate change predictions derived from coupled carbon-climate models are highly dependent on assumptions about feedbacks between the biosphere and atmosphere. One critical feedback occurs if C uptake by the biosphere increases in response to the fossil-fuel driven increase in atmospheric [CO(2)] ("CO(2) fertilization"), thereby slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric [CO(2)]. Carbon exchanges between the terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere are often first represented in models as net primary productivity (NPP). However, the contribution of CO(2) fertilization to the future global C cycle has been uncertain, especially in forest ecosystems that dominate global NPP, and models that include a feedback between terrestrial biosphere metabolism and atmospheric [CO(2)] are poorly constrained by experimental evidence. We analyzed the response of NPP to elevated CO(2) ( approximately 550 ppm) in four free-air CO(2) enrichment experiments in forest stands. We show that the response of forest NPP to elevated [CO(2)] is highly conserved across a broad range of productivity, with a stimulation at the median of 23 +/- 2%. At low leaf area indices, a large portion of the response was attributable to increased light absorption, but as leaf area indices increased, the response to elevated [CO(2)] was wholly caused by increased light-use efficiency. The surprising consistency of response across diverse sites provides a benchmark to evaluate predictions of ecosystem and global models and allows us now to focus on unresolved questions about carbon partitioning and retention, and spatial variation in NPP response caused by availability of other growth limiting resources.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New Phytologist
                New Phytol
                Wiley-Blackwell
                0028646X
                February 2015
                February 2015
                : 205
                : 3
                : 1153-1163
                Article
                10.1111/nph.13123
                20b09501-2556-4998-bec0-539accd71ad7
                © 2015
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article