A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration
Partitioning the soil surface CO 2 flux ( R S) flux is an important step in understanding ecosystem-level carbon cycling, given that R S is poorly constrained and its source components may have different sensitivities to climate change. Trenched plots are an inexpensive but labor-intensive method of...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Soil biology & biochemistry 2011-10, Vol.43 (10), p.2108-2114 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2114 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 2108 |
| container_title | Soil biology & biochemistry |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Bond-Lamberty, Ben Bronson, Dustin Bladyka, Emma Gower, Stith T. |
| description | Partitioning the soil surface CO
2 flux (
R
S) flux is an important step in understanding ecosystem-level carbon cycling, given that
R
S is poorly constrained and its source components may have different sensitivities to climate change. Trenched plots are an inexpensive but labor-intensive method of separating the
R
S flux into its root (autotrophic) and soil (heterotrophic) components. This study tested if various methods of plant suppression in trenched plots affected
R
S fluxes, quantified the
R
S response to soil temperature and moisture changes, and estimated the heterotrophic contribution to
R
S. It was performed in a boreal black spruce (
Picea mariana) plantation, using a randomized complete block design, during the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons. Trenched plots had significantly lower
R
S than control plots, with differences appearing ∼100 days after trenching; spatial variability doubled immediately after trenching but then declined throughout the experiment. Most trenching treatments had significantly lower (by ∼0.5 μmol CO
2 m
−2 s
−1)
R
S than the controls, and there was no significant difference in
R
S among the various trenching treatments. Soil temperature at 2 cm explained more
R
S variability than did 10-cm temperature or soil moisture. Temperature sensitivity (
Q
10) declined in the control plots from ∼2.6 (at 5 °C) to ∼1.6 (at 15 °C); trenched plots values were higher, from 3.1 at 5 °C to 1.9 at 15 °C. We estimated
R
S for the study period to be 241 ± 40 g C m
−2, with live roots contributing 64% of
R
S after accounting for fine root decay, and 293 g C m
−2 for the entire year. These findings suggest that laborious hand weeding of trenched plot vegetation may be replaced by other methods, facilitating future studies of this large and poorly-understood carbon flux.
► Different vegetation suppression techniques generally had no effect on soil respiration fluxes in trenched plots. ► Roots contributed almost two-thirds of measured CO
2 flux at the soil surface. ► Heterotrophic (microbial) respiration was more sensitive to changes in temperature than root respiration. ► Inserting measurement collars to 10 cm was not sufficient to cut off root-derived respiration. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.011 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1034233</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0038071711002409</els_id><sourcerecordid>893271150</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-6b819f03fd4c7e0091f4218ba589c8eecb8c5cf3b44e6d442d79b1e62c34ec813</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEFr3DAQhUVpodu0P6EgCiEnO5Ily_IphJA2CYFe2rOQx6NGi1dyJSXQf1-ZXXLN6cHwzbw3j5CvnLWccXW5b3P0y-Rj2zHOW6baKu_IjuthbITs9HuyY0zohg18-Eg-5bxnjHU9FzvycE0hHlabfI6BRkdLwgBPONN1iYUWhKfg_z5jpi4mWrnii4_Bhz90M6UJ8-qT3WafyQdnl4xfTnpGfn-__XVz1zz-_HF_c_3YgFSyNGrSfHRMuFnCgIyN3MmO68n2egSNCJOGHpyYpEQ1S9nNwzhxVB0IiaC5OCPfjndjLt5k8FtIiCEgFMNZfViICl0coTXFLX4xB58Bl8UGjM_Z6FF0A-c9q2R_JCHFnBM6syZ_sOlfvWW2fs3enPo1W7-GKVOl7p2fHGwGu7hkA_j8utxJOSg16MpdHTmsnbx4TFvk2jHOPm2J5-jfcPoPUNuUAg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>893271150</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Bond-Lamberty, Ben ; Bronson, Dustin ; Bladyka, Emma ; Gower, Stith T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bond-Lamberty, Ben ; Bronson, Dustin ; Bladyka, Emma ; Gower, Stith T. ; Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>Partitioning the soil surface CO
2 flux (
R
S) flux is an important step in understanding ecosystem-level carbon cycling, given that
R
S is poorly constrained and its source components may have different sensitivities to climate change. Trenched plots are an inexpensive but labor-intensive method of separating the
R
S flux into its root (autotrophic) and soil (heterotrophic) components. This study tested if various methods of plant suppression in trenched plots affected
R
S fluxes, quantified the
R
S response to soil temperature and moisture changes, and estimated the heterotrophic contribution to
R
S. It was performed in a boreal black spruce (
Picea mariana) plantation, using a randomized complete block design, during the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons. Trenched plots had significantly lower
R
S than control plots, with differences appearing ∼100 days after trenching; spatial variability doubled immediately after trenching but then declined throughout the experiment. Most trenching treatments had significantly lower (by ∼0.5 μmol CO
2 m
−2 s
−1)
R
S than the controls, and there was no significant difference in
R
S among the various trenching treatments. Soil temperature at 2 cm explained more
R
S variability than did 10-cm temperature or soil moisture. Temperature sensitivity (
Q
10) declined in the control plots from ∼2.6 (at 5 °C) to ∼1.6 (at 15 °C); trenched plots values were higher, from 3.1 at 5 °C to 1.9 at 15 °C. We estimated
R
S for the study period to be 241 ± 40 g C m
−2, with live roots contributing 64% of
R
S after accounting for fine root decay, and 293 g C m
−2 for the entire year. These findings suggest that laborious hand weeding of trenched plot vegetation may be replaced by other methods, facilitating future studies of this large and poorly-understood carbon flux.
► Different vegetation suppression techniques generally had no effect on soil respiration fluxes in trenched plots. ► Roots contributed almost two-thirds of measured CO
2 flux at the soil surface. ► Heterotrophic (microbial) respiration was more sensitive to changes in temperature than root respiration. ► Inserting measurement collars to 10 cm was not sufficient to cut off root-derived respiration.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0038-0717</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3428</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.011</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SBIOAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biochemistry and biology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Boreal forest ; CARBON ; Carbon cycling ; Chemical, physicochemical, biochemical and biological properties ; CLIMATES ; DECAY ; DESIGN ; DISTURBANCES ; ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES ; Field measurement ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; methodology ; MOISTURE ; Physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology of agricultural and forest soils ; Picea mariana ; PLANTS ; RESPIRATION ; SEASONS ; SENSITIVITY ; Soil respiration ; Soil science ; SOILS ; SPRUCES</subject><ispartof>Soil biology & biochemistry, 2011-10, Vol.43 (10), p.2108-2114</ispartof><rights>2011</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-6b819f03fd4c7e0091f4218ba589c8eecb8c5cf3b44e6d442d79b1e62c34ec813</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-6b819f03fd4c7e0091f4218ba589c8eecb8c5cf3b44e6d442d79b1e62c34ec813</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071711002409$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24476678$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1034233$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bond-Lamberty, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronson, Dustin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bladyka, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gower, Stith T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration</title><title>Soil biology & biochemistry</title><description>Partitioning the soil surface CO
2 flux (
R
S) flux is an important step in understanding ecosystem-level carbon cycling, given that
R
S is poorly constrained and its source components may have different sensitivities to climate change. Trenched plots are an inexpensive but labor-intensive method of separating the
R
S flux into its root (autotrophic) and soil (heterotrophic) components. This study tested if various methods of plant suppression in trenched plots affected
R
S fluxes, quantified the
R
S response to soil temperature and moisture changes, and estimated the heterotrophic contribution to
R
S. It was performed in a boreal black spruce (
Picea mariana) plantation, using a randomized complete block design, during the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons. Trenched plots had significantly lower
R
S than control plots, with differences appearing ∼100 days after trenching; spatial variability doubled immediately after trenching but then declined throughout the experiment. Most trenching treatments had significantly lower (by ∼0.5 μmol CO
2 m
−2 s
−1)
R
S than the controls, and there was no significant difference in
R
S among the various trenching treatments. Soil temperature at 2 cm explained more
R
S variability than did 10-cm temperature or soil moisture. Temperature sensitivity (
Q
10) declined in the control plots from ∼2.6 (at 5 °C) to ∼1.6 (at 15 °C); trenched plots values were higher, from 3.1 at 5 °C to 1.9 at 15 °C. We estimated
R
S for the study period to be 241 ± 40 g C m
−2, with live roots contributing 64% of
R
S after accounting for fine root decay, and 293 g C m
−2 for the entire year. These findings suggest that laborious hand weeding of trenched plot vegetation may be replaced by other methods, facilitating future studies of this large and poorly-understood carbon flux.
► Different vegetation suppression techniques generally had no effect on soil respiration fluxes in trenched plots. ► Roots contributed almost two-thirds of measured CO
2 flux at the soil surface. ► Heterotrophic (microbial) respiration was more sensitive to changes in temperature than root respiration. ► Inserting measurement collars to 10 cm was not sufficient to cut off root-derived respiration.</description><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biochemistry and biology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Boreal forest</subject><subject>CARBON</subject><subject>Carbon cycling</subject><subject>Chemical, physicochemical, biochemical and biological properties</subject><subject>CLIMATES</subject><subject>DECAY</subject><subject>DESIGN</subject><subject>DISTURBANCES</subject><subject>ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES</subject><subject>Field measurement</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>methodology</subject><subject>MOISTURE</subject><subject>Physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology of agricultural and forest soils</subject><subject>Picea mariana</subject><subject>PLANTS</subject><subject>RESPIRATION</subject><subject>SEASONS</subject><subject>SENSITIVITY</subject><subject>Soil respiration</subject><subject>Soil science</subject><subject>SOILS</subject><subject>SPRUCES</subject><issn>0038-0717</issn><issn>1879-3428</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEFr3DAQhUVpodu0P6EgCiEnO5Ily_IphJA2CYFe2rOQx6NGi1dyJSXQf1-ZXXLN6cHwzbw3j5CvnLWccXW5b3P0y-Rj2zHOW6baKu_IjuthbITs9HuyY0zohg18-Eg-5bxnjHU9FzvycE0hHlabfI6BRkdLwgBPONN1iYUWhKfg_z5jpi4mWrnii4_Bhz90M6UJ8-qT3WafyQdnl4xfTnpGfn-__XVz1zz-_HF_c_3YgFSyNGrSfHRMuFnCgIyN3MmO68n2egSNCJOGHpyYpEQ1S9nNwzhxVB0IiaC5OCPfjndjLt5k8FtIiCEgFMNZfViICl0coTXFLX4xB58Bl8UGjM_Z6FF0A-c9q2R_JCHFnBM6syZ_sOlfvWW2fs3enPo1W7-GKVOl7p2fHGwGu7hkA_j8utxJOSg16MpdHTmsnbx4TFvk2jHOPm2J5-jfcPoPUNuUAg</recordid><startdate>20111001</startdate><enddate>20111001</enddate><creator>Bond-Lamberty, Ben</creator><creator>Bronson, Dustin</creator><creator>Bladyka, Emma</creator><creator>Gower, Stith T.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111001</creationdate><title>A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration</title><author>Bond-Lamberty, Ben ; Bronson, Dustin ; Bladyka, Emma ; Gower, Stith T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c464t-6b819f03fd4c7e0091f4218ba589c8eecb8c5cf3b44e6d442d79b1e62c34ec813</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biochemistry and biology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Boreal forest</topic><topic>CARBON</topic><topic>Carbon cycling</topic><topic>Chemical, physicochemical, biochemical and biological properties</topic><topic>CLIMATES</topic><topic>DECAY</topic><topic>DESIGN</topic><topic>DISTURBANCES</topic><topic>ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES</topic><topic>Field measurement</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>methodology</topic><topic>MOISTURE</topic><topic>Physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology of agricultural and forest soils</topic><topic>Picea mariana</topic><topic>PLANTS</topic><topic>RESPIRATION</topic><topic>SEASONS</topic><topic>SENSITIVITY</topic><topic>Soil respiration</topic><topic>Soil science</topic><topic>SOILS</topic><topic>SPRUCES</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bond-Lamberty, Ben</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bronson, Dustin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bladyka, Emma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gower, Stith T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Soil biology & biochemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bond-Lamberty, Ben</au><au>Bronson, Dustin</au><au>Bladyka, Emma</au><au>Gower, Stith T.</au><aucorp>Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration</atitle><jtitle>Soil biology & biochemistry</jtitle><date>2011-10-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2108</spage><epage>2114</epage><pages>2108-2114</pages><issn>0038-0717</issn><eissn>1879-3428</eissn><coden>SBIOAH</coden><abstract>Partitioning the soil surface CO
2 flux (
R
S) flux is an important step in understanding ecosystem-level carbon cycling, given that
R
S is poorly constrained and its source components may have different sensitivities to climate change. Trenched plots are an inexpensive but labor-intensive method of separating the
R
S flux into its root (autotrophic) and soil (heterotrophic) components. This study tested if various methods of plant suppression in trenched plots affected
R
S fluxes, quantified the
R
S response to soil temperature and moisture changes, and estimated the heterotrophic contribution to
R
S. It was performed in a boreal black spruce (
Picea mariana) plantation, using a randomized complete block design, during the 2007 and 2008 growing seasons. Trenched plots had significantly lower
R
S than control plots, with differences appearing ∼100 days after trenching; spatial variability doubled immediately after trenching but then declined throughout the experiment. Most trenching treatments had significantly lower (by ∼0.5 μmol CO
2 m
−2 s
−1)
R
S than the controls, and there was no significant difference in
R
S among the various trenching treatments. Soil temperature at 2 cm explained more
R
S variability than did 10-cm temperature or soil moisture. Temperature sensitivity (
Q
10) declined in the control plots from ∼2.6 (at 5 °C) to ∼1.6 (at 15 °C); trenched plots values were higher, from 3.1 at 5 °C to 1.9 at 15 °C. We estimated
R
S for the study period to be 241 ± 40 g C m
−2, with live roots contributing 64% of
R
S after accounting for fine root decay, and 293 g C m
−2 for the entire year. These findings suggest that laborious hand weeding of trenched plot vegetation may be replaced by other methods, facilitating future studies of this large and poorly-understood carbon flux.
► Different vegetation suppression techniques generally had no effect on soil respiration fluxes in trenched plots. ► Roots contributed almost two-thirds of measured CO
2 flux at the soil surface. ► Heterotrophic (microbial) respiration was more sensitive to changes in temperature than root respiration. ► Inserting measurement collars to 10 cm was not sufficient to cut off root-derived respiration.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.011</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0038-0717 |
| ispartof | Soil biology & biochemistry, 2011-10, Vol.43 (10), p.2108-2114 |
| issn | 0038-0717 1879-3428 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1034233 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions Biochemistry and biology Biological and medical sciences Boreal forest CARBON Carbon cycling Chemical, physicochemical, biochemical and biological properties CLIMATES DECAY DESIGN DISTURBANCES ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Field measurement Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology methodology MOISTURE Physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology of agricultural and forest soils Picea mariana PLANTS RESPIRATION SEASONS SENSITIVITY Soil respiration Soil science SOILS SPRUCES |
| title | A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T02%3A53%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20trenched%20plot%20techniques%20for%20partitioning%20soil%20respiration&rft.jtitle=Soil%20biology%20&%20biochemistry&rft.au=Bond-Lamberty,%20Ben&rft.aucorp=Pacific%20Northwest%20National%20Lab.%20(PNNL),%20Richland,%20WA%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2108&rft.epage=2114&rft.pages=2108-2114&rft.issn=0038-0717&rft.eissn=1879-3428&rft.coden=SBIOAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E893271150%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=893271150&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0038071711002409&rfr_iscdi=true |