Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Future CO2 (future + co2)
Selected AbstractsRainfall distribution is the main driver of runoff under future CO2 -concentration in a temperate deciduous forestGLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, Issue 1 2010SEBASTIAN LEUZINGER Abstract Reduced stomatal conductance under elevated CO2 results in increased soil moisture, provided all other factors remain constant. Whether this results in increased runoff critically depends on the interaction of rainfall patterns, soil water storage capacity and plant responses. To test the sensitivity of runoff to these parameters under elevated CO2, we combine transpiration and soil moisture data from the Swiss Canopy Crane FACE experiment (SCC, 14 30,35 m tall deciduous broad-leaved trees under elevated CO2) with 104 years of daily precipitation data from an adjacent weather station to drive a three-layer bucket model (mean yearly precipitation 794 mm). The model adequately predicts the water budget of a temperate deciduous forest and runoff from a nearby gauging station. A simulation run over all 104 years based on measured sap flow responses resulted in only 5.5 mm (2.9%) increased ecosystem runoff under elevated CO2. Out of the 37 986 days (1 January 1901,31 December 2004), only 576 days produce higher runoff in the elevated CO2 scenario. Only 1 out of 17 years produces a CO2 -signal >20 mm a,1, which mostly depends on a few single days when runoff under elevated CO2 exceeds runoff under ambient conditions. The maximum signal for a double preindustrial CO2 -concentration under the past century daily rainfall regime is an additional runoff of 46 mm. More than half of all years produce a signal of <5 mm a,1, because trees consume the ,extra' moisture during prolonged dry weather. Increased runoff under elevated CO2 is nine times more sensitive to variations in rain pattern than to the applied reduction in transpiration under elevated CO2. Thus the key driver of increased runoff under future CO2 -concentration is the day by day rainfall pattern. We argue that increased runoff due to a first-order plant physiological CO2 -effect will be very small (<3%) in a landscape dominated by temperate deciduous forests, and will hardly increase flooding risk in forest catchments. Monthly rainfall sums are unsuitable to realistically model such CO2 effects. These findings may apply to other ecosystems with comparable soil water storage capacity. [source] Importance of changing CO2, temperature, precipitation, and ozone on carbon and water cycles of an upland-oak forest: incorporating experimental results into model simulationsGLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, Issue 9 2005Paul J. Hanson Abstract Observed responses of upland-oak vegetation of the eastern deciduous hardwood forest to changing CO2, temperature, precipitation and tropospheric ozone (O3) were derived from field studies and interpreted with a stand-level model for an 11-year range of environmental variation upon which scenarios of future environmental change were imposed. Scenarios for the year 2100 included elevated [CO2] and [O3] (+385 ppm and +20 ppb, respectively), warming (+4°C), and increased winter precipitation (+20% November,March). Simulations were run with and without adjustments for experimentally observed physiological and biomass adjustments. Initial simplistic model runs for single-factor changes in CO2 and temperature predicted substantial increases (+191% or 508 g C m,2 yr,1) or decreases (,206% or ,549 g C m,2 yr,1), respectively, in mean annual net ecosystem carbon exchange (NEEa,266±23 g C m,2 yr,1 from 1993 to 2003). Conversely, single-factor changes in precipitation or O3 had comparatively small effects on NEEa (0% and ,35%, respectively). The combined influence of all four environmental changes yielded a 29% reduction in mean annual NEEa. These results suggested that future CO2 -induced enhancements of gross photosynthesis would be largely offset by temperature-induced increases in respiration, exacerbation of water deficits, and O3 -induced reductions in photosynthesis. However, when experimentally observed physiological adjustments were included in the simulations (e.g. acclimation of leaf respiration to warming), the combined influence of the year 2100 scenario resulted in a 20% increase in NEEa not a decrease. Consistent with the annual model's predictions, simulations with a forest succession model run for gradually changing conditions from 2000 to 2100 indicated an 11% increase in stand wood biomass in the future compared with current conditions. These model-based analyses identify critical areas of uncertainty for multivariate predictions of future ecosystem response, and underscore the importance of long term field experiments for the evaluation of acclimation and growth under complex environmental scenarios. [source] Growth and Wood/Bark Properties of Abies faxoniana Seedlings as Affected by Elevated CO2JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE PLANT BIOLOGY, Issue 3 2008Yun-Zhou Qiao Abstract Growth and wood and bark properties of Abies faxoniana seedlings after one year's exposure to elevated CO2 concentration (ambient + 350 (± 25) ,mol/mol) under two planting densities (28 or 84 plants/m2) were investigated in closed-top chambers. Tree height, stem diameter and cross-sectional area, and total biomass were enhanced under elevated CO2 concentration, and reduced under high planting density. Most traits of stem bark were improved under elevated CO2 concentration and reduced under high planting density. Stem wood production was significantly increased in volume under elevated CO2 concentration under both densities, and the stem wood density decreased under elevated CO2 concentration and increased under high planting density. These results suggest that the response of stem wood and bark to elevated CO2 concentration is density dependent. This may be of great importance in a future CO2 enriched world in natural forests where plant density varies considerably. The results also show that the bark/wood ratio in diameter, stem cross-sectional area and dry weight are not proportionally affected by elevated CO2 concentration under the two contrasting planting densities. This indicates that the response magnitude of stem bark and stem wood to elevated CO2 concentration are different but their response directions are the same. [source] | ||||||||||