Yeast two-hybrid screening service Sign up for PNAS Online eTocs
Link: Info for AuthorsLink: Editorial BoardLink: AboutLink: SubscribeLink: AdvertiseLink: ContactLink: Sitemap Link: PNAS Home
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Link: Current Issue "" Link: Archives "" Link: Online Submission ""  Link: Advanced Search

Published online on August 20, 2007, 10.1073/pnas.0706518104
PNAS | August 28, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 35 | 14014-14019


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supporting Tables
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finzi, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ceulemans, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Finzi, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ceulemans, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg  
What's this?

 Previous Article  | Table of Contents |  Next Article 

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO2

Adrien C. Finzia,b, Richard J. Norbyc, Carlo Calfapietrad, Anne Gallet-Budyneka, Birgit Gielene, William E. Holmesf, Marcel R. Hoosbeekg, Colleen M. Iversenh, Robert B. Jacksoni, Mark E. Kubiskej, Joanne Ledfordc, Marion Liberlooe, Ram Oreni, Andrea Pollek, Seth Pritchardl, Donald R. Zakf, William H. Schlesingerb,i, and Reinhart Ceulemanse

aDepartment of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215; cEnvironmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; dDepartment of Forest Environment and Resources, University of Tuscia, I-01100 Viterbo, Italy; eResearch Group of Plant and Vegetation Ecology, Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium; fSchool of Natural Resources and Environment and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109; gDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, 6700AA-47 Wageningen, The Netherlands; hDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996; iSchool of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708; jNorth Central Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rhinelander, WI 54501; kInstitute for Forest Botany, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany; and lDepartment of Biology, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC 29424

Contributed by William H. Schlesinger, July 11, 2007 (received for review March 12, 2007)


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Forest ecosystems are important sinks for rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2. In previous research, we showed that net primary production (NPP) increased by 23 ± 2% when four experimental forests were grown under atmospheric concentrations of CO2 predicted for the latter half of this century. Because nitrogen (N) availability commonly limits forest productivity, some combination of increased N uptake from the soil and more efficient use of the N already assimilated by trees is necessary to sustain the high rates of forest NPP under free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE). In this study, experimental evidence demonstrates that the uptake of N increased under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites, yet fertilization studies at the Duke and Oak Ridge National Laboratory FACE sites showed that tree growth and forest NPP were strongly limited by N availability. By contrast, nitrogen-use efficiency increased under elevated CO2 at the POP-EUROFACE site, where fertilization studies showed that N was not limiting to tree growth. Some combination of increasing fine root production, increased rates of soil organic matter decomposition, and increased allocation of carbon (C) to mycorrhizal fungi is likely to account for greater N uptake under elevated CO2. Regardless of the specific mechanism, this analysis shows that the larger quantities of C entering the below-ground system under elevated CO2 result in greater N uptake, even in N-limited ecosystems. Biogeochemical models must be reformulated to allow C transfers below ground that result in additional N uptake under elevated CO2.

global change | net primary production

Terrestrial ecosystems, and particularly forests, exchange large quantities of carbon with the atmosphere each year; {approx}15% of the atmospheric pool of CO2 is exchanged between plants and the atmosphere annually (1, 2). Globally, trees represent 80% of plant biomass (3–5) and 50–60% of annual net primary production (NPP) in terrestrial ecosystems (6, 7). Given their large contribution to terrestrial productivity and carbon (C) storage, forest ecosystems are important sinks for anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the earth's atmosphere (8, 9).

Previous research (10) shows that enhanced rates of forest NPP under free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) were similar among four forest sites differing in species composition, climate, and soil fertility (Table 1). At one of these sites (Duke FACE), spatial variation in soil nitrogen (N) availability correlated with increasing rates of forest NPP under present-day and elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 (11, 12). This observation raised the question of how forest trees acquired N to support high rates of forest NPP under elevated CO2, and whether responses were consistent among the four forest FACE experiments. Indeed, because N availability often limits primary productivity through its effect on photosynthesis (13) and on the synthesis of proteins required for the construction and maintenance of living tissue, some combination of increased N uptake from the soil and more efficient use of the N already assimilated by trees is necessary to sustain the high rates of forest NPP observed under elevated CO2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Characteristics of the four FACE experiments

 
Nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE) measures the amount of biomass produced per unit of N taken up from the soil (14), defined as

Formula 1

where NPP and Nuptake are measured in units of dry matter production or N taken up from soil per square meter of land surface per unit of time (i.e., g of DM·m–2·yr–1 or g of N·m–2·yr–1). Furthermore, NUE can be decomposed into two processes of considerable ecological interest (15, 16): (i) the rate at which dry matter is produced per unit of N in tree biomass per unit of time (i.e., N productivity, g of DM·g of N–1·yr–1), and (ii) the amount of time N is available for use in C fixation before it is recycled into the soil system [i.e., the mean residence time of N in biomass in years (MRT)]. Thus, NUE can be rewritten as

Formula 2

where NPP and Nuptake are as in Eq. 1 and Ncontent is the mass of N in biomass per square meter of land surface (g of N·m–2). It is useful to estimate both N productivity and the MRT of N in biomass because a change in the magnitude of either or both quantities has important implications for the cycling of C and N under elevated CO2.

The objective of this study was to determine the relative importance of increases in the uptake of N from the soil and increases in NUE as processes supporting higher rates of NPP under elevated CO2 compared with present-day concentrations of atmospheric CO2 among the four forest FACE experiments. To meet this objective, we assembled plot-specific data on plant tissue N concentrations (foliage, wood, fine roots, above-ground litterfall, and fine root turnover) and NPP from these experiments. We calculated the rate of N uptake from the soil, NUE, the N content of biomass, N productivity, and the MRT of N in biomass under present-day and elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Results
Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
The four FACE sites varied in the relationship between NPP and N uptake (Eq. 1 and Fig. 1). Both NPP and N uptake were substantially higher at POP-EUROFACE compared with the other three sites. NPP at POP-EUROFACE was higher in elevated CO2, but N uptake was not; hence, the data points for plots from elevated and present-day CO2 concentrations align along different NUE isopleths, suggesting greater NUE in elevated CO2. By contrast, the data points for present-day and elevated CO2 from the Rhinelander, Duke, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) FACE sites generally plotted along the same NUE isopleth because NPP and N uptake were increased to a similar degree under elevated CO2. NUE in the two established stands (Duke and ORNL) was greater than that of the developing stands (Rhinelander and POP-EUROFACE). These relationships will now be explored in a statistical framework.


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Correlation between N uptake (g of N·m–2·yr–1) and NPP (g·m–2·yr–1) at each of the four forest FACE sites under present-day (open symbols) and elevated (filled symbols) CO2. The data points represent the mean values in present-day and elevated CO2 in different years and in different species (POP-EUROFACE) or species assemblages (Rhinelander FACE). The dashed lines across the plot are isopleths of differing NUE ranging from 100 to 300.

Compared with NPP at present-day CO2 concentrations, NPP was significantly higher under elevated CO2 (Fig. 2A) (10). The average annual uptake of N from the soil increased significantly under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL FACE sites but not at the POP-EUROFACE site (Fig. 2B). By contrast, NUE was significantly higher under elevated CO2 at the POP-EUROFACE site but not at the Rhinelander, Duke, or ORNL FACE sites (Fig. 2C).


Figure 2
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Responses of NPP (g of DM·m–2·yr–1) (A), N uptake (g of N·m–2 ·yr–1) (B), and NUE (g of DM·g of N–1) (C) to forest growth under present-day and elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander (RHI), Duke, ORNL, and POP-EUROFACE (EURO) sites. The error bar corresponds to one standard error of the mean. Significant differences between CO2 treatments within a site are given by *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; and ***, P < 0.001.

The content of N in biomass was significantly higher under elevated CO2 than at present-day concentrations of atmospheric CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL FACE sites but not at the POP-EUROFACE site (Fig. 3A). At all sites, N productivity was significantly higher under elevated CO2 (Fig. 3B). At the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL FACE sites, the increase in N productivity occurred because elevated CO2 stimulated forest NPP (Fig. 2A) to a greater degree than the content of N in biomass (Fig. 3A). At the POP-EUROFACE site, the increase in N productivity was only due to greater forest NPP under elevated CO2 (Fig. 2A); there was no effect of elevated CO2 on the N content of biomass at this site (Fig. 3A).


Figure 3
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. Responses of N content (A), N productivity (B), and MRT (C) of N in biomass to forest growth under present-day and elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander (RHI), Duke, ORNL, and POP-EUROFACE (EURO) sites. The error bar corresponds to one standard error of the mean. Levels of statistical significance for within-site responses to CO2 treatment are the same as those in Fig. 2.

The MRT of N in biomass at the Rhinelander and ORNL FACE sites was significantly lower under elevated CO2 than under present-day CO2 concentrations (Fig. 3C). A similar trend was observed at the Duke FACE site under elevated CO2, but the effect was not statistically significant (Fig. 3C). There was no effect of elevated CO2 on the MRT of N in biomass at the POP-EUROFACE site.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Results
 Discussion
Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Forest ecosystems are important sinks for rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2. In a previous data synthesis of four forest FACE experiments (10), forest NPP increased on average by 23 ± 2% when the forests were grown under atmospheric concentrations of CO2 predicted for the latter half of this century. Because N often limits temperate forest productivity (17–19), some combination of increased uptake of N from the soil and more efficient use of the N already assimilated by trees is necessary to sustain the high rates of forest NPP observed under elevated CO2 (i.e., rearranging Eq. 1, NPP = Nuptake x NUE). In this data synthesis, we show that increases in forest productivity under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL FACE sites were supported by significant increases in the quantity of N taken up from the soil, not by increases in NUE (Fig. 2B). By contrast, the increase in forest productivity under elevated CO2 at the POP-EUROFACE site was supported by an increase in NUE, not greater N uptake from the soil. Thus, increased uptake of N from the soil was the more typical mechanism supporting high rates of forest NPP under elevated CO2.

During the decomposition of soil organic matter (SOM), microorganisms release N to the soil solution, often in mineral form ("mineralization"), as well as take up N from the soil solution ("immobilization"), with the difference between mineralization and immobilization assumed to represent N availability to plants. Given that the rate of N mineralization did not increase significantly more than the rate of N immobilization in the soils under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL FACE sites (20–23), greater uptake of N from the soil in response to forest growth under elevated CO2 was unexpected. This was particularly true of the Duke and ORNL FACE sites where tree growth is demonstrably N-limited [supporting information (SI) Table 2] (11). In N-limited ecosystems, the rate at which N is converted to available forms is slow relative to the rate of N uptake by trees, and as a consequence it is assumed that there is little or no additional capacity of soils to supply N to forest trees (24–29). Indeed, most biogeochemical models predict increases in NUE in response to high rates of forest NPP under elevated CO2 in N-limited ecosystems (26, 27, 30) and suggest that enhanced rates of N uptake under elevated CO2 can only occur where N availability exceeds demand under present-day concentrations of atmospheric CO2 (28, 30). Thus, the response of N uptake and NUE in these young temperate forests exposed to FACE is the opposite of that predicted by the current generation of biogeochemical models (26–28, 30).

A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to explain greater uptake of N by plants growing under elevated CO2. The most common explanation is that significant increases in fine root production under elevated CO2 allow trees to explore more of the soil volume for available N ["root exploration" (22, 31–35)]. The underlying assumption for this model is that N is being mineralized in excess of microbial demand in the soil and that this supply of N is only available to trees growing under elevated CO2 because of a more extensive fine root network. The root-exploration hypothesis is attractive because it reconciles the contradiction between the observation that the rate of N mineralization does not increase under elevated CO2 (20–22) but that more N is taken up by trees under elevated CO2 (Fig. 2B). If the root-exploration hypothesis is correct, then enhanced NPP of forests under elevated CO2 decreases the degree to which N limits forest productivity.

Increases in fine root production are often associated with increases in C allocation to mycorrhizal fungi and root exudation, processes that are also thought to increase plant access to soil N under elevated CO2 (36–38). Mycorrhizal fungi play a crucial role in N cycling through the release of enzymes involved in the decomposition of SOM (39–41), the capture of organic and inorganic forms of N from the soil (42, 43), and the transfer of N to host plants (44, 45). Similarly, the addition of C substrates to the soil stimulates the decomposition of SOM, often as a result of an increase in microbial activity (reviewed in ref. 46). Because SOM contains N, the delivery of plant-derived substrates can also stimulate a more rapid mineralization of N from SOM (47–51). Rapid plant growth under elevated CO2 is associated with greater hyphal length and fungal activity in the soil and an increase in the degree to which fine roots are colonized by ecto- and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (36, 52, 53). Moreover, enhanced NPP under elevated CO2 increases the quantity of C entering soil (54, 55) by increasing fine root production and turnover (56–58) and root exudation (59, 60), processes that increase the metabolism of organic substrates by soil microbial communities (61–65) and soil respiration (66–68).

In contrast to the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL sites, N uptake was not significantly greater under elevated CO2 at the POP-EUROFACE site (Fig. 2B), a response that is likely explained by the growing conditions and land-use history of this site. The POP-EUROFACE site was irrigated during exposure to elevated CO2, so there were few constraints of water on tree growth throughout the summer growing season (Table 1) (69). Similarly, the POP-EUROFACE site was located on former agricultural land where soil N availability was high and not limiting to tree growth (SI Table 2) (35). As a result, additional uptake of soil N was not required to support high rates of NPP under elevated CO2 (Fig. 2B). Rather, the N already assimilated by the trees at the POP-EUROFACE site was used more efficiently to support high rates of forest NPP under elevated CO2 (Fig. 2C) (70).

Although NUE did not change at all sites, the analysis of the two components of NUE, N productivity and the MRT of N in biomass, provides important insights into how these forests used assimilated N. Elevated CO2 increased N productivity at all sites (Fig. 3B), indicating that more C was fixed per unit of N in biomass per unit time under elevated CO2 than under present-day concentrations of atmospheric CO2. This response is likely to have occurred as a result of the significant increase in photosynthetic NUE under elevated CO2 at the four FACE sites (71–74). Despite the increase in N productivity under elevated CO2, NUE did not increase at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL sites because elevated CO2 stimulated NPP and N uptake from the soil (Fig. 2B) to similar degrees, whereas N content in biomass increased less (Fig. 3A). The smaller increase in N content is explained by the more rapid turnover of the plant N pool at these sites [i.e., shorter MRT (Fig. 3C)]. The decline in the MRT of N in these stands was associated with the allocation of N to plant pools that turn over rapidly and have high N concentrations [i.e., leaves and fine roots (SI Table 3)]. Consequently, the gains in N productivity were offset by the declines in the MRT of N in biomass, resulting in no change in NUE under elevated CO2 (Eq. 2 and Fig. 2C). Notably, the decrease in the MRT of N in biomass, and the increased production of ephemeral tissues with high N concentrations, reinforces a requirement for greater N uptake under elevated CO2 at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL FACE sites (Fig. 2B). In contrast, at the POP-EUROFACE site, where >60% of the N taken up annually was allocated to the production of wood (SI Table 3), MRT was not altered by elevated CO2, and NUE and N productivity increased similarly.

In biogeochemical models, trees take up N from the "available" pool in the soil (26–28, 30). The available pool of N is defined as the amount of inorganic N in soil solution, a pool that increases or decreases in size through time based on microbial activity and the amount of N needed for microbial growth and maintenance. The consequence of this model construction is that increases in forest NPP under elevated CO2 result in a significant increase in NUE in N-limited ecosystems. In contrast to the predictions of biogeochemical models, this data synthesis documents greater tree N uptake in N-limited ecosystems and increases in NUE in ecosystems that were not limited by N availability. It is likely that the combination of increasing fine root production, enhanced rates of SOM decomposition due to increased root exudation, and increased allocation of C to mycorrhizal fungi explains the ability of forest trees to take up more N from the soil under elevated CO2. Site-specific studies must now quantify the importance of these different processes. Regardless of the specific mechanism, this analysis demonstrates that larger quantities of C entering the below-ground system under elevated CO2 result in greater N uptake, even in N-limited ecosystems. To accurately forecast the response of forest ecosystems to rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2, biogeochemical models must be reformulated to allow C transfers below ground (52) that result in additional N uptake under elevated CO2.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
Acknowledgements
 References
 
This research synthesized data from four, temperate-forest FACE experiments. Data from the Duke and ORNL sites were collected from experiments initiated in established monoculture plantations. At the time measurements began, the loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) trees at the Duke FACE site were 13 years old, and the sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) trees at the ORNL FACE site were 10 years old. Data from the Rhinelander FACE site were obtained from two communities composed of Populus tremuloides and of P. tremuloides interplanted with Betula papyrifera. Data from the POP-EUROFACE site were collected from three genotypes of Populus spp. that were initiated from cuttings planted into bare ground.

Each experiment used FACE technology to expose 20- to 30-m-diameter plots to high concentrations of atmospheric CO2. The Duke, Rhinelander, and ORNL FACE sites used similar technology, where pure CO2 was mixed with a turbulent air stream, distributed through a plenum, and released from the ground surface to the top of the tree canopy via vertical vent pipes (75). The POP-EUROFACE site used pure CO2 delivered at supersonic velocity directly into the FACE plots on the upwind side of each plot (69). The target concentration for atmospheric CO2 in the enriched plots at the Rhinelander and ORNL FACE sites was 550 µl/liter, at the POP-EUROFACE site was 560 µl/liter, and at the Duke site was present-day + 200 µl/liter, which are concentrations predicted for the year 2050 (76). The control plots at the Rhinelander, Duke, and ORNL sites were treated identically to the CO2-enriched plots with the exception that air at current atmospheric CO2 concentrations (376 µl/liter) was delivered through vent pipes. No fumigation infrastructure was built around the control plots at the POP-EUROFACE site. Detailed descriptions of the experimental methods for CO2 exposure at each site are presented for Duke, ORNL, Rhinelander, and POP-EUROFACE in refs. 75, 77, 78 and 79, and 69, respectively.

Extensive description of the methods used to calculate NPP can be found in ref. 10. In brief, NPP was measured in units of dry matter per square meter of land surface per day, as the sum of biomass increments (Iwood + Ileaf + Icoarse root + Ifine root) plus inputs by major detrital pools (Dleaves + Dfine roots). Although methods used to estimate NPP differed slightly from site to site, increments in biomass pools were estimated by means of allometric scaling of diameter growth measurements (Duke in ref. 80, ORNL in ref. 77) or destructive harvests (Rhinelander in ref. 81, POP-EUROFACE in ref. 82). The turnover of leaves was measured from litter collected in litter baskets (83–85). Fine root production and turnover were estimated from analysis of minirhizotron images and in-growth cores (56–58, 86), or from published rates of Populus fine root production and mortality (31) that were applied to allometrically determined peak fine root biomass estimates at the Rhinelander FACE site (81).

The concentration of N in biomass increments and turnover was measured on an element analyzer. At the Rhinelander and POP-EUROFACE sites, the concentration of N in foliage, wood, and coarse and fine root increments was measured on samples from the destructive harvests. At the Duke and ORNL FACE sites, the concentration of N in wood increments was taken from tree cores collected from 5 to 10 trees per FACE plot. The concentration of N in above-ground turnover (leaves, twigs, bark) was measured from subsamples of litter. We assumed that N was not retranslocated before fine root senescence (87). The concentration of N in coarse roots was assumed to be the same as that in wood.

The concentration data were multiplied by the appropriate biomass data to calculate the N content of the different pools (g·m–2) and fluxes (g·m–2·yr–1). From these values, the rate of N uptake from the soil (g·m–2·yr–1) was calculated as the sum of (i) the N content of the wood (i.e., branches, bole, and coarse roots) produced in the current year, (ii) the N content in the canopy produced in the current year minus the amount of N resorbed from the canopy in the previous year, and (iii) the content of N in the roots produced in the current year (33, 87). The N content of biomass (g·m–2) was calculated as the sum of (i) the N content in wood, (ii) the canopy content of N at peak mass, and (iii) the N content of fine roots at peak biomass. Seasonal maxima in foliage and fine roots were determined annually at each site based on repeated analysis of foliar biomass and fine root production. NUE was calculated as NPP divided by N uptake (Eq. 1). N productivity was calculated as NPP divided by the N content of biomass (Eq. 2). The MRT of N in biomass was calculated as the N content of biomass divided by N uptake (Eq. 2).

We used two-way ANOVA to test for site-specific changes in the pools and fluxes of N in response to forest growth under present-day and elevated CO2, with year as a random variable. In this article, we only interpreted the main effect of CO2 but provide P values for both effects and their interaction in SI Table 4. The data from this synthesis activity can be downloaded from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center website (http://public.ornl.gov/face/synthesis.shtml).


   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
References
 
We thank John Pastor and an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments on a previous version of this manuscript. The Duke, ORNL, and Rhinelander FACE experiments were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research. POP-EUROFACE was supported by EU-POPFACE (ENV4-CT97-0657), EU-EUROFACE (EVR1-CT-2002-40027), the Center of Excellence "Forest and Climate" (Italian Ministry of University and Research), and Italy–USA Bilateral Project on Climate Change of the Italian Ministry of Environment. The synthesis activity was supported by the Research Foundation–Flanders Scientific Research Network on Impact of Global Change on Terrestrial Ecosystems and by the National Science Foundation Research Coordination Network on Terrestrial Ecosystem Response to Atmospheric and Climatic Change. A.C.F. and R.B.J. acknowledge ancillary support from the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grants DEB0236356 and DEB0235425). B.G. and M.L. acknowledge the Fund for Scientific Research–Flanders (Belgium). C.M.I. acknowledges the support of a Department of Energy Global Change Education Program Fellowship.


   Footnotes
 

Abbreviations: NPP, net primary production; FACE, free-air CO2 enrichment; NUE, nitrogen-use efficiency; MRT, mean residence time of N in biomass in years; ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; SOM, soil organic matter.

bTo whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: afinzi{at}bu.edu or schlesingerw{at}ecostudies.org

Author contributions: A.C.F., R.J.N., C.C., A.G.-B., B.G., W.E.H., M.R.H., C.M.I., M.E.K., M.L., R.O., A.P., D.R.Z., W.H.S., and R.C. designed research; A.C.F., R.J.N., C.C., A.G.-B., B.G., W.E.H., M.R.H., C.M.I., M.E.K., M.L., R.O., A.P., D.R.Z., W.H.S., and R.C. performed research; R.B.J., J.L., and S.P. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.C.F., R.J.N., C.C., A.G.-B., B.G., W.E.H., M.R.H., C.M.I., M.E.K., M.L., R.O., A.P., D.R.Z., and R.C. analyzed data; and A.C.F., R.J.N., C.M.I., R.O., and D.R.Z. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0706518104/DC1.

© 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

  1. Amthor, JS. (1995) Global Change Biol 1, 243–274.[CrossRef]
  2. Schlesinger, WH. (1997) Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change (Academic, New York,).
  3. Whittaker, RH & Likens, GE. (1973) Brookhaven Symp Biol 281–302.
  4. Atjay, GL, Ketner, P & Duvigneaud, P. (1979) in The Global Carbon Cycle eds. Bolin, B, Degens, ET, Kempe, S& Ketner, P. (Wiley, Chichester, UK,) 13, pp. 129–181 SCOPE Report.
  5. Olson, JS, Watts, JA & Allison, LJ. (1983) Carbon in Live Vegetation of Major World Ecosystems (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,) Report ORNL-5862.
  6. Houghton, RA & Skole, DL. (1990) in Earth as Transformed by Human Action ed. Turner, BI II. (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK,).
  7. Field, CB, Behrenfeld, MJ, Randerson, JT & Falkowski, P. (1998) Science 281, 237–240.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Pacala, SW, Hurtt, GC, Baker, D, Peylin, P, Houghton, RA, Birdsey, RA, Heath, L, Sundquist, ET, Stallard, RF & Ciais, P, et al. (2001) Science 292, 2316–2320.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Janssens, IA, Freibauer, A, Ciais, P, Smith, P, Nabuurs, GJ, Folberth, G, Schlamadinger, B, Hutjes, RWA, Ceulemans, R & Schulze, ED, et al. (2003) Science 300, 1538–1542.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Norby, RJ, DeLucia, EH, Gielen, B, Calfapietra, C, Giardina, CP, King, JS, Ledford, J, McCarthy, HR, Moore, DJP & Ceulemans, R, et al. (2005) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102, 18052–18056.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Oren, R, Ellsworth, DS, Johnsen, KH, Phillips, N, Ewers, BE, Maier, C, Schafer, KVR, McCarthy, H, Hendrey, G, McNulty, SG & Katul, GG. (2001) Nature 411, 469–472.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Finzi, AC, DeLucia, EH, Hamilton, JG, Richter, DD & Schlesinger, WH. (2002) Oecologia 132, 567–578.[CrossRef][ISI]
  13. Field, C. (1983) Oecologia 56, 341–347.[CrossRef][ISI]
  14. Vitousek, P. (1982) Am Nat 119, 553–572.[CrossRef][ISI]
  15. Berendse, F & Aerts, R. (1987) Funct Ecol 1, 293–296.
  16. Pastor, J & Bridgham, SD. (1999) Oecologia 118, 50–58.[CrossRef][ISI]
  17. Mitchell, HL & Chandler, RF. (1939) Black Rock Forest Bulletin No. 11 (Cornwall Press, Cornwall, NY,).
  18. Miller, HG. (1981) Forestry 54, 158–167.[ISI]
  19. Magill, AH, Aber, JD, Berntson, GM, McDowell, WH, Nadelhoffer, KJ, Melillo, JM & Steudler, P. (2000) Ecosystems 3, 238–253.[CrossRef]
  20. Sinsabaugh, RL, Saiya-Corka, K, Long, T, Osgood, MP, Neher, DA, Zak, DR & Norby, RJ. (2003) Appl Soil Ecol 24, 263–271.[CrossRef]
  21. Finzi, AC & Schlesinger, WH. (2003) Ecosystems 6, 444–456.[CrossRef]
  22. Holmes, WE, Zak, DR, Pregitzer, KS & King, JS. (2003) Global Change Biol 9, 1743–1750.[CrossRef]
  23. Holmes, WE, Zak, DR, Pregitzer, KS & King, JS. (2006) Ecosystems 9, 1–10.[CrossRef]
  24. Aber, JD, Nadelhoffer, KJ, Steudler, P & Melillo, JM. (1989) Bioscience 39, 378–386.[CrossRef][ISI]
  25. Vitousek, PM & Howarth, RW. (1991) Biogeochemistry 13, 87–115.
  26. Comins, HN & McMurtrie, RE. (1993) Ecol Appl 3, 666–681.[CrossRef]
  27. Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP) (1995) Global Biogeochem Cycles 9, 407–437.[CrossRef][ISI]
  28. Luo, YQ & Reynolds, JF. (1999) Ecology 80, 1568–1583.[CrossRef][ISI]
  29. Luo, Y, Su, B, Currie, WS, Dukes, JS, Finzi, A, Hartwig, U, Hungate, B, McMurtrie, RE, Oren, R & Parton, WJ, et al. (2004) Bioscience 54, 731–739.[CrossRef][ISI]
  30. Rastetter, EB, Agren, GI & Shaver, GR. (1997) Ecol Appl 7, 444–460.
  31. Pregitzer, KS, Zak, DR, Maziasz, J, DeForest, J, Curtis, PS & Lussenhop, J. (2000) Ecol Appl 10, 18–33.[CrossRef]
  32. Zak, DR, Pregitzer, KS, Curtis, PS, Vogel, CS, Holmes, WE & Lussenhop, J. (2000) Ecol Appl 10, 34–46.
  33. Norby, RJ & Iversen, CM. (2006) Ecology 87, 5–14.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  34. Finzi, AC, Moore, DJP, DeLucia, EH, Lichter, J, Hofmockel, KS, Jackson, RB, Kim, HS, Matamala, R, McCarthy, HR & Oren, R, et al. (2006) Ecology 87, 15–25.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Liberloo, M, Calfapietra, C, Lukac, M, Godbold, D, Luos, ZB, Polle, A, Hoosbeek, MR, Kull, O, Marek, M & Raines, C, et al. (2006) Global Change Biol 12, 1094–1106.[CrossRef]
  36. Treseder, KK. (2004) New Phytol 164, 347–355.[CrossRef][ISI]
  37. Phillips, RP. (2007) New Phytol 173, 664–667.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  38. Parrent, JL, Morris, WF & Vilgalys, R. (2006) Ecology 87, 2278–2287.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  39. Leake, JR & Read, DJ. (1990) New Phytol 116, 123–128.[CrossRef][ISI]
  40. Chalot, M & Brun, A. (1998) FEMS Microbiol Rev 22, 21–44.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  41. Hodge, A, Campbell, CD & Fitter, AH. (2001) Nature 413, 297–299.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Read, DJ & Perez-Moreno, J. (2003) New Phytol 157, 475–492.[CrossRef][ISI]
  43. Hobbie, JE & Hobbie, EA. (2006) Ecology 87, 816–822.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  44. Abuzinadah, RA & Read, DJ. (1986) New Phytol 103, 507–514.[CrossRef][ISI]
  45. Smith, SE & Read, DJ. (1997) Mycorrhizal Symbiosis (Academic, San Diego,).
  46. Kuzyakov, Y, Friedel, JK & Stahr, K. (2000) Soil Biol Biochem 32, 1485–1498.[CrossRef]
  47. Clarholm, M. (1985) Soil Biol Biochem 17, 181–187.[CrossRef]
  48. Kuikman, PJ, Jansen, AG & Vanveen, JA. (1991) Soil Biol Biochem 23, 193–200.[CrossRef]
  49. Asmar, F, Eiland, F & Nielsen, NE. (1994) Biol Fertility Soils 17, 32–38.[CrossRef]
  50. Zagal, E. (1994) Plant Soil 160, 21–31.[CrossRef][ISI]
  51. Trueman, RJ & Gonzalez-Meler, MA. (2005) Global Change Biol 11, 1258–1271.[CrossRef]
  52. Rillig, MC, Field, CB & Allen, MF. (1999) Oecologia 119, 572–577.[CrossRef][ISI]
  53. Rillig, MC, Hernandez, GY & Newton, PCD. (2000) Ecol Lett 3, 475–478.[CrossRef][ISI]
  54. Palmroth, S, Oren, R, McCarthy, HR, Johnsen, KH, Finzi, AC, Butnor, JR, Ryan, MG & Schlesinger, WH. (2006) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103, 19362–19367.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Hoosbeek, MR, Li, YT & Scarascia-Mugnozza, GE. (2006) Plant Soil 281, 247–254.[CrossRef][ISI]
  56. Matamala, R & Schlesinger, WH. (2000) Global Change Biol 6, 967–979.[CrossRef]
  57. Pritchard, SG, Rogers, HH, Davis, MA, Van Santen, E, Prior, SA & Schlesinger, WH. (2001) Global Change Biol 7, 829–837.[CrossRef]
  58. Norby, RJ, Ledford, J, Reilly, CD, Miller, NE & O'Neill, EG. (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101, 9689–9693.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Rouhier, H, Billes, G, Elkohen, A, Mousseau, M & Bottner, P. (1994) Plant Soil 162, 281–292.[CrossRef][ISI]
  60. Cheng, WX & Johnson, DW. (1998) Plant Soil 202, 167–174.[CrossRef][ISI]
  61. Janssens, IA, Crookshanks, M, Taylor, G & Ceulemans, R. (1998) Global Change Biol 4, 871–878.[CrossRef]
  62. Phillips, RL, Zak, DR, Holmes, WE & White, DC. (2002) Oecologia 131, 236–244.[CrossRef][ISI]
  63. Hoosbeek, MR, Lukac, M, van Dam, D, Godbold, DL, Velthorst, EJ, Biondi, FA, Peressotti, A, Cotrufo, MF, de Angelis, P & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (2004) Global Biogeochem Cycles 18, GB1040.[CrossRef]
  64. Finzi, AC, Sinsabaugh, RL, Long, TM & Osgood, MP. (2006) Ecosystems 9, 215–226.[Medline]
  65. Chung, HG, Zak, DR & Lilleskov, EA. (2006) Oecologia 147, 143–154.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  66. Andrews, JA & Schlesinger, WH. (2001) Global Biogeochem Cycles 15, 149–162.[CrossRef][ISI]
  67. King, JS, Hanson, PJ, Bernhardt, E, DeAngelis, P, Norby, RJ & Pregitzer, KS. (2004) Global Change Biol 10, 1027–1042.[CrossRef]
  68. Bernhardt, ES, Barber, JJ, Pippen, JS, Taneva, L, Andrews, JA & Schlesinger, WH. (2006) Biogeochemistry 77, 91–116.
  69. Miglietta, F, Peressotti, A, Vaccari, FP, Zaldei, A, De Angelis, P & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (2001) New Phytol 150, 465–476.[CrossRef][ISI]
  70. Calfapietra, C, De Angelis, P, Gielen, B, Lukac, M, Moscatelli, MC, Avino, G, Lagomarsino, A, Polle, A, Ceulemans, R & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G, et al. (2007) Tree Physiol 27, 1153–1163.[Medline]
  71. Calfapietra, C, Tulva, I, Eensalu, E, Perez, M, De Angelis, P, Scarascia-Mugnozza, G & Kull, O. (2005) Environ Pollut (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 137, 525–535.
  72. Crous, KY & Ellsworth, DS. (2004) Tree Physiol 24, 961–970.[ISI][Medline]
  73. Sholtis, JD, Gunderson, CA, Norby, RJ & Tissue, DT. (2004) New Phytol 162, 343–354.[CrossRef][ISI]
  74. Takeuchi, Y, Kubiske, ME, Isebrands, JG, Pregtizer, KS, Hendrey, G & Karnosky, DF. (2001) Plant Cell Environ 24, 1257–1268.[CrossRef]
  75. Hendrey, GR, Ellsworth, DS, Lewin, KF & Nagy, J. (1999) Global Change Biol 5, 293–309.[CrossRef]
  76. Houghton, RA, Ding, Y, Griggs, DJ, Noguer, M, van der Linden, PJ, Dai, X, Maskell, K & Johnson, CA. (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK,) Third Assessment Report.
  77. Norby, RJ, Todd, DE, Fults, J & Johnson, DW. (2001) New Phytol 150, 477–487.[CrossRef][ISI]
  78. Karnosky, DF, Mankovska, B, Percy, K, Dickson, RE, Podila, GK, Sober, J, Noormets, A, Hendrey, G, Coleman, MD & Kubiske, M, et al. (1999) Water Air Soil Pollut 116, 311–322.[CrossRef]
  79. Karnosky, DF, Pregitzer, KS, Zak, DR, Kubiske, ME, Hendrey, GR, Weinstein, D, Nosal, M & Percy, KE. (2005) Plant Cell Environ 28, 965–981.[CrossRef]
  80. Hamilton, JG, DeLucia, EH, George, K, Naidu, SL, Finzi, AC & Schlesinger, WH. (2002) Oecologia 131, 250–260.[CrossRef][ISI]
  81. King, JS, Kubiske, ME, Pregitzer, KS, Hendrey, GR, McDonald, EP, Giardina, CP, Quinn, VS & Karnosky, DF. (2005) New Phytol 168, 623–635.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  82. Calfapietra, C, Gielen, B, Galema, ANJ, Lukac, M, De Angelis, P, Moscatelli, MC, Ceulemans, R & Scarascia-Mugnozza, G. (2003) Tree Physiol 23, 805–814.[ISI][Medline]
  83. Finzi, AC, Allen, AS, DeLucia, EH, Ellsworth, DS & Schlesinger, WH. (2001) Ecology 82, 470–484.[CrossRef][ISI]
  84. Norby, RJ, Sholtis, JD, Gunderson, CA & Jawdy, SS. (2003) Oecologia 136, 574–584.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  85. Cotrufo, MF, De Angelis, P & Polle, A. (2005) Global Change Biol 11, 971–982.[CrossRef]
  86. Lukac, M, Calfapietra, C & Godbold, DL. (2003) Global Change Biol 9, 838–848.[CrossRef]
  87. Johnson, DW, Cheng, W, Joslin, JD, Norby, RJ, Edwards, NT & Todd, DE. (2004) Biogeochemistry 69, 379–403.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supporting Tables
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finzi, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ceulemans, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Finzi, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ceulemans, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg  
What's this?

Current Issue | Archives | Online Submission | Info for Authors | Editorial Board | About
Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Site Map

Copyright © 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences