Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of sensitivity of soil respiration to temperature in different forest types and developmental stages of maturity using the incubation method

  • Lee, Eun-Hye (Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, Konkuk University) ;
  • Suh, Sang-Uk (National Institutes of Environmental Research, Environmental Resources Research Department) ;
  • Lee, Chang-Seok (Faculty of Environment and Life Sciences, Seoul Women's University) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Seok (Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2011.10.20
  • Accepted : 2011.11.19
  • Published : 2012.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To calculate and predict soil carbon budget and cycle, it is important to understand the complex interrelationships involved in soil respiration rate (Rs). We attempted to reveal relationships between Rs and key environmental factors, such as soil temperature, using a laboratory incubation method. Soil samples were collected from mature deciduous (MD), mature coniferous (MC), immature deciduous (ID), and immature coniferous (IC) forests. Prior to measure, soils were pre-incubated for 3 days at $25^{\circ}C$ and 60% of maximum water holding capacity (WHC). Samples of gasses were collected with 0, 2, and 4 h interval after the beginning of the measurement at soil temperatures of 5, 15, 25, and $35^{\circ}C$ (at 60% WHC). Air samples were collected using a syringe attached to the cap of closed bottles that contained the soil samples. The $CO_2$ concentration of each gas sample was measured by gas chromatography. Rs was strongly correlated with soil temperature (r, 0.93 to 0.96; P < 0.001). For MD, MC, ID, and IC soils taken from 0-5 cm below the surface, exponential functions explained 90%, 82%, 92%, and 86% of the respective data plots. The temperature and Rs data for soil taken from 5-10 cm beneath the surface at MD, MC, ID, and IC sites also closely fit exponential functions, with 83%, 95%, 87%, and 89% of the data points, respectively, fitting an exponential curve. The soil organic content in mature forests was significantly higher than in soils from immature forests (P < 0.001 at 0-5 cm and P < 0.005 at 5-10 cm) and surface layer (P = 0.04 at 0-5 cm and P = 0.12). High soil organic matter content is clearly associated with high Rs, especially in the surface layer. We determined that the incubation method used in this study have the possibility for comprehending complex characteristic of Rs.

Keywords

References

  1. Bekku YS, Nakatsubo T, Kume A, Adachi M, Koizumi H. 2003. Effect of warming on the temperature dependence of soil respiration rate in arctic, temperate and tropical soils. Appl Soil Ecol 22: 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00158-0
  2. Carlyle JC, Than UB. 1988. Abiotic controls of soil respiration beneath and eighteen-year-old Pinus radiata stand in south-eastern Australia. J Ecol 76: 654-662. https://doi.org/10.2307/2260565
  3. Edwards NT, Riggs JS. 2003. Automated monitoring of soil respiration: a moving chamber design. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67: 1266-1271. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.1266
  4. Fang C, Moncrieff JB. 2001. The dependence of soil $CO_{2}$ efflux on temperature. Soil Biol Biochem 33: 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00125-5
  5. Granier A, Ceschia E, Damesin C, Dufrene E, Epron D, Gross P, Lebaude S, Le Dantec V, Le Goff N, Lemoine D, Lucot E, Ottorini JM, Pontailler JY, Saugier B. 2000. The carbon balance of a young Beech forest. Funct Ecol 14: 312-325. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.2000.00434.x
  6. Grundmann GL, Renault P, Rosso L, Bardin R. 1995. Differential effects of soil water content and temperature on nitrification and aeration. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59: 1342-1349. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900050021x
  7. Heiri O, Lotter AF, Lemcke G. 2001. Loss on ignition as a method for estimating organic and carbonate content in sediments: reproducibility and comparability of results. J Paleolimnol 25: 101-110. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008119611481
  8. Houghton RA. 2003. The contemporary carbon cycle. In: Biogeochemistry (Schlesinger W, ed). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 473-513.
  9. Jones RH, Mitchell RJ, Stevens GN, Pecot SD. 2003. Controls of fine root dynamics across a gradient of gap sizes in a pine woodland. Oecologia 134: 132-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1098-y
  10. Joo SJ, Park MS, Kim GS, Lee CS. 2011. $CO_{2}$ flux in a cool-temperate deciduous forest (Quercus mongolica) of Mt. Nam in Seoul, Korea. J Ecol Field Biol 34: 95-106. https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2011.012
  11. Knapp AK, Conard SL, Blair JM. 1998. Determinants of soil $CO_{2}$ flux from a sub-humid grassland: effect of fire history. Ecol Appl 8: 760-770.
  12. Lee JM, Kim SH, Park HS, Seo HH, Yun SK. 2009. Estimation of soil $CO_{2}$ efflux from an apple orchard. Korean J Agric For Meteorol 11: 52-60. https://doi.org/10.5532/KJAFM.2009.11.2.052
  13. Lee JS. 2011. Monitoring soil respiration using an automatic operating chamber in a Gwangneung temperate deciduous forest. J Ecol Field Biol 34: 411-423. https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2011.043
  14. Lee MS, Nakane K, Nakatsubo T, Mo WH, Koizumi H. 2002. Effects of rainfall events on soil $CO_{2}$ flux in a cool temperate deciduous broad-leaved forest. Ecol Res 17: 401-409. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1703.2002.00498.x
  15. Liang N, Nakadai T, Hirano T, Qu L, Koike T, Fujinuma Y, Inoue G. 2004. In situ comparison of four approaches to estimating soil $CO_{2}$ efflux in a northern larch (Larix kaempferi Sarg.) forest. Agric For Meteorol 123: 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.10.002
  16. Lloyd J, Taylor JA. 1994. On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct Ecol 8: 315-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2389824
  17. Mo W, Lee MS, Uchida M, Inatomi M, Saigusa N, Mariko S, Koizumi H. 2005. Seasonal and annual variations in soil respiration in a cool-temperate deciduous broad-leaved forest in Japan. Agric For Meteorol 134: 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2005.08.015
  18. O'Connell AM, Grove TS. 1996. Biomass production, nutrient uptake and nutrient cycling in the jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) and karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor) forests of south-western Australia. In: Nutrition of Eucalypts (Attiwill PM, Adams MA, eds). CSIRO, Collingwood, pp 155-189.
  19. Raich JW, Schlesinger WH. 1992. The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus 44: 81-99.
  20. Schlentner RE, Van Cleve K. 1985. Relationships between $CO_{2}$ evolution from soil, substrate temperature, and substrate moisture in four mature forest types in interior Alaska. Can J For Res 15: 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1139/x85-018
  21. Schlesinger WH, Andrews JA. 2000. Soil respiration and the global carbon cycle. Biogeochemistry 48: 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006247623877
  22. Singh JS, Gupta SR. 1977. Plant decomposition and soil respiration in terrestrial ecosystems. Bot Rev 43: 449-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02860844
  23. Suh S, Lee E, Lee J. 2009. Temperature and moisture sensitivities of $CO_{2}$ efflux from lowland and alpine meadow soils. J Plant Ecol 2: 225-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtp021
  24. Suh SU, Chun YM, Chae NY, Kim J, Lim JH, Yokozawa M, Lee MS, Lee JS. 2006. A chamber system with automatic opening and closing for continuously measuring soil respiration based on an open-flow dynamic method. Ecol Res 21: 405-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-005-0137-7
  25. Thierron V, Laudelout H. 1996. Contribution of root respiration to total $CO_{2}$ efflux from the soil of a deciduous forest. Can J For Res 26: 1142-1148. https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-127
  26. Wieser G. 2004. Seasonal variation of soil respiration in a Pinus cembra forest at the upper timberline in the Central Austrian Alps. Tree Physiol 24: 475-480. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/24.4.475
  27. Wiseman PE, Seiler JR. 2004. Soil $CO_{2}$ efflux across four age classes of plantation loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) on the Virginia Piedmont. For Ecol Manag 192: 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.01.017