SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • carbon cycling;
  • elevated CO2;
  • global change;
  • long-term experiment;
  • nitrogen cycling;
  • scrub oak;
  • soil carbon;
  • subtropical woodland

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) could alter the carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) content of ecosystems, yet the magnitude of these effects are not well known. We examined C and N budgets of a subtropical woodland after 11 yr of exposure to elevated CO2.
  • We used open-top chambers to manipulate CO2 during regrowth after fire, and measured C, N and tracer 15N in ecosystem components throughout the experiment.
  • Elevated CO2 increased plant C and tended to increase plant N but did not significantly increase whole-system C or N. Elevated CO2 increased soil microbial activity and labile soil C, but more slowly cycling soil C pools tended to decline. Recovery of a long-term 15N tracer indicated that CO2 exposure increased N losses and altered N distribution, with no effect on N inputs.
  • Increased plant C accrual was accompanied by higher soil microbial activity and increased C losses from soil, yielding no statistically detectable effect of elevated CO2 on net ecosystem C uptake. These findings challenge the treatment of terrestrial ecosystems responses to elevated CO2 in current biogeochemical models, where the effect of elevated CO2 on ecosystem C balance is described as enhanced photosynthesis and plant growth with decomposition as a first-order response.

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Many experiments have examined the responses of plant production and ecosystem carbon (C) balance to rising atmospheric CO2 (Reich et al., 2006a; Norby & Zak, 2011). Results from these feature prominently in assessments of potential feedbacks between the biosphere and the changing atmosphere (Dolman et al., 2010). Compared to responses of photosynthesis and plant growth to elevated CO2, the response of soil C is less well understood, because changes in soil C content are difficult to detect (Smith, 2004). Increased C in soil in response to elevated CO2 is sometimes found (Jastrow et al., 2005; Iversen et al., 2008, 2012), although more frequently there is no effect, whether because of low statistical power or the absence of an important effect is unclear (Hungate et al., 2009). Ecosystem-scale inventories assessing C balance responses to elevated CO2 also often show no effect (Hungate et al., 1997b; Gielen et al., 2005; Gill et al., 2006; Niklaus & Falloon, 2006; Adair et al., 2009), although in aggregate some analyses suggest an effect is apparent (Luo et al., 2006). Thus, global models projecting future C dynamics of the biosphere have strong support for the effects of CO2 on plant growth (Denman et al., 2007), but less empirical support for assumed effects on total ecosystem C storage. Our first goal in this work was to construct a complete C inventory for a subtropical oak woodland after 11 yr of exposure to elevated CO2, to test whether the CO2 treatment altered total system C accumulation, and determine how any changes in C accumulation were distributed among plant and soil pools.

Total ecosystem C content is a function of plant growth and accumulation of plant biomass and detritus and also of C losses through microbial decomposition. Microbial decomposition is typically assumed to be a first-order process (Parton et al., 1987), responding predictably and constantly to changes in substrate supply, and thus is not expected to respond to elevated CO2 independently of changes in substrate accumulation (Denman et al., 2007). Challenging this idea, inputs of C to soil can stimulate mineralization of native soil organic matter (Lohnis, 1926; Broadbent & Norman, 1947; Broadbent & Bartholomew, 1949; Van Veen et al., 1991), and increased atmospheric CO2 has been shown to promote microbial activity (Dieleman et al., 2010) and even soil C loss (Hoosbeek, 2004; Trueman & Gonzalez-Meler, 2005; Carney et al., 2007; Hagedorn et al., 2008; Paterson et al., 2008; Taneva & Gonzalez-Meler, 2008; Langley et al., 2009; Trueman et al., 2009; Drake et al., 2011; Reid et al., 2012). Thus, soil processes influence potential C accumulation in response to increasing atmospheric CO2, yet how and to what extent are not well understood. Our second goal in this work was to examine changes in soil microbial activity during the 11 yr of CO2 enrichment, and to test whether patterns of CO2 effects on soil microbial activity might help explain any effects (or lack of effects) of elevated CO2 on soil C stocks.

Carbon cycling in ecosystems is linked to cycles of other elements (Finzi et al., 2011), such as nitrogen (N). Simulations of land carbon uptake using models with coupled N and C dynamics usually differ, and in many cases differ strongly, from those ignoring N (e.g. compare Cramer et al., 2001 and Thornton et al., 2007), because N limits plant growth and C storage (LeBauer & Treseder, 2008), and because N cycling is sensitive to environmental change (Galloway et al., 2008). With N cycling included, simulations project smaller increases in terrestrial C storage in response to rising CO2, because N availability limits plant growth and its response to elevated CO2 (Thornton et al., 2007; McMurtrie et al., 2008; Sokolov et al., 2008; Jain et al., 2009; Wang & Houlton, 2009; Friedlingstein & Prentice, 2010; Zaehle et al., 2010).

While model simulations bear out the importance of including N, these models do not necessarily demonstrate a consistent pattern of effect. Results differ in magnitude, direction and mechanism, suggesting that additional data and analyses are needed to evaluate conditions under which C–N coupling is important. For example, some simulations project only a modest limitation of terrestrial C uptake with coupled C–N interactions in the long term (at equilibrium), but strong effects of C–N interactions on the dynamics of C cycling and storage after disturbance (Gerber et al., 2010). Although the models generally agree that including N limitation of plant production reduces the terrestrial C sink, the magnitude of this effect is highly variable (Arneth et al., 2010). Experiments also indicate that C–N interactions are critical modulators of the long-term CO2 fertilization response, but different experiments provide support for different mechanisms underlying that modulation. In some cases, C–N interactions appear to constrain strongly the CO2 response (Reich et al., 2006a,b; Norby et al., 2010; Garten et al., 2011), but in others, plants appear able to access the extra N needed to support the growth response (Johnson et al., 2006; Drake et al., 2011). Effects of CO2 concentration on microbial N transformations that influence the plant–soil distribution of N are extremely variable, with negative, positive and neutral effects observed for the same processes (Díaz et al., 1993; Zak et al., 1993; Morgan et al., 1994; Zanetti et al., 1996; Hungate et al., 1997a,c; Johnson et al., 1997; Hofmockel & Schlesinger, 2007; van Groenigen et al., 2011, 2012). Furthermore, other concomitant global environmental changes will modulate N constraints on C balance responses to elevated CO2, including changes that alter N cycling directly, such as warming, altered precipitation and atmospheric N deposition, as well as indirect effects, such as changes in plant species composition. There is considerable debate as to the magnitude of the impact of such effects on ecosystem C sequestration, however (Jenkinson et al., 1999; Nadelhoffer et al., 1999; Arneth et al., 2010). Thus, both model simulations and data can be invoked to support N cycling constraining, increasing, or having little effect on the terrestrial C sink. Our third goal in this research was to compare C and N inventories in response to 11 yr of CO2 exposure in a subtropical woodland, in order to test how rising CO2 affects these elements in concert.

One of the challenges in investigating C–N interactions in ecosystem experiments is that the timescale of measurements of N cycling rates is typically far shorter than the timescale of N cycling processes that influence ecosystem responses. Elevated CO2 can alter multiple processes within the soil N cycle simultaneously, with strong temporal dynamics, and with opposing impacts on plant N availability, making it very difficult to extrapolate short-term measurements to long-term effects. Following an isotope tracer over multiple years can help overcome this challenge. 15N tracers reflect short-term effects on N cycling processes and integrate these into long-term effects on 15N distribution among plant and soil components within the system. Because the 15N is added in labile form, losses of added 15N will be relatively larger than losses of total ecosystem N, so can be detected with greater sensitivity. Our fourth goal in this research was to use a long-term 15N tracer to characterize changes in N distribution and N losses in response to elevated CO2.

Here, we report a whole system inventory of the C and N content of a scrub-oak ecosystem after 11 yr of experimental CO2 exposure. We also show how soil microbial activity responded to chronic CO2 exposure. We also report recovery and distribution of a 15N tracer applied early in the experiment, in order to assess how elevated CO2 alters the system-level distribution of labile N over the timescale of a decade.

Materials and Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

The scrub-oak experiment occurred at the Merritt Island National Wildlife refuge on the east coast of Florida, USA (28°38′N, 80°42′W). After controlled burning, 16 open-top chambers were established over the regrowing vegetation, each covering 9.42 m2 ground area, with 8 chambers receiving ambient air and 8 receiving ambient air + 350 ppm V CO2 (referred to as the ‘elevated CO2' treatment). A large blower circulated air through each chamber at a rate of 24–30 m3 min−1, replacing the chamber air volume 1.3–1.6 times min−1 (Dijkstra et al., 2002). The chambers increased air temperature and vapor pressure deficit while decreasing light (Dore et al., 2003), micro-environmental effects that did not significantly alter growth or species composition (Seiler et al., 2009). The experiment began in May 1996 and was maintained until June 2007.

In June–July 2007, all aboveground material was harvested from the chambers (see Seiler et al., 2009), and roots and soils were collected using multiple cores in each chamber (see Day et al., 2013). For aboveground biomass, all shoots were cut at the base of the stem, weighed immediately, and subsampled for the determination of water content and elemental analysis of leaves and stems. Ten surface cores (0–10 cm) and five deep cores were collected from each plot at 10 cm increments; all cores were 7 cm diameter. Core depth varied among plots from 2 to 3 m due to differences in the depth to the water table and the spodic (Bh) horizon. For purposes of the element inventory conducted here, depth increments were combined into 0–10, 10–30, 30–60 and 60–100 cm. Samples were hand-picked to remove large roots, and subsamples separated into coarse particulate organic matter, roots and mineral soil. Belowground biomass was also sampled indirectly using ground-penetrating radar (Stover et al., 2007, Day et al., 2013). Material on the forest floor was gathered from 1/8th of each plot by hand, collecting until no visibly identifiable plant fragments remained. Material was dried, sifted to remove adhering sand, and weighed.

We used a combination of density and biological fractionations to estimate soil carbon (C) pools of varying turnover rates. We used incubations to estimate labile and active soil C pools (and, by difference residual C), using the technique of Nadelhoffer (1990). We measured CO2 production from laboratory incubations, combining short-term incubations of soils immediately after collection (McKinley et al., 2009) with 541-d incubations conducted in the lab at Northern Arizona University. We used density fractionations as described previously (Hungate et al., 2006; Carney et al., 2007), separating light (< 1.5 g cm−3), medium (1.5–1.8 g cm−3), heavy (1.8–2.2 g cm−3) and residual (> 2.2 g cm−3) organic matter fractions. Total soil C, N, 15N and 13C were also measured on bulk samples collected from the cores. Our fractionation analysis focused on soils from the 0–60 cm depths. For bulk soil analyses where we measure total C, N and 15N, we present the data to 1 m to correspond with the depth of the root biomass inventory.

We measured microbial biomass using the chloroform-fumigation extraction method (Vance et al., 1987) in mineral soil (0–15 cm) sampled in July 1997; June, July, September and December 1998; September 1999; and May 2004. Soil subsamples (20–25 g at field moisture content) were extracted in 75 ml 0.5 M K2SO4 before and after 24-h fumigation with ethanol-free chloroform. The K2SO4 extracts were dehydrated in a forced-air drying oven at 60°C, the salts ground in a mortar and pestle, and the resulting powder analyzed for C, N, δ15N and δ13C on a CE 2100 elemental analyzer coupled to a Thermo DeltaPLUS-XL isotope-ratio mass spectrometer (http://www.isotope.nau.edu). Microbial biomass was calculated as the difference in mass (of C, N, 13C or 15N) between fumigated and nonfumigated samples, divided by 0.54 to correct for extraction efficiency (Vance et al., 1987). For samples collected after the 15N tracer application (June 1998), we also measured the 15N content of mineral soil (0–15 cm depth). After milling, soil N and 15N contents were determined as described above.

The CO2 added to the elevated-CO2 treated plots was depleted in 13C. We used a two-member mixing model to determine mineral soil C derived from new photosynthate (Leavitt et al., 1994; Hungate et al., 1996). Stem tissue produced in the elevated CO2 treatment (δ13CS,E) provided an integrative measure of the δ13C value of new photosynthate (average across five sampling dates, -42.6 ± 0.3 ‰). However, because mineral soil (δ13CM,A) and stem δ13C (δ13CS,A) differed in the ambient Ca treatment, we calculated the δ13C signature of new carbon (δ 13Cnew) as:

  • display math(Eqn 1)

The δ 13C of the mineral soil in the ambient CO2 treatment was used as the end member for organic matter fixed before the experiment began. Carbon, N, 15N, and 13C were determined for all plant and soil components using coupled Dumas combustion isotope-ratio mass spectrometry (Carlo-Erba elemental analyzer and Finnigan Delta-V mass spectrometer) at the Colorado Plateau Stable Isotope Laboratory (www.isotope.nau.edu).

For testing soil microbial activity, we collected soil and litter samples in May through July of 2004, after 8 yr of CO2 treatment. Soil sampling, preparation of microbial inocula, carbon and nutrient amendments, and incubation conditions are described in Brown et al. (2009). Carbon substrates included glucose and hot-water extracts of roots and leaf litter collected from the ambient and elevated CO2 treatments. Microbial inocula from litter, rhizosphere and bulk soil communities were also prepared from the two CO2 treatments. We used the BD-oxy system (BD Oxygen Biosensor System, BD Biosciences, Bedford, MA, USA (Garland et al., 2003; Väisänen et al., 2005; Zabaloy et al., 2008) to evaluate microbial respiration. The system uses a fluorophore that fluoresces as O2 is consumed during the 48 h incubation. Normalized relative fluorescence was calculated as relative fluorescence after 48 h normalized by dividing by relative fluorescence after 1 h. The response to substrate addition was calculated as:

  • display math(Eqn 2)

(Rc, normalized relative fluorescence in the absence of resource addition; Rr, normalized relative fluorescence with the added resource. Brown et al. (2009) present data from the ambient CO2 treatment; here, we expand on this past analysis to evaluate responses of microbial respiration to elevated CO2. We used ANOVA to test for effects of habitat (rhizosphere, litter or bulk soil), inoculum source (ambient or elevated CO2), substrate source (ambient or elevated CO2), substrate type (litter or root), N, and P. We used a separate ANOVA to test compare responses to the addition of glucose vs natural substrates extracted from roots and litter. Where appropriate, ANOVAs were designed as split-plots, to account for the nonindependence of inocula collected from individual experimental plots subject to multiple combinations of resource treatments in the BD-Oxy assay.

We used resampling to infer the effects and estimate the magnitude of the elevated CO2 treatment on ecosystem C and N pools and recovery of tracer 15N. We estimated 5% and 95% confidence limits for the difference in means between elevated and ambient CO2 treatments, using 1000 samples with replacement (= 8 for each treatment).

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Elevated CO2 increased plant biomass, including the mass of C (g C m−2) in leaves, stems and coarse roots, and the total mass of C in plants (Table 1). The mass of C in fine roots was not significantly affected by the elevated CO2 treatment at the final harvest (Table 1), although fine roots did exhibit significant increases at other times during the experiment (Day et al., 2013). On average, plant C accumulation by the end of the experiment was 71.5 g C m−2 yr−1 higher in elevated compared to ambient CO2, roughly equally distributed aboveground (37.5 g m−2 yr−1) and belowground (33.5 g m−2 yr−1). The C content of the litter layer, coarse particulate organic matter, total mineral soil C, and the light and medium density fractions did not significantly respond to the CO2 treatment, whereas the heavy density soil C pool significantly declined. Elevated CO2 had no effect on soil C in the spodic horizon, with no significant effect on total mineral soil C, or on the light, medium and heavy density fractions (Table 2); thus, C in the deep soil was also insensitive to the CO2 treatment. In general, increased mass of plant C caused by elevated CO2 did not translate to increased C storage in other ecosystem reservoirs (Table 1).

Table 1. Inventory of carbon after 11 yr exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 in a subtropical oak woodlanda
 
Carbon (g C m−2)AmbientElevatedEffect5% & 95% CLs
  1. a

    Values are means ± SE of the mean for the Ambient and Elevated CO2 treatments, the Effect of the CO2 treatment (E–A), and the bootstrapped 5% and 95% CLs (confidence limits) for the treatment effect. CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter. Soil fractions are density fractions, including light (< 1.5 g cm−3), medium (1.5–1.8 g cm−3), heavy (1.8–2.2 g cm−3) and residual (calculated as total soil total minus the sum of measured density fractions).

Aboveground624.5 ± 54.61043.0 ± 77.5418.5(274.8 to 556.9)
Oak leaves212.2 ± 22.3318.4 ± 29.6106.2(47.6 to 157)
Oak stems347.1 ± 34.2621.6 ± 60.8274.5(164.8 to 374.2)
Other species38.3 ± 10.763.1 ± 10.224.7(1.7 to 47.4)
Standing dead26.9 ± 8.439.8 ± 13.813.0(−9.7 to 39.5)
Litter layer332 ± 41.2368.1 ± 42.436.1(−57.9 to 127.7)
Roots2886.7 ± 90.23261.3 ± 174.6374.6(73.6 to 674.5)
Fine roots909.4 ± 62.8803.9 ± 43.3−105.5(−226.8 to 9.7)
Coarse roots1977.3 ± 102.82457.4 ± 177.7480.1(168.9 to 790.0)
Plant3511.2 ± 102.04304.3 ± 221.3793.1(437.4 to 1172.7)
CPOM (0–100 cm)1406.5 ± 386.41168.5 ± 272.1−238.0(−957 to 354.4)
Soil (0–100 cm)5513.1 ± 411.55025.6 ± 647.4−487.5(−1456.5 to 636.8)
Light, 0–60 cm2534.7 ± 260.22394.4 ± 333.3−140.4(−746.8 to 473.2)
0–10 cm1530.9 ± 284.81415.8 ± 316.8−115.0(−760.1 to 565.5)
10–30 cm480.2 ± 94.5331.2 ± 36.5−149.1(−297.9 to 6.7)
30–60 cm523.7 ± 149.9647.3 ± 169.2123.7(−214.9 to 474.5)
Medium, 0–60 cm1306.3 ± 3021208.4 ± 177.3−97.9(−633.8 to 380.3)
0–10 cm660.3 ± 115.3560.7 ± 108.2−99.6(−346.4 to 158.9)
10–30 cm370.9 ± 109.2341.5 ± 55.2−29.4(−222.4 to 147.1)
30–60 cm275 ± 157.8306.2 ± 88.631.1(−267.6 to 289.2)
Heavy, 0–60 cm706.3 ± 120.5396 ± 92.1−310.4(−553.2 to −86.0)
0–10 cm110.9 ± 2781.2 ± 19.9−29.7(−81.7 to 22.0)
10–30 cm148 ± 23.783.5 ± 30.6−64.6(−122.9 to 2.0)
30–60 cm447.4 ± 107.6231.3 ± 87.2−216.1(−402.7 to −3.3)
Residual, 0–60 cm965.8 ± 1026.91026.9 ± 330.961.1(−782.3 to 925.2)
Soil (60–100 cm)1547.0 ± 129.31877.6 ± 359.8330.7(−274.4 to 925.4)
Total ecosystem12309.8 ± 582.112744.1 ± 444.3434.4(−723 to 1529.9)
Table 2. Soil carbon (C) in the spodic horizon of the subtropical oak woodland
 AmbientElevatedP-valueAmbientElevatedP-value
%Cδ13C
Total C0.77 ± 0.100.60 ± 0.150.383−25.6 ± 0.1−25.1 ± 0.30.157
Light18.3 ± 2.811.9 ± 1.20.151−25.3 ± 0.1−25.3 ± 0.10.943
Medium14.2 ± 3.89.4 ± 2.00.288−25.6 ± 0.2−25.3 ± 0.10.178
Heavy13.2 ± 2.312.2 ± 1.00.710−25.6 ± 0.1−25.2 ± 0.20.116

Elevated CO2 increased the N content of plants aboveground (Table 3), but the N contents of coarse and fine roots did not respond to elevated CO2, yielding no effect on total plant N. The N content of most soil fractions was not significantly altered by elevated CO2, except the medium density fraction at 30–60 cm, which increased, and the light fraction at 10–30 cm, which declined. Increased C in plant pools with only small changes in N means higher C to N ratios. Higher C to N ratios under elevated CO2 were observed for leaves, coarse roots and the sum of all plant parts; elevated CO2 also increased the C to N ratio of the litter layer (Table 4). Elevated CO2 did not increase the C to N ratio of any soil pool; the only soil pool to respond – the heavy density fraction – actually declined in C to N ratio. Changes in plant and soil C to N ratios were compensatory, such that elevated CO2 had no effect on the C to N ratio of the plant–soil system to 1 m depth.

Table 3. Inventory of ecosystem nitrogen (g N m−2) after 11 yr exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 in a subtropical oak woodlanda
 AmbientElevatedEffect5% & 95% CLs
  1. a

    Values are means ± SE of the mean for the Ambient and Elevated CO2 treatments, the Effect of the CO2 treatment (E–A), and the bootstrapped 5% and 95% CLs (confidence limits) for the treatment effect. CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter. Soil fractions are density fractions, including light (<1.5 g cm−3), medium (1.5–1.8 g cm−3), heavy (1.8–2.2 g cm−3) and residual (calculated as total soil total minus the sum of measured density fractions).

Aboveground8.4 ± 0.813.1 ± 0.94.7(3.0 to 6.3)
Oak leaves4.7 ± 0.66.6 ± 0.61.9(0.5 to 3)
Oak stems3.0 ± 0.35.1 ± 0.52.2(1.2 to 3.1)
Other species0.5 ± 0.11.1 ± 0.20.5(0.2 to 0.9)
Standing dead0.2 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.10.1(−0.1 to 0.3)
Litter layer5.7 ± 0.76.0 ± 0.90.3(−1.4 to 2.2)
Roots29.3 ± 1.827.8 ± 2.5−1.4(−6.4 to 3.1)
Fine roots8.3 ± 0.87.3 ± 0.9−1.0(−2.8 to 0.9)
Coarse roots21.0 ± 1.220.5 ± 2.5−0.4(−4.6 to 4.2)
Plant37.7 ± 1.841.0 ± 2.93.3(−1.8 to 8.3)
CPOM (0–100 cm)20.7 ± 5.715.2 ± 3.5−5.4(−15 to 3.0)
Soil (0–100 cm)159.5 ± 15.0145.4 ± 17.5−14.2(−44.2 to 15.9)
Light, 0–60 cm55.9 ± 7.054.9 ± 8.9−1.0(−19 to 16.6)
0–10 cm37.2 ± 7.637.6 ± 8.90.4(−17.9 to 18.5)
10–30 cm9.6 ± 1.86.5 ± 0.7−3.1(−5.8 to −0.1)
30–60 cm9.1 ± 2.810.8 ± 2.11.7(−4.2 to 6.4)
Medium, 0–60 cm30.7 ± 5.530.9 ± 4.10.2(−10.9 to 11)
0–10 cm18.8 ± 3.415.4 ± 3.0−3.4(−10.4 to 3.5)
10–30 cm7.9 ± 2.07.0 ± 1.0−0.9(−4.3 to 2.3)
30–60 cm4.0 ± 1.58.5 ± 2.64.6(0.4 to 9.3)
Heavy, 0–60 cm17.3 ± 2.115.6 ± 4.9−1.7(−9.2 to 6.8)
0–10 cm3.4 ± 0.82.4 ± 0.6−1.0(−2.7 to 0.5)
10–30 cm4.1 ± 0.82.5 ± 1.1−1.6(−3.3 to 0.5)
30–60 cm9.8 ± 1.510.7 ± 4.40.9(−6 to 8.9)
Residual, 0–60 cm55.6 ± 44.012.3 ± 13.5−43.3(−40 to 17.3)
Soil (60–100 cm)51.3 ± 3.255.3 ± 8.84.1(−10.8 to 18.2)
Total ecosystem274.8 ± 10.9262.9 ± 13.9−12.0(−38.1 to 18.9)
Table 4. Carbon to nitrogen ratios (g : g) in ecosystem components after 11 yr of experimental exposure of a subtropical woodland to increased atmospheric CO2a
 AmbientElevatedEffectCI
  1. a

    Values are means ± SE of the mean for the Ambient and Elevated CO2 treatments, the Effect of the CO2 treatment (E–A), and the bootstrapped 5% and 95% CLs (confidence limits) for the treatment effect. CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter. Soil fractions are density fractions, including light (<1.5 g cm−3), medium (1.5–1.8 g cm−3), heavy (1.8–2.2 g cm−3) and residual (calculated as total soil total minus the sum of measured density fractions).

Aboveground74.7 ± 2.279.3 ± 2.14.6(0.3 to 9.1)
Oak leaves45.8 ± 1.048.3 ± 1.02.5(0.2 to 4.9)
Oak stems120.6 ± 7.9121.2 ± 7.20.6(−13 to 14.5)
Other species71.9 ± 6.660.1 ± 7.4−11.8(−23.7 to −1.3)
Standing dead108.5 ± 3.8113.4 ± 4.84.9(−4.5 to 13.8)
Litter layer58.6 ± 1.564.2 ± 1.95.6(0.7 to 10.6)
Roots101.3 ± 7.4122.0 ± 7.520.7(2.3 to 39.7)
Fine roots114.0 ± 9.6116.3 ± 9.82.2(−16.8 to 23.6)
Coarse roots97.0 ± 8.1128.9 ± 8.132.0(7.1 to 59.3)
Plants94.6 ± 5.3106.9 ± 5.612.4(0.8 to 23.4)
CPOM (0–100 cm)71.1 ± 9.176.2 ± 8.75.1(−10.6 to 17.9)
Soil (0–100 cm)36.8 ± 2.237.8 ± 2.00.9(−3 to 4.6)
Light, 0–60 cm46.8 ± 3.945.0 ± 1.4−1.8(−9.1 to 5.1)
0–10 cm43.7 ± 6.938.8 ± 0.8−4.9(−17.9 to 3.7)
10–30 cm50.4 ± 2.551.9 ± 2.31.5(−4.5 to 7.4)
30–60 cm64.5 ± 9.760.8 ± 9.5−3.7(−21.8 to 11.2)
Medium, 0–60 cm41.2 ± 3.039.5 ± 3.0−1.7(−8.2 to 4.1)
0–10 cm35.4 ± 0.637.2 ± 0.71.8(−0.3 to 4.4)
10–30 cm45.6 ± 2.948.2 ± 2.92.7(−3.4 to 8.8)
30–60 cm53.2 ± 8.344.9 ± 8.6−8.3(−26.8 to 7.7)
Heavy, 0–60 cm40.2 ± 4.229.4 ± 5.1−10.7(−18.5 to −3.5)
0–10 cm32.8 ± 1.433.7 ± 1.40.9(−1.6 to 3.6)
10–30 cm41.2 ± 5.138.4 ± 5.1−2.9(−10.8 to 5.3)
30–60 cm45.5 ± 10.027.7 ± 10.6−17.8(−36.6 to −3.4)
Residual, 0–60 cm30.1 ± 1.433.2 ± 1.53.1(−0.4 to 6.8)
Soil (60–100 cm)31.6 ± 9.326.0 ± 9.4−5.5(−24.1 to 10.4)
Total ecosystem45.0 ± 2.148.9 ± 1.93.9(−0.1 to 8.1)

Elevated CO2 increased recovery of tracer 15N in aboveground plant tissues, but reduced recovery in coarse roots, in the soil light fraction at 10–30 cm depth, and in the soil residual fraction at 0–60 cm (Table 5). Together, these changes resulted in a significant decline in whole-system 15N recovery under elevated CO2. Elevated CO2 reduced the δ15N of plant tissue (weighted average of all plant parts), a dilution of the added 15N tracer with unlabeled 15N. This pattern indicates that elevated CO2 increased plant access to N, either through new N inputs or redistribution from existing ecosystem N reservoirs. But, because total plant N did not respond to elevated CO2, the increase in inputs of new N to plants were matched by N losses from plants, such that CO2 enhanced N turnover through the plant system. In contrast to plant δ15N, the δ15N of soils did not change with elevated CO2, nor was whole-system δ15N affected (Table 6).

Table 5. Inventory of tracer 15N (mg excess 15N m−2) after 11 yr exposure to increased atmospheric CO2 and 9 yr of integration of the added 15N tracer in a subtropical oak woodlanda
 AmbientElevatedEffect5% & 95% CLs
  1. a

    Values are means ± SE of the mean for the Ambient and Elevated CO2 treatments, the Effect of the CO2 treatment (E–A), and the bootstrapped 5% and 95% CLs (confidence limits) for the treatment effect. CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter. Soil fractions are density fractions, including light (<1.5 g cm−3), medium (1.5–1.8 g cm−3), heavy (1.8–2.2 g cm−3) and residual (calculated as total soil total minus the sum of measured density fractions).

Aboveground2.8 ± 0.43.7 ± 0.40.9(0.1 to 1.8)
Oak leaves1.6 ± 0.21.8 ± 0.30.2(−0.3 to 0.7)
Oak stems1 ± 0.21.6 ± 0.20.6(0.2 to 0.9)
Other species0.1 ± 00.2 ± 00.1(0 to 0.2)
Standing dead0.1 ± 00.1 ± 00.0(0 to 0.1)
Litter layer2 ± 0.32 ± 0.30.0(−0.8 to 0.8)
Roots7.7 ± 1.24.5 ± 0.6−3.3(−5.2 to −1.4)
Fine roots2.1 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.2−0.7(−1.5 to 0)
Coarse roots5.6 ± 1.13.1 ± 0.6−2.6(−4.5 to −0.7)
Plant10.5 ± 1.08.2 ± 0.8−2.4(−4.2 to −0.4)
CPOM (0–100 cm)0.6 ± 0.10.7 ± 0.10.1(−0.2 to 0.3)
Soil (0–100 cm)83.7 ± 16.459.2 ± 11.4−24.5(−53 to 3.7)
Light, 0–60 cm28.5 ± 429.2 ± 4.80.7(−8.9 to 10)
0–10 cm21.6 ± 4.424 ± 52.4(−8 to 12.8)
10–30 cm4 ± 0.72.2 ± 0.2−1.8(−2.9 to −0.7)
30–60 cm2.9 ± 0.93.1 ± 0.70.1(−1.8 to 1.8)
Medium, 0–60 cm15.2 ± 2.914.9 ± 2.4−0.3(−5.6 to 5.6)
0–10 cm11.2 ± 2.110.1 ± 2.2−1.2(−6 to 3.7)
10–30 cm2.8 ± 0.72.5 ± 0.4−0.3(−1.5 to 0.8)
30–60 cm1.1 ± 0.42.3 ± 0.81.2(−0.1 to 2.6)
Heavy, 0–60 cm5.1 ± 0.84.3 ± 1.1−0.8(−2.7 to 1.3)
0–10 cm1.9 ± 0.51.5 ± 0.4−0.3(−1.3 to 0.7)
10–30 cm1.2 ± 0.20.8 ± 0.4−0.4(−1 to 0.3)
30–60 cm2.1 ± 0.32 ± 0.8−0.1(−1.5 to 1.3)
Residual, 0–60 cm34.8 ± 10.814.2 ± 9.5−20.7(−51.7 to −0.8)
Soil (60–100 cm)5.8 ± 1.16.4 ± 1.70.6(−2.5 to 4)
Total ecosystem102.6 ± 15.776.4 ± 9.0−26.2(−55.1 to −0.8)
Table 6. δ15N signatures (mean ± SEM) of plant, soil and whole system N at the final harvest in July 2007
 Ambient CO2Elevated CO2P-valuea
  1. a

    P-values are for one-way ANOVAs testing the effect of elevated CO2.

Plant76.3 ± 5.455.0 ± 4.20.008
Soil103.7 ± 13.985.4 ± 11.60.422
System100.4 ± 11.680.8 ± 10.00.317

While elevated CO2 did not alter total ecosystem C, and effects on soil C were either nil or negative, several results indicate that elevated CO2 increased soil microbial activity. Elevated CO2 increased C mineralization in laboratory incubations, particularly for the first 24 h after collection in the field (Fig. 1, and see McKinley et al., 2009), indicating a larger and more rapidly cycling labile soil C pool. Elevated CO2 also increased the proportion of soil organic matter that occurred in the soil microbial biomass: averaged across seven sample dates from 1997 to 2004, more soil C, N and 15N was contained in the soil microbial biomass in the elevated CO2 treatment (= 0.012 for C, = 0.096 for N, and = 0.049 for 15N; Fig. 2). When common inocula were presented with the labile substrates produced by leaves and roots, substrates produced in the elevated CO2 treatment were respired more completely than substrates from the same sources in the ambient CO2 treatment (Fig. 3a), indicating that the substrates produced in the high-CO2 environment were more susceptible to microbial decay. For the litter and rhizosphere microbial communities, microbial inocula from the elevated CO2 treatment consumed more O2 than inocula collected from the ambient CO2 treatment when presented with a common C substrate (Fig. 3b). Glucose induced a greater response in bulk soil inoculum from the ambient treatment (Fig. 3b), which may reflect CO2-depletion of available soil C susceptible to priming (Brown et al., 2009).

image

Figure 1. CO2 production during soil incuba-tions for four soil depths (a, 0–10 cm; b, 10–30 cm; c, 30–60 cm; d, 6–100 cm) in a subtropical oak woodland exposed to 11 yr of increased CO2. Ambient CO2, open circles; elevated CO2, closed circles. Bars show ± 2 SEM.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 2. (a) Soil microbial biomass nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) from the ambient (open bars) and elevated (closed bars) CO2 treated plots. Microbial C and N (as a proportion of total soil C and N) are shown as means across seven sample dates spanning 1997 to 2004, years 2–9 of CO2 exposure. (b) Tracer 15N in the microbial biomass (as a proportion of tracer 15N in total soil) over time after label addition (log scale). Bars show ± 2 SEM.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 3. (a) Total respiration (O2 consumption, expressed as normalized relative fluorescence) of microbial inocula from three soil habitats (bulk soil, litter, rhizosphere) on extracts of litter and roots. Circles, inocula from ambient CO2; squares, from elevated CO2. Open symbols, substrates produced in the ambient CO2 treatment; closed symbols, substrates produced in the elevated CO2 treatment. Significant differences between substrates produced under ambient and elevated CO2 conditions (two-way ANOVAs, effect of substrate origin); *, < 0.050. (b) The relative responses of microbial respiration to single resource additions (glucose, N, or P) for microbial inocula from the bulk soil, litter and rhizosphere communities in the ambient (open circles) and elevated (closed circles) CO2 treatments. *Significant differences in resource limitation for individual comparisons (t-tests) of inocula from the ambient and elevated CO2 treatments. For full statistical results, see Supporting Information Tables S1 and S2. Bars show ± 2 SEM.

Download figure to PowerPoint

The incorporation of the depleted δ13C signature into organic matter pools revealed rates and patterns of flow of ‘new’ C into the system, where new C is that fixed since CO2 fumigation began in May 1996. By 2007, coarse roots contained 740 g C m−2 of new C, 31% of the total C contained in coarse roots (Fig. 4), yielding a mean C residence time in coarse roots of 35.5 ± 4.2 yr. The total difference in coarse root biomass between E and A was 480 g C m−2. This could have been caused entirely by a stimulation of new root C (probably the most parsimonious interpretation), but it is possible that treatments differed in patterns of use of ‘old’, stored C – an idea which should not be immediately dismissed, given that these plants use old C to build new roots (Langley et al., 2002). In the surface soil mineral fraction, the percent new C increased linearly (Fig. 5), with an overall mean residence time of C of 33.6 ± 2.1 yr. In the spodic horizon, there was no evidence of new C accumulation in the total mineral soil or in the light, medium, or heavy density fractions (Table 2). Overall, elevated CO2 did not significantly alter the total C content of the system (Table 1), because increased C in plant reservoirs were compensated by reduced C from the soil (Fig. 6).

image

Figure 4. Coarse root carbon (C) over time in the scrub-oak experiment, showing ‘old’ (open circles) and ‘new’ (closed squares) carbon for the elevated CO2 plots, where new is defined as carrying a 13C isotopic signature of the CO2 added to the elevated CO2 plots. Modeling % old C as exponential decay over time yielded a decomposition constant of 0.0325 yr−1, considerably lower than decomposition assessed by litterbags (0.22 yr−1 for ambient, 0.29 yr−1 for elevated). Bars show ± 2 SEM.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 5. New carbon in surface mineral soils over time. Bars show ± 2 SEM.

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 6. Summary of ecosystem carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) inventories in a subtropical woodland after 11 yr of exposure to elevated CO2.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

In this subtropical oak woodland, 11 yr of exposure to elevated CO2 increased plant C by 22%, with a smaller (and not significant) effect on plant N of 9%, well within the range of responses typically observed in plants growing under a wide variety of experimental conditions (Norby et al., 2005; de Graaff et al., 2006; Luo et al., 2006). Absolute responses in the mass of C above- and belowground were similar, consistent with elevated CO2 having little impact on the partitioning of biomass above- and belowground (Tingey et al., 2000), in contrast to the expectation that root growth would increase disproportionately (Stulen & den Hertog 1993). In our experiment, the relative response aboveground was actually larger than that belowground, because most of the biomass in this system is belowground. The mean residence time of C in coarse roots (revealed by incorporation of the δ13C tracer) was sufficiently long that, at the final harvest, only about one third of the C in coarse roots represented new growth over the course of this experiment. By contrast, all of the standing aboveground biomass at the final harvest had accumulated after fire. Thus, repeated cycles of fire disturbance and recovery might yield a larger cumulative response of new C in coarse roots.

The increased C content of plants suggests the potential for elevated CO2 to enhance ecosystem C uptake. Yet, increased C contained in plants was not reflected in the C content of soil, neither in the top meter nor in the deeper spodic horizon. Possibly, the experiment lacked sufficient power to detect soil C accumulation (Smith, 2004). Alternatively, other mechanisms may have operated to prevent soil C accumulation in this ecosystem. We can place boundary conditions on the power problem: integrated over the top meter of soil, the mean effect of CO2 on total soil C was a decline of −44.3 g C m−2 yr−1, with the 90% confidence interval spanning a range of CO2 effects from more rapid losses of soil C (−132.4 g C m−2 yr−1) to gain (+ 57.9 g C m−2 yr−1). This range exhibits the power limitations typical when assessing responses of total soil C to elevated CO2 (Hungate et al., 2009). Isolating components of the total soil C reservoir can help overcome the problem of limited power (e.g. Iversen et al., 2012). In our case, we found that by year 6 of the experiment, elevated CO2 had reduced the C contained in the light density (Carney et al., 2007) and in the acid-hydrolysable (Langley et al., 2009) fractions of soil C. These findings are consistent with the response we observed at the final harvest reported here where elevated CO2 reduced the heavy density fraction of soil C (Table 1) and decreased soluble C susceptible to glucose-induced priming (Fig. 3). The pattern of declining soil C in soil fractions is difficult to reconcile with the concept of soil C accumulation as a first-order response to enhanced plant growth.

The second explanation for not finding soil C accumulation in response to elevated CO2 is that it does not occur, because increased C input to soil is compensated by increased C loss. Elevated CO2 could enhance export of C through leaching of dissolved organic matter. But, if elevated CO2 increased leaching of C in this experiment, this response had no influence on the C content or δ13C composition of the spodic horizon; the absence of any effect on δ13C is especially unlikely if leaching was an important pathway for C loss. These findings indicate that elevated CO2 did not substantially alter leaching losses of C from the system.

In contrast to the absence of any apparent effect on leaching, there was compelling evidence that elevated CO2 increased the rate of C cycling through the soil: elevated CO2 significantly increased the size and rate of C flow through the labile soil C pool (Fig. 1), it enhanced the proportion of soil C (and N, and 15N) that were cycling through the soil microbial biomass (Fig. 2), and it increased the decomposability of labile plant substrates and promoted a physiologically more responsive microbial community (Fig. 3). Elevated CO2 also increased fungal biomass, as measured by ergosterol (Klamer et al., 2002), by direct measurements of mycorrhizal fungal biomass (Langley et al., 2003), and by the ratio of fungi to bacteria in the soil microbial biomass, as indicated by the analysis of phospholipid fatty acid profiles (Carney et al., 2007). These results indicate that higher microbial activity was associated with a shift in the composition of the microbial community.

Increased soil microbial activity may also explain why the effect of elevated CO2 on the C : N of plant tissues and the litter layer was not apparent, and indeed in some cases may even have been reversed, in soil organic matter. Specifically, elevated CO2 increased the C : N ratio of individual plant tissues (Table 3) as commonly observed (Cotrufo et al., 1998; Norby et al., 2001), of the entire plant biomass, above- and belowground, and of the litter layer. Yet, this shift was not observed in soil organic matter after 11 yr of continuous inputs of plant material to the soil organic matter pool. There are two possibilities for this discrepancy: (1) either the inputs of plant material were too low compared to background soil organic matter to drive a change in soil organic C : N; or (2) by increasing soil microbial activity and the processing of C in the soil system, elevated CO2 caused a compensatory response, tending to reduce soil C : N. Our finding that elevated CO2 reduced the total mass of soil N in the medium density fraction, but increased it in the heavy fraction, is consistent with this second explanation. The medium fraction has a higher C : N ratio than the heavy fraction, and the medium fraction is thought to cycle into the heavy fraction as the soil organic matter is processed by microbial activity and interactions with minerals (Camberdella & Elliott 1992). Thus, the pattern we observe may indicate increased processing and turnover of soil N, promoting transfer to pools with lower C : N ratios, and a tendency for CO2 to decrease soil C : N.

Some previous measurements at this site indicated that elevated CO2 reduced or had no effect on microbial activity during the first 18 months of the experiment, with reduced gross N mineralization (Hungate et al., 1999) and either reduced or no impact on microbial biomass N (measured as ninhydrin-reactive N) and microbial activity (measured as fluorescein diacetate hydrolysis) in the rhizosphere (Schortemeyer et al., 2000), although the mechanism(s) for these changes were not apparent. These early responses were apparently transient, and did not indicate the decadal-scale response of soil microorganisms to elevated CO2. The measurements reported here of microbial biomass, the size of the labile soil C pool, and the distribution and retention of 15N cycling through the system are more representative of the entire duration of the experiment (e.g. Fig. 2). Results from this experiment are consistent with the general finding that elevated CO2 stimulates soil microbial activity (de Graaff et al., 2006; Dieleman et al., 2012), and the turnover of soil organic matter (Marhan et al., 2010; Phillips et al., 2012; Dawes et al., 2013).

Elevated CO2 can stimulate microbial activity by increasing soil water content, especially in grasslands (Hungate et al., 1997a; Morgan et al., 2004), and this response can counterbalance the increased C inputs from enhanced plant growth at elevated CO2, causing no change in soil C accumulation (Marhan et al., 2010). In the scrub-oak experiment reported here, elevated CO2 slightly increased surface soil water content during the first several years (Hungate et al., 2002), but this effect disappeared with leaf area development (Li et al., 2007), and elevated CO2 had no effect on soil temperature (Hymus et al., 2003). Thus, the changes in microbial activity and organic matter turnover that we observed are unlikely to have been driven by differences in temperature, although increased soil moisture may have played a role early on.

Elevated CO2 can also increase microbial activity by enhancing the supply of C substrates to soil microorganisms, a response consistent with past reports that, in this experiment, elevated CO2 stimulated the ‘priming effect’ (Carney et al., 2007; Langley et al., 2009), the phenomenon where there occurs ‘extra decomposition of native soil organic matter in a soil receiving an organic amendment’ (Bingeman et al., 1953). In the experiment described here, the O2 consumption assay indicates that C derived from the litter and roots is more labile in the elevated CO2 treatment (Fig. 3), leading to a larger quantity of labile organic matter (Fig. 1). The higher rates of microbial activity observed are consistent with the notion that these new inputs of labile C to soil increased mineralization of native soil organic matter (Van Veen et al., 1991; Carney et al., 2007). This phenomenon has been observed for some time (Lohnis, 1926; Broadbent & Norman, 1947; Broadbent, 1948) and evidence for it has grown: isotope tracer experiments in soil incubations show that substrate additions can more than treble the decomposition rate of native soil organic matter in the short term (Cheng & Johnson, 1998; Cheng et al., 2000). Substrate additions can influence the oxidation of old soil C reservoirs, for example, in deep soil (Fontaine et al., 2007), and can shape the response of soil C to elevated CO2 (Hoosbeek, 2004; Trueman & Gonzalez-Meler, 2005; Carney et al., 2007; Hagedorn et al., 2008; Paterson et al., 2008; Taneva & Gonzalez-Meler, 2008; Langley et al., 2009; Trueman et al., 2009; Drake et al., 2011; Reid et al., 2012). Increased oxidation of old soil organic matter is likely a transient response to a change in the rate of labile C inputs. In the experiment described here, the reduction in soil C observed by year 6 (Carney et al., 2007) was comparable to that found after 11 yr, suggesting that the substrates susceptible to priming-induced loss had mostly been degraded during the first 6 yr.

The implications of this response are not limited to C: increased C input to soil, enhancing microbial activity and turnover, can also increasing nutrient availability to plants (Zak et al., 1993). Observations elsewhere that elevated CO2 increases microbial activity in concert with greater plant N acquisition from soil are also consistent with this interpretation (Drake et al., 2011), although without direct evidence of increased soil organic matter turnover, increased root exploration is a simpler explanation. Results presented here call into question the notion that feedbacks stimulating soil microbial turnover and N availability necessarily lead to plant N accumulation and increased plant growth. On the one hand, we did find that elevated CO2 stimulated plant N uptake and 15N dilution in plant tissues, likely driven by increased turnover of soil organic matter mediated by microorganisms (Figs 1, 3; Johnson et al., 1998, 2001; Finzi et al., 2007). On the other hand, increased microbial activity likely promoted N losses, accounting for our finding that elevated CO2 reduced recovery of added tracer 15N (Table 4).

In this experiment, spanning more than a decade in a naturally occurring ecosystem, photosynthesis and aboveground plant growth exhibited strong responses to chronic exposure to elevated atmospheric CO2 (Dijkstra et al., 2002; Seiler et al., 2009), leading to the increased aboveground C content reported here, as well as increased C in coarse roots (Day et al., 2013; Fig. 6). The elevated CO2 treatment did not affect C in fine roots at the final harvest, although fine roots responded sporadically in this experiment, with particularly strong responses following the initial fire disturbance and after a hurricane in year 8 (Day et al., 2013). Elevated CO2 did not increase soil C, and in fact tended to decrease it, likely a consequence of increased microbial activity. Elevated CO2 also increased plant N uptake, possibly driven by higher microbial activity and increased soil N availability, but these responses were also associated with reduced recovery of a long-term 15N tracer, likely indicating enhanced ecosystem N losses. Thus, CO2 altered the C and N cycles in this ecosystem, but not in ways that promoted large or even detectable increments in total ecosystem C mass. The effect of elevated CO2 on soil C turnover via the ‘priming effect’ was large enough to modulate net carbon balance. This finding is not unique, and treatment of this phenomenon in models of soil C cycling is likely warranted (Heimann & Reichstein, 2008; Chapin et al., 2009). While the importance of priming is becoming evident, the challenge to include the phenomenon in models is not trivial: priming is still poorly quantified and the mechanisms remain inscrutable. Meeting this challenge could improve substantially our understanding of terrestrial C cycling, replacing, or at least modifying, the stabilizing first-order kinetics of decomposition used in virtually all current models of the soil C cycle (Luo & Weng, 2011). The response of soil C to labile substrate inputs suggests a previously unrecognized sensitivity of what was thought to be a long-term, stable C sink in the biosphere.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

This research was supported by the US Department of Energy (DE-FG-02-95ER61993, and subcontract 95-59, MPOOO02), and by the National Science Foundation (DEB 9873715, 0092642, and 0445324). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the Kennedy Space Center, the US Fish and Wildlife Service at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge provided generous support throughout the CO2 project. Thanks to Bert Drake for visionary leadership and opportunity. Victoria Albarracin, Mike Roberts, Mary Hummerick, Jan Bauer and Lanfang Levine assisted in the laboratory.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information
  • Adair EC, Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Knops JMH. 2009. Interactive effects of time, CO2, N, and diversity on total belowground carbon allocation and ecosystem carbon storage in a grassland community. Ecosystems 12: 10371052.
  • Arneth A, Harrison SP, Zaehle S, Tsigaridis K, Menon S, Bartlein PJ, Feichter J, Korhola A, Kulmala M, O'Donnell D et al. 2010. Terrestrial biogeochemical feedbacks in the climate system. Nature Geoscience 3: 525532.
  • Bingeman CW, Varner JE, Martin WP. 1953. The effect of the addition of organic materials on the decomposition of an organic soil. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 17: 3438.
  • Broadbent FE. 1948. Nitrogen release and carbon loss from soil organic matter during decomposition of added plant residues. Soil Science Society of America Journal 12: 246249.
  • Broadbent FE, Bartholomew WV. 1949. The effect of quantity of plant material added to soil on its rate of decomposition. Soil Science Society of America Journal 13: 271274.
  • Broadbent FE, Norman AG. 1947. Some factors affecting the availability of the organic nitrogen in soil long dash a preliminary report. Soil Science Society of America Journal 11: 264267.
  • Brown AL, Garland JL, Day FP. 2009. Physiological profiling of soil microbial communities in a Florida scrub-oak ecosystem: spatial distribution and nutrient limitations. Microbial Ecology 57: 1424.
  • Cambardella CA, Elliott ET. 1992. Particulate soil organic-matter changes across a grassland cultivation sequence. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56: 777783.
  • Carney KM, Hungate BA, Drake BG, Megonigal JP. 2007. Altered soil microbial community at elevated CO2 leads to loss of soil carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 49904995.
  • Chapin FS III, McFarland J, McGuire AD, Euskirchen ES, Ruess RW, Kielland K. 2009. The changing global carbon cycle: linking plant-soil carbon dynamics to global consequences. Journal of Ecology 97: 840850.
  • Cheng WX, Johnson DW. 1998. Elevated CO2, rhizosphere processes, and soil organic matter decomposition. Plant and Soil 202: 167174.
  • Cheng WX, Sims DA, Luo YQ, Coleman JS, Johnson DW. 2000. Photosynthesis, respiration, and net primary production of sunflower stands in ambient and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations: an invariant NPP:GPP ratio? Global Change Biology 6: 931941.
  • Cotrufo MF, Ineson P, Scott A. 1998. Elevated CO2 reduces the nitrogen concentration of plant tissues. Global Change Biology 1: 4354.
  • Cramer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI, Prentice IC, Betts RA, Brovkin V, Cox PM, Fisher V, Foley JA, Friend AD et al. 2001. Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Global Change Biology 7: 357373.
  • Dawes MA, Hagedorn F, Handa IT, Streit K, Ekblad A, Rixen C, Korner C, Hattenschwiler S. 2013. An alpine treeline in a carbon dioxide-rich world: synthesis of a nine-year free-air carbon dioxide enrichment study. Oecologia 171: 623637.
  • Day FP, Schroeder RE, Stover DB, Brown ALP, Butnor JR, Dilustro J, Hungate BA, Dijkstra P, Duval BD, Seiler TJ et al. 2013. The effects of 11 yr of CO2 enrichment on roots in a Florida scrub-oak ecosystem. New Phytologist 199: 7488.
  • Denman KL, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, Ciais P, Cox PM, Dickinson RE, Hauglustaine D, Heinze C, Holland E, Jacob D et al. 2007. Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL, eds. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 501568.
  • Diaz S, Grime JP, Harris J, McPherson E. 1993. Evidence of a feedback mechanism limiting plant-response to elevated carbon-dioxide. Nature 364: 616617.
  • Dieleman WI, Luyssaert S, Rey A, de Angelis P, Barton CV, Broadmeadow MS, Broadmeadow SB, Chigwerewe KS, Crookshanks M, Dufrene E et al. 2010. Soil [N] modulates soil C cycling in CO2-fumigated tree stands: a meta-analysis. Plant, Cell & Environment 33: 20012011.
  • Dieleman WIJ, Vicca S, Dijkstra FA, Hagedorn F, Hovenden MJ, Larsen KS, Morgan JA, Volder A, Beier C, Dukes JS et al. 2012. Simple additive effects are rare: a quantitative review of plant biomass and soil process responses to combined manipulations of CO2 and temperature. Global Change Biology 18: 26812693.
  • Dijkstra P, Hymus G, Colavito D, Vieglais D, Cundari C, Johnson D, Hungate BA, Hinkle CR, Drake BG. 2002. Elevated atmospheric CO2 stimulates shoot growth in a Florida scrub-oak ecosystem. Global Change Biology 8: 90103.
  • Dolman AJ, van der Werf GR, van der Molen MK, Ganssen G, Erisman JW, Strengers B. 2010. A carbon cycle science update since IPCC AR-4. Ambio 39: 402412.
  • Dore S, Hymus GJ, Johnson DP, Hinkle CR, Valentini R, Drake BG. 2003. Cross validation of open-top chamber and eddy covariance measurements of ecosystem CO2 exchange in a Florida scrub-oak ecosystem. Global Change Biology 9: 8495.
  • Drake JE, Gallet-Budynek A, Hofmockel KS, Bernhardt ES, Billings SA, Jackson RB, Johnsen KS, Lichter J, McCarthy HR, McCormack ML et al. 2011. Increases in the flux of carbon belowground stimulate nitrogen uptake and sustain the long-term enhancement of forest productivity under elevated CO2. Ecology Letters 14: 349357.
  • Finzi AC, Cole JJ, Doney SC, Holland EA, Jackson RB. 2011. Research frontiers in the analysis of coupled biogeochemical cycles. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 7480.
  • Finzi AC, Norby RJ, Calfapietra C, Gallet-Budynek A, Gielen B, Holmes WE, Hoosbeek MR, Iversen CM, Jackson RB, Kubiske ME et al. 2007. Increases in nitrogen uptake rather than nitrogen-use efficiency support higher rates of temperate forest productivity under elevated CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 14 01414 019.
  • Fontaine S, Barot S, Barre P, Bdioui N, Mary B, Rumpel C. 2007. Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply. Nature 450: 277280.
  • Friedlingstein P, Prentice IC. 2010. Carbon–climate feedbacks: a review of model and observation based estimates. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 251257.
  • Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW, Bekunda M, Cai Z, Freney JR, Martinelli LA, Seitzinger SP, Sutton MA. 2008. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science 320: 889892.
  • Garland JLR, Roberts MS, Levine LH, Mills AL. 2003. Community-level physiological profiling performed with an oxygen-sensitive fluorophore in a microtiter plate. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 69: 29942998.
  • Garten CT Jr, Iversen CM, Norby RJ. 2011. Litterfall N-15 abundance indicates declining soil nitrogen availability in a free-air CO2 enrichment experiment. Ecology 92: 133139.
  • Gerber S, Hedin LO, Oppenheimer M, Pacala SW, Shevliakova E. 2010. Nitrogen cycling and feedbacks in a global dynamic land model. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 24, GB1001.
  • Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Lukac M, Wittig VE, De Angelis P, Janssens IA, Moscatelli MC, Grego S, Cotrufo MF, Godbold DL et al. 2005. Net carbon storage in a poplar plantation (POPFACE) after three years of free-air CO2 enrichment. Tree Physiology 25: 13991408.
  • Gill RA, Anderson LJ, Polley HW, Johnson HB, Jackson RB. 2006. Potential nitrogen constraints on soil carbon sequestration under low and elevated atmospheric CO2. Ecology 87: 4152.
  • de Graaff M-A, van Groenigen K-J, Six J, Hungate BA, van Kessel C. 2006. Interactions between plant growth and soil nutrient cycling under elevated CO2: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 12: 20772091.
  • van Groenigen KJ, van Kessel C, Hungate BA. 2012. Increased greenhouse-gas intensity of rice production under future atmospheric conditions. Nature Climate Change 3: 288291.
  • van Groenigen KJ, Osenberg CW, Hungate BA. 2011. Increased soil emissions of potent greenhouse gases under increased atmospheric CO2. Nature 475: 214216.
  • Hagedorn F, van Hees PAW, Handa IT, Hättenschwiler S. 2008. Elevated atmospheric CO2 fuels leaching of old dissolved organic matter at the alpine treeline. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22: GB2004.
  • Heimann M, Reichstein M. 2008. Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and climate feedbacks. Nature 451: 289292.
  • Hofmockel KS, Schlesinger WH. 2007. Carbon dioxide effects on heterotrophic dinitrogen fixation in a temperate pine forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71: 140144.
  • Hoosbeek MR. 2004. More new carbon in the mineral soil of a poplar plantation under Free Air Carbon Enrichment (POPFACE): cause of increased priming effect? Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18: GB1040.
  • Hungate BA, Chapin FS, Zhong H, Holland EA, Field CB. 1997a. Stimulation of grassland nitrogen cycling under carbon dioxide enrichment. Oecologia 109: 149153.
  • Hungate BA, Dijkstra P, Johnson DW, Hinkle CR, Drake BG. 1999. Elevated CO2 increases nitrogen fixation and decreases soil nitrogen mineralization in Florida scrub oak. Global Change Biology 5: 781789.
  • Hungate BA, van Groenigen K-J, Six J, Jastrow JD, Luo Y, de Graaff M-A, van Kessel C, Osenberg CW. 2009. Assessing the effect of elevated carbon dioxide on soil carbon: a comparison of four meta-analyses. Global Change Biology 15: 20202034.
  • Hungate BA, Holland EA, Jackson RB, Chapin FS, Mooney HA, Field CB. 1997b. The fate of carbon in grasslands under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 388: 576579.
  • Hungate BA, Jackson RB, Field CB, Chapin FS. 1996. Detecting changes in soil carbon in CO2 enrichment experiments. Plant and Soil 187: 135145.
  • Hungate BA, Johnson DW, Dijkstra P, Hymus G, Stiling P, Megonigal JP, Pagel AL, Moan JL, Day F, Li JH et al. 2006. Nitrogen cycling during seven years of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in a scrub oak woodland. Ecology 87: 2640.
  • Hungate BA, Lund CP, Pearson HL, Chapin FS. 1997c. Elevated CO2 and nutrient addition alter soil N cycling and N trace gas fluxes with early season wet-up in a California annual grassland. Biogeochemistry 37: 89109.
  • Hungate BA, Reichstein M, Dijkstra P, Johnson D, Hymus G, Tenhunen JD, Hinkle CR, Drake BG. 2002. Evapotranspiration and soil water content in a scrub-oak woodland under carbon dioxide enrichment. Global Change Biology 8: 289298.
  • Hymus GJ, Johnson DP, Dore S, Anderson HP, Hinkle CR, Drake BG. 2003. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on net ecosystem CO2 exchange of a scrub-oak ecosystem. Global Change Biology 9: 18021812.
  • Iversen CM, Keller JK, Garten CT Jr, Norby RJ. 2012. Soil carbon and nitrogen cycling and storage throughout the soil profile in a sweetgum plantation after 11 years of CO2-enrichment. Global Change Biology 18: 16841697.
  • Iversen CM, Ledford J, Norby RJ. 2008. CO2 enrichment increases carbon and nitrogen input from fine roots in a deciduous forest. New Phytologist 179: 837847.
  • Jain A, Yang X, Kheshgi H, McGuire AD, Post W, Kicklighter D. 2009. Nitrogen attenuation of terrestrial carbon cycle response to global environmental factors. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23: GB4028.
  • Jastrow JD, Miller RM, Matamala R, Norby RJ, Boutton TW, Rice CW, Owensby CE. 2005. Elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide increases soil carbon. Global Change Biology 11: 20572064.
  • Jenkinson DW, Goulding K, Powlson DS. 1999. Nitrogen deposition and carbon sequestration. Nature 400: 629.
  • Johnson DW, Ball JT, Walker RF. 1997. Effects of CO2 and nitrogen fertilization on vegetation and soil nutrient content in juvenile ponderosa pine. Plant and Soil 190: 2940.
  • Johnson DW, Hoylman AM, Ball JT, Walker RF. 2006. Ponderosa pine responses to elevated CO2 and nitrogen fertilization. Biogeochemistry 77: 157175.
  • Johnson DW, Norby RJ, Hungate BA. 2001. Effects of elevated CO2 on nutrient cycling in forests. In: Karnosky DF, Ceulemans R, Scarascia-Mugnozza GE, Innes JL, eds. The impact of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on forest ecosystems. Report No. 3 of the IUFRO Task Force on Environmental Change. Wallingford, UK: CAB, 237268.
  • Johnson DW, Thomas RB, Griffin KL, Tissue DT, Ball JT, Strain BR, Walker RF. 1998. Effects of carbon dioxide and nitrogen on growth and nitrogen uptake in ponderosa and loblolly pine. Journal of Environmental Quality 27: 414425.
  • Klamer M, Roberts MS, Levine LH, Drake BG, Garland JL. 2002. Influence of elevated CO2 on the fungal community in a coastal scrub oak forest soil investigated with terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. Applied & Environmental Microbiology 68: 43704376.
  • Langley JA, Dijkstra P, Drake BG, Hungate BA. 2003. Ectomycorrhizal colonization, biomass, and production in a regenerating scrub oak forest in response to elevated CO2. Ecosystems 6: 424430.
  • Langley JA, Drake B, Hungate BA. 2002. Extensive belowground carbon storage supports roots and mycorrhizae in regenerating scrub oaks. Oecologia 131: 542548.
  • Langley JA, McKinley DC, Wolf AA, Hungate BA, Drake BG, Megonigal JP. 2009. Priming depletes soil carbon and releases nitrogen in a scrub-oak ecosystem exposed to elevated CO2. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41: 5460.
  • Leavitt SW, Paul EA, Kimball BA, Hendrey GR, Mauney JR, Rauschkolb R, Rogers H, Lewin KF, Nagy J, Pinter PJ et al. 1994. Carbon-isotope dynamics of free-air CO2 enriched cotton and soils. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 70: 87101.
  • LeBauer DS, Treseder KK. 2008. Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89: 371379.
  • Li J, Powell TL, Seiler TJ, Johnson DP, Anderson HP, Bracho R, Hungate BA, Hinkle CR, Drake BG. 2007. Impacts of Hurricane Frances on Florida scrub-oak ecosystem processes: defoliation, net CO2 exchange and interactions with elevated CO2. Global Change Biology 13: 11011113.
  • Lohnis F. 1926. Nitrogen availability of green manures. Soil Science Society of America Journal 22: 171177.
  • Luo YQ, Hui DF, Zhang DQ. 2006. Elevated CO2 stimulates net accumulations of carbon and nitrogen in land ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Ecology 87: 5363.
  • Luo YQ, Weng ES. 2011. Dynamic disequilibrium of the terrestrial carbon cycle under global change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 96104.
  • Marhan S, Kandeler E, Rein S, Fangmeier A, Niklaus PA. 2010. Indirect effects of soil moisture reverse soil C sequestration responses of a spring wheat agroecosystem to elevated CO2. Global Change Biology 16: 469483.
  • McKinley DC, Romero JC, Hungate BA, Drake BG, Megonigal JP. 2009. Does deep soil N availability sustain long-term ecosystem responses to elevated CO2? Global Change Biology 15: 20352048.
  • McMurtrie RE, Norby RJ, Medlyn BE, Dewar RC, Pepper DA, Reich PB, Barton CVM. 2008. Why is plant-growth response to elevated CO2 amplified when water is limiting, but reduced when nitrogen is limiting? A growth-optimisation hypothesis. Functional Plant Biology 35: 521534.
  • Morgan JA, Knight WG, Dudley LM, Hunt HW. 1994. Enhanced root-system C-sink activity, water relations and aspects of nutrient acquisition in mycotrophic Bouteloua gracilis subjected to CO2 enrichment. Plant and Soil 165: 139146.
  • Morgan JA, Pataki DE, Korner C, Clark H, Del Grosso SJ, Grunzweig JM, Knapp AK, Mosier AR, Newton PCD, Niklaus PA, Nippert JB, Nowak RS, Parton WJ, Polley HW, Shaw MR. 2004. Water relations in grassland and desert ecosystems exposed to elevated atmospheric CO2. Oecologia 140: 1125.
  • Nadelhoffer KJ, Emmett BA, Gunderson P, Kjonnas OJ, Koopmans CJ, Schleppl P, Tietma A, Wright RF. 1999. Nitrogen deposition makes a minor contribution to carbon sequestration in temperate forests. Nature 398: 145148.
  • Nadelhoffer KJ. 1990. Microlysimeter for measuring nitrogen mineralization and microbial respiration in aerobic soil incubations. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54: 411415.
  • Niklaus PA, Falloon P. 2006. Estimating soil carbon sequestration under elevated CO2 by combining carbon isotope labelling with soil carbon cycle modelling. Global Change Biology 12: 19091921.
  • Norby RJ, Cotrufo MF, Ineson P, O'Neill EG, Canadell JG. 2001. Elevated CO2, litter chemistry, and decomposition: a synthesis. Oecologia 127: 153167.
  • Norby RJ, Delucia EH, Gielen B, Calfapietra C, Giardina CP, King JS, Ledford J, McCarthy HR, Moore DJ, Ceulemans R et al. 2005. Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 102: 18 05218 056.
  • Norby RJ, Warren JM, Iversen CM, Medlyn BE, McMurtrie RE. 2010. CO2 enhancement of forest productivity constrained by limited nitrogen availability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107: 19 36819 373.
  • Norby RJ, Zak DR. 2011. Ecological lessons from Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, & Systematics 42: 181203.
  • Parton WJ, Schimel DS, Cole CV, Ojima DS. 1987. Analysis of factors controlling soil organic levels of grasslands in the Great Plains. Soil Science Society of America Journal 51: 11731179.
  • Paterson E, Thornton B, Midwood AJ, Osborne SM, Sim A, Millard P. 2008. Atmospheric CO2 enrichment and nutrient additions to planted soil increase mineralisation of soil organic matter, but do not alter microbial utilisation of plant- and soil C-sources. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40: 24342440.
  • Phillips RP, Meier IC, Bernhardt ES, Grandy AS, Wickings K, Finzi AC. 2012. Roots and fungi accelerate carbon and nitrogen cycling in forests exposed to elevated CO2. Ecology Letters 15: 10421049.
  • Reich PB, Hobbie SE, Lee T, Ellsworth DS, West JB, Tilman D, Knops JMH, Naeem S, Trost J. 2006a. Nitrogen limitation constrains sustainability of ecosystem response to CO2. Nature 440: 922925.
  • Reich PB, Hungate BA, Luo Y. 2006b. Carbon–nitrogen interactions in terrestrial ecosystems in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics 37: 611636.
  • Reid JP, Adair EC, Hobbie SE, Reich PB. 2012. Biodiversity, nitrogen deposition, and CO2 affect grassland soil carbon cycling but not storage. Ecosystems 15: 580590.
  • Schortemeyer M, Dijkstra P, Johnson DW, Drake BG. 2000. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on C and N pools and rhizosphere processes in a Florida scrub oak community. Global Change Biology 6: 383391.
  • Seiler TJ, Rasse DP, Li J, Dijkstra P, Anderson HP, Johnson DP, Powell TL, Hungate BA, Hinkle CR, Drake BG. 2009. Disturbance, rainfall and contrasting species responses mediated aboveground biomass response over 11 years of CO2 enrichment in a Florida Scrub-Oak ecosystem. Global Change Biology 15: 356367.
  • Smith P. 2004. How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected? Global Change Biology 10: 18781883.
  • Sokolov AP, Kicklighter DW, Melillo JM, Felzer BS, Schlosser CA, Cronin TW. 2008. Consequences of considering carbon–nitrogen interactions on the feedbacks between climate and the terrestrial carbon cycle. Journal of Climate 21: 37763796.
  • Stover DB, Day FP, Butnor JR, Drake BG. 2007. Effect of elevated CO2 on coarse-root biomass in Florida scrub detected by ground-penetrating radar. Ecology 88: 13281334.
  • Stulen I, Den Hertog J. 1993. Root-growth and functioning under atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Vegetatio 104: 99115.
  • Taneva L, Gonzalez-Meler MA. 2008. Decomposition kinetics of soil carbon of different age from a forest exposed to 8 years of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40: 26702677.
  • Thornton PE, Lamarque J-F, Rosenbloom NA, Mahowald NM. 2007. Influence of carbon-nitrogen cycle coupling on land model response to CO2 fertilization and climate variability. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 21: GB4018.
  • Tingey DT, Phillips DL, Johnson MG. 2000. Elevated CO2 and conifer roots: effects on growh, life span and turnover. New Phytologist 147: 87103.
  • Trueman RJ, Gonzalez-Meler MA. 2005. Accelerated belowground C cycling in a managed agriforest ecosystem exposed to elevated carbon dioxide concentrations. Global Change Biology 11: 12581271.
  • Trueman RJ, Taneva L, Gonzalez-Meler MA, Oechel WC, BassiriRad H. 2009. Carbon losses in soils previously exposed to elevated atmospheric CO2 in a chaparral ecosystem: potential implications for a sustained biospheric C sink. Journal of Geochemical Exploration 102: 142148.
  • Väisänen RKR, Robers MS, Garland JL, Frey SD, Dawson LA. 2005. Physiological and molecular characterization of microbial communities associated with different water-stable aggregate size classes. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 37: 20072016.
  • Van Veen JA, Liljeroth E, Lekkerkerk LJA, Van De Geijn SC. 1991. Carbon fluxes in plant-soil systems at elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Ecological Applications 1: 175181.
  • Vance ED, Brookes PC, Jenkinson DS. 1987. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 19: 703707.
  • Wang Y-P, Houlton BZ. 2009. Nitrogen constraints on terrestrial carbon uptake: implications for the global carbon-climate feedback. Geophysical Research Letters 36: L24403.
  • Zabaloy MCL, Lehman RM, Frey SD, Garland JL. 2008. Optimization of an oxygen-based approach for community-level physiological profiling of soils. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40: 29602969.
  • Zaehle S, Friend AD, Friedlingstein P, Dentener F, Peylin P, Schulz M. 2010. Carbon and nitrogen cycle dynamics in the O-CN land surface model: 2. Role of the nitrogen cycle in the historical terrestrial carbon balance. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 24: doi:10.1029/2009GB003522.
  • Zak DR, Pregitzer KS, Curtis PS, Teeri JA, Fogel R, Randlett DL. 1993. Elevated atmospheric CO2 and feedback between carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant and Soil 151: 105117.
  • Zanetti S, Hartwig UA, Luscher A, Hebeisen T, Frehner M, Fischer BU, Hendrey GR, Blum H, Nosberger J. 1996. Stimulation of symbiotic N-2 fixation in Trifolium repens L under elevated atmospheric pCO2 in a grassland ecosystem. Plant Physiology 112: 575583.

Supporting Information

  1. Top of page
  2. Summary
  3. Introduction
  4. Materials and Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
  9. Supporting Information

Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the New Phytologist Central Office.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
nph12333-sup-0001-TableS1-S2.docxWord document30KTables S1 & S2 Results from ANOVAs testing responses of soil microbial respiration to CO2 treatment, habitat, and substrate