We compared radiation-use efficiency of growth (epsilon;), defined as rate of biomass accumulation per unit of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation, of forest plots exposed to ambient (approximately 360 micro l l-1) or elevated (approximately 560 micro l l-1) atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]). Large plots (30-m diameter) in a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) plantation, which contained several hardwood species in the understory, were fumigated with a free-air CO2 enrichment system. Biomass accumulation of the dominant loblolly pines was calculated from monthly measurements of tree growth and site-specific allometric equations. Depending on the species, leaf area index (L*) was estimated by three methods: optical, allometric and litterfall. Based on the relationship between tree height and diameter during the first 3 years of exposure, we conclude that elevated [CO2] did not alter the pattern of aboveground biomass allocation in loblolly pine. There was considerable variation in L* estimates by the different methods; total L* was 18-42% lower when estimated by the optical method compared with estimates from allometric calculations, and this discrepancy was reduced when optical measurements were corrected for the non-random distribution of loblolly pine foliage. The allometric + litterfall approach revealed a seasonal maximum total L* of 6.2-7.1 with about 1/3 of the total from hardwood foliage. Elevated [CO2] had only a slight effect on L* in the first 3 years of this study. Mean epsilon; (+/- SD), calculated for loblolly pine only, was 0.49 +/- 0.05 and 0.62 +/- 0.04 g MJ-1 for trees in the ambient and elevated [CO2] plots, respectively. The 27% increase in epsilon; in response to CO2 enrichment was caused primarily by the stimulation of biomass increment, as there was only a small effect of elevated [CO2] on L* during the initial years of fumigation. Long-term increases in atmospheric [CO2] can increase epsilon; in closed-canopy forests but the absolute magnitude and duration of this increase remain uncertain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeLucia et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: