Leaf responses to elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration (C a ) are central to models of forest CO 2 exchange with the atmosphere and constrain the magnitude of the future carbon sink. Estimating the magnitude of primary productivity enhancement of forests in elevated C a requires an understanding of how photosynthesis is regulated by diffusional and biochemical components and up‐scaled to entire canopies. To test the sensitivity of leaf photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to elevated C a in time and space, we compiled a comprehensive dataset measured over 10 years for a temperate pine forest of P inus taeda , but also including deciduous species, primarily L iquidambar styraciflua . We combined over one thousand controlled‐response curves of photosynthesis as a function of environmental drivers (light, air C a and temperature) measured at canopy heights up to 20 m over 11 years (1996–2006) to generate parameterizations for leaf‐scale models for the D uke free‐air CO 2 enrichment ( FACE ) experiment. The enhancement of leaf net photosynthesis ( A net ) in P . taeda by elevated C a of +200 μmol mol −1 was 67% for current‐year needles in the upper crown in summer conditions over 10 years. Photosynthetic enhancement of P . taeda at the leaf‐scale increased by two‐fold from the driest to wettest growing seasons. Current‐year pine foliage A net was sensitive to temporal variation, whereas previous‐year foliage A net was less responsive and overall showed less enhancement (+30%). Photosynthetic downregulation in overwintering upper canopy pine needles was small at average leaf N ( N area ), but statistically significant. In contrast, co‐dominant and subcanopy L . styraciflua trees showed A net enhancement of 62% and no A net – N area adjustments. Various understory deciduous tree species showed an average A net enhancement of 42%. Differences in photosynthetic responses between overwintering pine needles and subcanopy deciduous leaves suggest that increased C a has the potential to enhance the mixed‐species composition of planted pine stands and, by extension, naturally regenerating pine‐dominated stands.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellsworth et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: