56
Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest Conor Flynn The Ohio State University

Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

M.S. Thesis Research Presentation at The Ohio State University School for Environment and Natural Resources

Citation preview

Page 1: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest

Conor Flynn

The Ohio State University

Page 2: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Outline:

Definitions Hypotheses

Methods Results & Discussion

Conclusion Future directions

Page 3: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest

Page 4: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest

Ryan MG, Law BE. Interpreting, measuring, and modeling soil respiration. Biogeochemistry. 2005.

Page 5: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen/maple/oak

Even-aged

Disturbance/mortality

releases understory

Pine/maple/oak

Uneven-aged

Forest age (yrs)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest:

Page 6: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest:

The Forest Accelerated Succession ExperimenT (FASET)

Nave LE, Gough CM, Maurer KD, Bohrer G, Hardiman BS, Moine JL, Munoz AB, Nadelhoffer KJ, Sparks JP, Strahm BD, Vogel CS, Curtis PS. Disturbance and the resilience of coupled carbon and nitrogen cycling in a

north temperate forest. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2011

Page 7: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest

Ryan MG, Law BE. Interpreting, measuring, and modeling soil respiration. Biogeochemistry. 2005.

Page 8: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest

Ryan MG, Law BE. Interpreting, measuring, and modeling soil respiration. Biogeochemistry. 2005.

Page 9: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

GIRDLED

(released from competition)

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Experiment Design: 4 Sites

Page 10: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Soil Respiration

↓ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

↑ Total Soil Respiration

↑ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Hypotheses

Page 11: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Soil Respiration

↓ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

↑ Total Soil Respiration

↑ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Hypotheses

Page 12: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Soil Respiration

↓ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

↑ Total Soil Respiration

↑ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Hypotheses

Page 13: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Soil Respiration

↓ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

↑ Total Soil Respiration

↑ Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Hypotheses

Page 14: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Methods:

Automated Soil CO2 efflux Measurement

Page 15: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Methods:

Automated Soil CO2 efflux Measurement

FASET Aspen Site (FAS)

Page 16: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Methods:

Manual Soil CO2 efflux

Measurement

Page 17: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results

Page 18: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Growing Season Soil Respiration - Manual

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

153 180 194 208 230 244

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m

-2 s

-1

Day of Year

AF EFFLUX FASET EFFLUX

Page 19: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Growing Season Soil Respiration - Autochambers

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

153 180 194 208 230 244

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m

-2 s

-1

Day of Year

AF EFFLUX FASET EFFLUX

Page 20: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m

-2 s

-1

Dif

fere

nce

Day of Year

Difference

FAS-AAS

Results: Growing Season Soil Respiration - Autochambers

Page 21: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m

-2 s

-1

Dif

fere

nce

Day of Year

Difference FAS-AAS

FOS-AOS

Results: Growing Season Soil Respiration - Autochambers

Page 22: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Q10: Soil Respiration Temperature Sensitivity

y = 1.3944e0.0592x R² = 0.465

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m-2

s-1

15cm Soil Temperature C

FAS Efflux Q10= 1.81

Page 23: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Q10: Soil Respiration Temperature Sensitivity

y = 1.3944e0.0592x R² = 0.465

0

2

4

6

8

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m-2

s-1

15cm Soil Temperature C

FAS Efflux Q10= 1.81

Control Treatment

AAS AOS FAS FOS

Q10

(r2)

2.93a

(0.68)

2.84b

(0.59)

1.81c

(0.47)

2.39d

(0.75)

Page 24: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m

-2 s

-1

Dif

fere

nce

Day of Year

Difference FAS-AAS

FOS-AOS

Results: Phenoperiod 1

Page 25: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m

-2 s

-1

Dif

fere

nce

Day of Year

Difference FAS-AAS

FOS-AOS

Results: Phenoperiod 2

Page 26: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Soil Respiration Sensitivity:

Phenoperiods

Control Treatment

AAS AOS FAS FOS

Q10

(r2)

2.93a

(0.68)

2.84b

(0.59)

1.81c

(0.47)

2.39d

(0.75)

Phenoperiod 1 Q10

(r2)

2.31a

(0.37)

3.86b

(0.74)

3.12c

(0.68)

2.97c

(0.74)

Phenoperiod 2 Q10

(r2)

2.37a

(0.35)

2.28a

(0.25)

1.27b

(0.04)

1.86a

(0.32)

Page 27: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Soil Respiration Sensitivity:

Phenoperiods

Control Treatment

AAS AOS FAS FOS

Q10

(r2)

2.93a

(0.68)

2.84b

(0.59)

1.81c

(0.47)

2.39d

(0.75)

Phenoperiod 1 Q10

(r2)

2.31a

(0.37)

3.86b

(0.74)

3.12c

(0.68)

2.97c

(0.74)

Phenoperiod 2 Q10

(r2)

2.37a

(0.35)

2.28a

(0.25)

1.27b

(0.04)

1.86a

(0.32)

Page 28: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Respiration (↑ PP1 ; ↓ PP2)

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↑PP1; ↓PP2)

↔ Total Respiration

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↓PP1; ↓PP2)

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Conclusions

Page 29: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Respiration (↑ PP1 ; ↓ PP2)

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↑PP1; ↓PP2)

↔ Total Respiration

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↓PP1; ↓PP2)

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Conclusions

Page 30: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Respiration (↑ PP1 ; ↓ PP2)

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↑PP1; ↓PP2)

↔ Total Respiration

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↓PP1; ↓PP2)

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Conclusions

Page 31: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Respiration (↑ PP1 ; ↓ PP2)

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↑PP1; ↓PP2)

↔ Total Respiration

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↓PP1; ↓PP2)

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Conclusions

Page 32: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Aspen Oak

FASET (treatment)

↓ Total Respiration (↑ PP1 ; ↓ PP2)

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↑PP1; ↓PP2)

↔ Total Respiration

↓ Total Rs Sensitivity to Temperature

(↓PP1; ↓PP2)

Ameriflux (control)

no change

no change

Conclusions

Page 33: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Conclusions

Soil respiration reflects total belowground activity, and responds strongly to aboveground disturbance: less C in, less C out. Carbon cycle is resistant to natural disturbance as compared to anthropogenic. In undisturbed forests, root-derived respiration can contribute as much as 50% of total soil respiration. Heterotrophic respiration can be more sensitive to temperature than autotrophic, but depends on time of year – different drivers.

Page 34: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Problems and Solutions: Future Directions

Page 35: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

129 149 169 189 209 229

Vo

lum

etr

ic S

oil

Wa

ter

Co

nte

nt

%

FAS

Re

sid

ual

Un

exp

lain

ed

So

il R

esp

irat

ion

Doy of Year

residuals

SM_15cm2

R² = 0.1422

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Volumetric Soil Water Content %

Problem: Soil Respiration Sensitivity to Change in Soil Moisture

Page 36: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Problem: Diurnal time-delay (Hysteresis)

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.9

5.1

5.3

5.5

17.4 17.6 17.8 18 18.2 18.4 18.6

Soil

Res

pir

atio

n

Soil Temperature (15cm)

Time

Time

Midnight

Noon

6:00 PM

6:00 AM

6:00 PM

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

8 13 18

Effl

ux

15cm Soil Temperature

Page 37: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

8

13

18

23

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

Tem

per

atu

re, C

DOY

15cm Soil Temperature AAS ST_15cm2

Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT)

• Can be interpreted as time-localized power spectra (CF Fourier Transform) • Indicates time, period (i.e. wavelength), and power of signal

Page 38: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

8

13

18

23

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

Tem

per

atu

re, C

DOY

15cm Soil Temperature AAS ST_15cm2

Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT)

• Can be interpreted as time-localized power spectra (CF Fourier Transform) • Indicates time, period (i.e. wavelength), and power of signal

Page 39: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Cross-Wavelet Transform (CXT)

CXT indicates time-period domains of shared power between two signals

CXT also includes phase (lag) information with arrows

CXT AAS efflux and ST 15cm:

Page 40: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT)

• Can be interpreted as time-localized power spectra (CF Fourier Transform) • Indicates time, period, and power of signal

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

129 149 169 189 209 229

Vo

lum

etri

c w

ater

co

nte

nt

%/%

DOY

15cm Soil Moisture

AAS SM_15cm

Page 41: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Cross-Wavelet Transform (CXT)

CXT indicates time-period domains of shared power between two signals

CXT also includes phase (lag) information with arrows

CXT AAS efflux and SM 15cm:

Page 42: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Wavelet Analysis:

CXT can identify: -Hysteresis time-lags

-Variable (episodic, pulsed) controls of soil respiration -CorrelationCausation

Page 43: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Acknowledgments

Dr. Peter Curtis Dr. Gil Bohrer Dr. Richard Dick Jen Nietz Dr. Chris Vogel, UMBS Dr. Valeriey Ivanov, UM Lingli He, UM Alexandra Permar, UNC …and many other collaborators!

Page 44: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration is Important

Carbon Neutral?

Questions?

Page 45: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Results: Growing Season Soil Respiration - Autochambers

-1

0

1

2

3

4

129 139 149 159 169 189 199 209 219 230

Soil

Res

pir

atio

n D

iffe

ren

ce

DOY

Soil Respiration Difference AAS-FAS

significant

not significant

Page 46: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance
Page 47: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

169 179 189 199 209 219 229

residuals

SM_15cm2

Phenoperiod Residual Analysis

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

129 139 149 159 169

y = 2.4628x - 0.2188 R² = 0.0112

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

y = 0.5907ln(x) + 2.0034 R² = 0.1899

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Page 48: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Growing Season Soil Respiration Driver: Soil Temperature

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

Wat

er P

ote

nti

al, K

pa

SWC

%

SM_15cm2

convert 15cm SM toMatric

Page 49: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Growing Season Soil Respiration Driver: Soil Temperature

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

129 149 169 189 209 229

Soil

CO

2 E

fflu

x μ

mo

l m-2

s-1

Day of Year

FAS efflux

ST_15cm2

Page 50: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Phenoperiods: Growing Season

Page 51: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

129 149 169 189 209 229

AF C Fluxes

Average of REgf

NEE

GPP

AAS efflux

AOS efflux

Page 52: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Substituting Rs for modeled Re in GPP calculations

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

129 149 169 189 209 229

NEEgf

REgf

GPP (NEE+Regf)

GPP (NEE+Rs)

Page 53: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Soil respiration response to canopy disturbance in a Northern Michigan Forest

Page 54: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Heterotrophic Soil Respiration: Biodiversity

Page 55: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance

Modified from Smith P, Fang C. Carbon cycle: A warm response by soils. Nature. 2010 March 24

What is the soil respiration response to succession?

Page 56: Soil Responses to Forest Canopy Disturbance