C 3 and C 4 Biomass Allocation Responses to Elevated CO 2 and Nitrogen: Contrasting Resource Capture Strategies

Estuaries and Coasts

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1028-1035

  White, K P ^a   Langley, J A ^b,c   Cahoon, D R ^d   Megonigal, J P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^c VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Biomass; Chesapeake Bay; Productivity; Sea level rise; Tidal marsh; Turnover

Indexed keywords

BIOMASS ALLOCATION; C3 PLANT; C4 PLANT; CARBON DIOXIDE; INTERTIDAL ENVIRONMENT; ISOTOPIC ANALYSIS; MARSH; NITROGEN; NUMERICAL MODEL; NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY; SOIL NITROGEN;

CHESAPEAKE BAY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84861872376     PISSN: 15592723     EISSN: 15592731     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12237-012-9500-4     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aerts, R. 1989. Above-ground biomass and nutrient dynamics of Calluna vulgaris and Molinia caerulea in a dry heathland. Oikos 56: 31-38.
2. Aerts, R. 2009. Nitrogen supply effects on leaf dynamics and nutrient input into the soil of plant species in a sub-arctic tundra ecosystem. Polar Biology 32(2): 207-214.
3. 2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy. New Phytologist 165: 351-371.
4. 2. Vegetatio 104: 133-143.
5. 2 levels. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21: 167-196.
6. Carter, G. A., and A. K. Knapp. 2001. Leaf optical properties in higher plants: Linking spectral characteristics to stress and chlorophyll concentration. American Journal of Botany 88: 677-684.
7. Craine, J. M. 2009. Resource strategies of wild plants. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8. 2 concentrations on an estuarine marsh. Oecologia 78: 20-26.
9. 2 concentration on saltmarsh vegetation. Functional Ecology 3: 363-371.
10. 4 photosynthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6: 95-99.
11. Emery, N. C., P. J. Ewanchuk, et al. 2001. Competition and salt-marsh plant zonation: Stress tolerators may be dominant competitors. Ecology 82: 2471-2485.
12. 4 plant interactions and tissue nitrogen in a Chesapeake Bay tidal wetland. Global Change Biology 13(1): 202-215.
13. 2 enrichment increases carbon and nitrogen input from fine roots in a deciduous forest. New Phytologist 179: 837-847.
14. Kemp, W. M., W. R. Boynton, et al. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeak Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1-29.
15. 2 levels limited by nitrogen-induced plant species shift. Nature 466: 96-99.
16. Langley, J. A., B. G. Drake, et al. 2002. Extensive belowground carbon storage supports roots and mycorrhizae in regenerating scrub oaks. Oecologia 131: 542-548.
17. 2 stimulates marsh elevation gain, counterbalancing sea-level rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 6182-6186.
18. Langley, J. A., M. V. Sigrist, J. Duls, D. R. Cahoon, J. C. Lynch, and J. P. Megonigal. 2009b. Global change and marsh elevation dynamics: Experimenting where land meets sea and biology meets geology. Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences 38: 391-400.
19. Leonard, L. A., and M. E. Luther. 1995. Flow hydrodynamics in tidal marsh canopies. Limnology and Oceanography 40: 1474-1484.
20. Leonard, L. A., A. C. Hine, et al. 1995. Surficial sediment transport and deposition processes in a Juncus roemerianus marsh, west-central Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 322-336.
21. Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands. Hoboken: Wiley.
22. Morris, J. T. 2006. Competition among marsh macrophytes by means of geomorphological displacement in the intertidal zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 395-402.
23. Morris, J. T., P. V. Sundareshwar, et al. 2002. Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level. Ecology 83: 2869-2877.
24. Mudd, S. M., A. D'Alpaos, and J. T. Morris. 2010. How does vegetation affect sedimentation on tidal marshes? Investigating particle capture and hydrodynamic controls on biologically mediated sedimentation. Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface 115: f3.
25. Nyman, J. A., R. J. Walters, et al. 2006. Marsh vertical accretion via vegetative growth. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 69: 370-380.
26. Palmer, M. R., H. M. Nepf, et al. 2004. Observations of particle capture on a cylindrical collector: Implications for particle accumulation and removal in aquatic systems. Limnology and Oceanography 49: 76-85.
27. 2: On winners, losers and functional groups. New Phytologist 157: 175-198.
28. 2, soil-nitrogen and turnover of fine roots. New Phytologist 129(4): 579-585.
29. Redfield, A. C. 1965. Ontogeny of a salt marsh estuary. Science 147: 50-55.
30. Reed, D. J. 1995. Sediment dynamics, deposition and erosion in temperate salt marshes. Journal of Coastal Research 11: 295-295.
31. Reynolds, H. L., and C. Dantonio. 1996. The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: Opinion. Plant and Soil 185: 75-97.
32. 2 enrichment with emphasis on roots and the rhizosphere. Environmental Pollution 83: 155-189.
33. Ruhl, H. A., and N. B. Rybicki. 2010. Long-term reductions in anthropogenic nutrients link to improvements in Chesapeake Bay habitat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 16566-16570.
34. Saunders, C. J., J. P. Megonigal, et al. 2006. Comparison of belowground biomass in C-3- and C-4-dominated mixed communities in a Chesapeake Bay brackish marsh. Plant and Soil 280: 305-322.
35. Schlapfer, B., and P. Ryser. 1996. Leaf and root turnover of three ecologically contrasting grass species in relation to their performance along a productivity gradient. Oikos 75: 398-406.
36. Stokstad, E. 2009. Obama moves to revitalize Chesapeake Bay restoration. Science 324(5931): 1138-1139.
37. 2 enrichment but not in a controlled environment. New Phytologist 154: 65-75.
38. Tilman, D., and D. Wedin. 1991. Plant traits and resource reduction for 5 grasses growing on a nitrogen gradient. Ecology 72: 685-700.
39. Turner, R. E. 2004. Coastal wetland subsidence arising from local hydrologic manipulations. Estuaries 27: 265-272.
40. Turner, R. E. 2011. Beneath the salt marsh canopy: Loss of soil strength with increasing nutrient loads. Estuaries and Coasts 34: 1084-1093.
41. Valiela, I., and J. M. Teal. 1974. Nutrient limitation in salt marsh vegetation. In Ecology of halophytes, ed. R. J. Reimold and W. H. Queen, 574. New York: Academic Press.
42. 2 concentration: A meta-analytic test of current theories and perceptions. Global Change Biology 5: 723-741.