Letter | Published:

Soil-mediated effects of subambient to increased carbon dioxide on grassland productivity

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 742746 (2012) | Download Citation

Abstract

Grasslands are structured by climate and soils1,2, and are increasingly affected by anthropogenic changes, including rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations3,4. CO2 enrichment can alter grassland ecosystem function both directly and through indirect, soil-specific effects on moisture, nitrogen availability and plant species composition5,6,7,8, potentially leading to threshold change in ecosystem properties9. Here we show that the increase in aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) with CO2 enrichment depends strongly on soil type. We found that the ANPP–CO2 response of grassland was 2.5× greater on two soils with higher plant-available soil moisture and where direct CO2 effects on ANPP were accompanied by indirect CO2 effects on ANPP mediated through an increase in soil moisture or increased dominance of a productive C4 grass. Indirect CO2 effects on ANPP were absent on a third soil that was less responsive to CO2 (1.6×). Unexpectedly6,10, soil N availability changed little with CO2 and did not seem to drive responses in ANPP. On the more responsive soils, the more productive grass C4 was favoured with CO2 enrichment because of greater photosynthetic efficiency. Our results enhance present models of the controls on ecosystem responses to CO2 (refs 7, 8, 11) and demonstrate mechanisms by which soils could cause spatial variation in CO2 effects on ANPP and other ecosystem attributes.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic history of North American vegetation, North of Mexico (Oxford Univ. Press, 1999).

  2. 2.

    , , & Grassland Dynamics: Long-term Ecological Research in Tallgrass Prairie (Oxford Univ. Press, 1998).

  3. 3.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 129–234 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  4. 4.

    et al. Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure (Springer, 2005).

  5. 5.

    et al. Elevated CO2 effects on semi-arid grassland plants in relation to water availability and competition. Funct. Ecol. 24, 1152–1161 (2010).

  6. 6.

    et al. Progressive nitrogen limitation of ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. BioScience 54, 731–739 (2004).

  7. 7.

    , & Application of a conceptual framework to interpret variability in rangeland responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. J. Agr. Sci. 149, 1–14 (2011).

  8. 8.

    , & A framework for assessing ecosystem dynamics in response to chronic resource alterations induced by global change. Ecology 90, 3279–3289 (2009).

  9. 9.

    in Thresholds of Climate Change in Ecosystems (eds Fagre, D. B. et al.) (US Geological Survey, 2010).

  10. 10.

    et al. Long-term enhancement of N availability and plant growth under elevated CO2 in a semi-arid grassland. Funct. Ecol. 22, 975–982 (2008).

  11. 11.

    , & Effects of temperature and soil texture on ANPP in the US Great Plains. Ecology 78, 2628–2631 (1997).

  12. 12.

    , , & Elevated CO2 enhances water relations and productivity and affects gas exchange in C3 and C4 grasses of the Colorado shortgrass steppe. Glob. Change Biol. 7, 451–466 (2001).

  13. 13.

    et al. in Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Koch, G. W. & Mooney, H. A.) 147–162 (Academic, 1996).

  14. 14.

    , , & in Carbon Dioxide, Populations and Communities (eds Korner, C. & Bazzaz, F.) 177–195 (Academic, 1996).

  15. 15.

    & What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. 165, 351–372 (2005).

  16. 16.

    et al. Gas exchange and photosynthetic acclimation over subambient to elevated CO2 in a C-3-C-4 grassland. Glob. Change Biol. 7, 693–707 (2001).

  17. 17.

    , & More Efficient Plants: A Consequence of Rising Atmospheric CO2? Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 48, 609–639 (1997).

  18. 18.

    , , & Soil and plant water relations determine photosynthetic responses of C3 and C4 grasses in a semi-arid ecosystem under elevated CO2. Ann. Bot. 92, 41–52 (2003).

  19. 19.

    et al. Primary productivity and water balance of grassland vegetation on three soils in a continuous CO2 gradient: Initial results from the Lysimeter CO2 Gradient Experiment. Ecosystems 12, 699–714 (2009).

  20. 20.

    , , & Initial response of evapotranspiration from tallgrass prairie vegetation to CO2 at subambient to elevated concentrations. Funct. Ecol. 22, 163–171 (2008).

  21. 21.

    , & CO2-caused change in plant species composition rivals the shift in vegetation between mid-grass and tallgrass prairies. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 700–710 (2011).

  22. 22.

    et al. CO2 enhances productivity, alters species composition, and reduces digestibility of shortgrass steppe vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 14, 208–219 (2004).

  23. 23.

    et al. C4 grasses prosper as carbon dioxide eliminates desiccation in warmed semi-arid grassland. Nature 476, 202–205 (2011).

  24. 24.

    et al. Grassland responses to three years of elevated temperature, CO2, precipitation, and N deposition. Ecol. Monogr. 73, 585–604 (2003).

  25. 25.

    & The Nature and Properties of Soils 13th edn (Prentice Hall, 2002).

  26. 26.

    et al. Nonlinear grassland responses to past and future atmospheric CO2. Nature 417, 279–282 (2002).

  27. 27.

    Structural Equation Modeling and Natural Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

  28. 28.

    , , & Plant Physiological Ecology 2nd edn (Springer, 2008).

  29. 29.

    , & Growth responses of two dominant C4 grass species to altered water availability. Int. J. Plant Sci. 167, 1001–1010 (2006).

  30. 30.

    et al. Photosynthetic irradiance-response in leaves of dwarf coconut palm (Cocos nucifera L. nana’, Arecaceae): Comparison of three models. Sci. Horticulture 109, 101–105 (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support was provided by USDA and the US Department of Energy. Data reported here are available by contacting the first author. We thank A. Gibson, A. Griffith,K. Jones, C. Kolodziejczyk, A. Naranjo and K. Tiner for technical support, J. Morgan and B. Kimball for discussion. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. USDA-ARS Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, Texas 76502, USA

    • Philip A. Fay
    • , Kenneth N. Potter
    •  & H. Wayne Polley
  2. USDA-ARS Agroecosystem Management Research, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583, USA

    • Virginia L. Jin
  3. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

    • Danielle A. Way
    •  & Robert B. Jackson
  4. Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

    • Danielle A. Way
    •  & Robert B. Jackson
  5. Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, USA

    • Richard A. Gill

Authors

  1. Search for Philip A. Fay in:

  2. Search for Virginia L. Jin in:

  3. Search for Danielle A. Way in:

  4. Search for Kenneth N. Potter in:

  5. Search for Richard A. Gill in:

  6. Search for Robert B. Jackson in:

  7. Search for H. Wayne Polley in:

Contributions

H.W.P. conceived the experiment and conducted research, P.A.F. conducted research, analysed the data and wrote the manuscript, V.L.J., D.A.W., R.B.J., K.N.P. and R.A.G. conducted research and contributed to the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip A. Fay.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1573

Further reading