Plants acquire carbon through photosynthesis to sustain biomass production, autotrophic respiration and production of non-structural compounds for multiple purposes1. The fraction of photosynthetic production used for biomass production, the biomass production efficiency2, is a key determinant of the conversion of solar energy to biomass. In forest ecosystems, biomass production efficiency was suggested to be related to site fertility2. Here we present a database of biomass production efficiency from 131 sites compiled from individual studies using harvest, biometric, eddy covariance, or process-based model estimates of production. The database is global, but dominated by data from Europe and North America. We show that instead of site fertility, ecosystem management is the key factor that controls biomass production efficiency in terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, in natural forests, grasslands, tundra, boreal peatlands and marshes, biomass production efficiency is independent of vegetation, environmental and climatic drivers. This similarity of biomass production efficiency across natural ecosystem types suggests that the ratio of biomass production to gross primary productivity is constant across natural ecosystems. We suggest that plant adaptation results in similar growth efficiency in high- and low-fertility natural systems, but that nutrient influxes under managed conditions favour a shift to carbon investment from the belowground flux of non-structural compounds to aboveground biomass.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Luyssaert, S. et al. CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2509–2537 (2007).
Vicca, S. et al. Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently. Ecol. Lett. 15, 520–526 (2012).
Waring, R. H., Landsberg, J. J. & Williams, M. Net primary production of forests: A constant fraction of gross primary production? Tree Physiol. 18, 129–134 (1998).
DeLucia, E. H., Drake, J. E., Thomas, R. B. & Gonzalez-Meler, M. Forest carbon use efficiency: Is respiration a constant fraction of gross primary production? Glob. Change Biol. 13, 1157–1167 (2007).
Forrester, D. I. Growth responses to thinning, pruning and fertiliser application in Eucalyptus plantations: A review of their production ecology and interactions. For. Ecol. Manage. 310, 336–347 (2013).
Aerts, R. & Chapin, F. S. III in Advances in Ecological Research (eds Fittter, A. H. & Raffaelli, D. G.) 1–67 Vol. 30 (Academic, 2000).
Heinemeyer, A. et al. Exploring the “overflow tap” theory: Linking forest soil CO2 fluxes and individual mycorrhizosphere components to photosynthesis. Biogeosciences 9, 79–95 (2012).
Litton, C. M., Raich, J. W. & Ryan, M. G. Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2089–2109 (2007).
Treseder, K. K. A meta-analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytol. 164, 347–355 (2004).
Colgan, W., Carey, A. B., Trappe, J. M., Molina, R. & Thysell, D. Diversity and productivity of hypogeous fungal sporocarps in a variably thinned Douglas-fir forest. Can. J. For. Res. 29, 1259–1268 (1999).
Buée, M., Vairelles, D. & Garbaye, J. Year-round monitoring of diversity and potential metabolic activity of the ectomycorrhizal community in a beech (Fagus silvatica) forest subjected to two thinning regimes. Mycorrhiza 15, 235–245 (2005).
Mosca, E., Montecchio, L., Scattolin, L. & Garbaye, J. Enzymatic activities of three ectomycorrhizal types of Quercus robur L. in relation to tree decline and thinning. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2897–2904 (2007).
Magnani, F. et al. The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests. Nature 447, 848–850 (2007).
Rocha, A. V. & Goulden, M. L. Why is marsh productivity so high? New insights from eddy covariance and biomass measurements in a Typha marsh. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149, 159–168 (2009).
Landsberg, J. J. & Waring, R. H. A generalised model of forest productivity using simplified concepts of radiation-use efficiency, carbon balance and partitioning. For. Ecol. Manage. 95, 209–228 (1997).
Running, S. W. & Coughlan, J. C. A general-model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications. 1. Hydrological balance, canopy gas-exchange and primary production processes. Ecol. Model. 42, 125–154 (1988).
Krinner, G. et al. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB1015 (2005).
Aber, J. D., Melillo, J. M., Nadelhoffer, K. J., McClaugherty, C. A. & Pastor, J. Fine roots turnover in forest ecosystems in relation to quantity and form of nitrogen availability—a comparison of 2 methods. Oecologia 66, 317–321 (1985).
Baret, F., Olioso, A. & Luciani, J. L. Root biomass fraction as a function of growth degree days in wheat. Plant Soil 140, 137–144 (1992).
Batjes, N. H. ISRIC-WISE Global Data Set of Derived Soil Properties on a 0.5 by 0.5 Degree Grid (Version 3.0) Report 2005/08 (ISRIC-World Soil Information, 2005)
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
Dentener, F. J. Global Maps of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition, 1860, 1993, and 2050 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, 2006); http://www.daac.ornl.gov
Galloway, J. N. et al. Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70, 153–226 (2004).
Holland, E. A., Braswell, B. H., Sulzman, J. & Lamarque, J. F. Nitrogen deposition onto the United States and western Europe: Synthesis of observations and models. Ecol. Appl. 15, 38–57 (2005).
Holland, E. A., Braswell, B. H., Sulzman, J. M. & Lamarque, J. F. Nitrogen Deposition onto the United States and Western Europe (Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, 2005); http://www.daac.ornl.gov
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations - the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).
Jones, P. D. & Harris, I. CRU TS3.10: Climatic Research Unit (CRU) Time-Series (TS) Version 3.10 of High Resolution Gridded Data of Month-by-Month Variation in Climate (Jan. 1901–Dec. 2009) (University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, NCAS British Atmospheric Data Centre, 2013).
Schaap, M. G., Leij, F. J. & van Genuchten, M. T. ROSETTA: A computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol. 251, 163–176 (2001).
Campioli, M., Leblans, N. & Michelsen, A. Stem secondary growth of tundra shrubs: Impact of environmental factors and relationships with apical growth. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 44, 16–25 (2012).
Agresti, A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley, 2002).
Team, R. D. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).
Zeileis, A. Object-oriented computation of sandwich estimators. J. Stat. Softw. 16, 9 (2006).
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by Random Forest. R News 2/3, 18–22 (2002).
M.C., S.V. and J.B. are Postdoctoral Fellows of the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO). S.L. is funded by the European Research Council (ERC) Starting grant 242564 (DOFOCO) and M.F.-M. by the Catalan Government’s FI-2013 grants. We also acknowledge the ERC Synergy grant ERC-2013-SyG-610028 IMBALANCE-P. Ancillary data were provided by: G. Alberti and G. Delle Vedove, C. Bernhofer and T. Grünwald, M. Jackowicz-Korczynski, B. Loubet (Environment and Arable Crops Research Unit, INRA, AgroParisTech), A. E. Suyker, M. Vadeboncoeur and D. Zanotelli. This work used eddy covariance data acquired by FLUXNET and, in particular, by the following networks: AmeriFlux (US Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Carbon Program (DE-FG02-04ER63917 and DE-FG02-04ER63911)), AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada (supported by CFCAS, NSERC, BIOCAP, Environment Canada, and NRCan), GreenGrass, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux, TCOS-Siberia and USCCC. We acknowledge the financial support to the eddy covariance data harmonization provided by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Université Laval and Environment Canada, and US Department of Energy, and the database development and technical support from Berkeley Water Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Microsoft Research eScience, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of California-Berkeley, and University of Virginia. For sites at Kellogg Biological Station, financial support was provided by the DOE Office of Science (DE-FC02-07ER64494) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DE-AC05-76RL01830).
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Campioli, M., Vicca, S., Luyssaert, S. et al. Biomass production efficiency controlled by management in temperate and boreal ecosystems. Nature Geosci 8, 843–846 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2553
Geophysical Research Letters (2021)
Towards comparable assessment of the soil nutrient status across scales—Review and development of nutrient metrics
Global Change Biology (2020)
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology (2020)
Quantitative analysis of the contributions of land use change and CO2 fertilization to carbon use efficiency on the Tibetan Plateau
Science of The Total Environment (2020)