Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Biomass production efficiency controlled by management in temperate and boreal ecosystems

Abstract

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: BPE of natural and managed ecosystems.
Figure 2: Relationship between BP and GPP of natural and managed ecosystems.

References

  1. 1

    Luyssaert, S. et al. CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2509–2537 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Vicca, S. et al. Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently. Ecol. Lett. 15, 520–526 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Aerts, R. & Chapin, F. S. III in Advances in Ecological Research (eds Fittter, A. H. & Raffaelli, D. G.) 1–67 Vol. 30 (Academic, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Litton, C. M., Raich, J. W. & Ryan, M. G. Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 2089–2109 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Treseder, K. K. A meta-analysis of mycorrhizal responses to nitrogen, phosphorus, and atmospheric CO2 in field studies. New Phytol. 164, 347–355 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Magnani, F. et al. The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests. Nature 447, 848–850 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Krinner, G. et al. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB1015 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    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)

  21. 21

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    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

  23. 23

    Galloway, J. N. et al. Nitrogen cycles: Past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70, 153–226 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    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

  26. 26

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Agresti, A. An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (Wiley, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Team, R. D. C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Zeileis, A. Object-oriented computation of sandwich estimators. J. Stat. Softw. 16, 9 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. Classification and regression by Random Forest. R News 2/3, 18–22 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.C., S.V., S.L. and I.A.J. conceived the paper; M.C. performed the analyses and wrote the text; S.L. provided ORCHIDEE simulations; J.B. developed the multinomial ordered logistic regressions and the statistics; E.C., D.O., D.P., P.F.S., X.W. and T.Z. provided field data or contributed to data collection from external databases and literature; all authors contributed substantially to discussions and revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Campioli.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 4250 kb)

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (TXT 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing