Geology topics

M. L. Goulden

Publications and source records attributed to M. L. Goulden.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2011

Patterns of NPP, GPP, respiration, and NEP during boreal forest succession

We combined year‐round eddy covariance with biometry and biomass harvests along a chronosequence of boreal forest stands that were 1, 6, 15, 23, 40, ∼74, and ∼154 years old to understand how ecosystem production and carbon stocks change during recovery from stand‐replacing crown fire. Live biomass (C live ) was low in the 1‐ and 6‐year‐old stands, and increased following a logistic pattern to high levels in the 74‐ and 154‐year‐old stands. Carbon stocks in the forest floor (C forest floor ) and coarse woody debris (C CWD ) were comparatively high in the 1‐year‐old stand, reduced in the 6‐ through 40‐year‐old stands, and highest in the 74‐ and 154‐year‐old stands. Total net primary production (TNPP) was reduced in the 1‐ and 6‐year‐old stands, highest in the 23‐ through 74‐year‐old stands and somewhat reduced in the 154‐year‐old stand. The NPP decline at the 154‐year‐old stand was related to increased autotrophic respiration rather than decreased gross primary production (GPP). Net ecosystem production (NEP), calculated by integrated eddy covariance, indicated the 1‐ and 6‐year‐old stands were losing carbon, the 15‐year‐old stand was gaining a small amount of carbon, the 23‐ and 74‐year‐old stands were gaining considerable carbon, and the 40‐ and 154‐year‐old stands were gaining modest amounts of carbon. The recovery from fire was rapid; a linear fit through the NEP observations at the 6‐ and 15‐year‐old stands indicated the transition from carbon source to sink occurred within 11–12 years. The NEP decline at the 154‐year‐old stand appears related to increased losses from C live by tree mortality and possibly from C forest floor by decomposition. Our findings support the idea that NPP, carbon production efficiency (NPP/GPP), NEP, and carbon storage efficiency (NEP/TNPP) all decrease in old boreal stands.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2006

Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods

Recent projections of climatic change have focused a great deal of scientific and public attention on patterns of carbon (C) cycling as well as its controls, particularly the factors that determine whether an ecosystem is a net source or sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Net ecosystem production (NEP), a central concept in C-cycling research, has been used by scientists to represent two different concepts. We propose that NEP be restricted to just one of its two original definitions—the imbalance between gross primary production (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER). We further propose that a new term—net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB)—be applied to the net rate of C accumulation in (or loss from [negative sign]) ecosystems. Net ecosystem carbon balance differs from NEP when C fluxes other than C fixation and respiration occur, or when inorganic C enters or leaves in dissolved form. These fluxes include the leaching loss or lateral transfer of C from the ecosystem; the emission of volatile organic C, methane, and carbon monoxide; and the release of soot and CO 2 from fire. Carbon fluxes in addition to NEP are particularly important determinants of NECB over long time scales. However, even over short time scales, they are important in ecosystems such as streams, estuaries, wetlands, and cities. Recent technological advances have led to a diversity of approaches to the measurement of C fluxes at different temporal and spatial scales. These approaches frequently capture different components of NEP or NECB and can therefore be compared across scales only by carefully specifying the fluxes included in the measurements. By explicitly identifying the fluxes that comprise NECB and other components of the C cycle, such as net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and net biome production (NBP), we can provide a less ambiguous framework for understanding and communicating recent changes in the global C cycle.

Ecosystems↗

USGS1998

Sensitivity of boreal forest carbon balance to soil thaw

We used eddy covariance; gas-exchange chambers; radiocarbon analysis; wood, moss, and soil inventories; and laboratory incubations to measure the carbon balance of a 120-year-old black spruce forest in Manitoba, Canada. The site lost 0.3 ?? 0.5 metric ton of carbon per hectare per year (ton C ha-1 year-1) from 1994 to 1997, with a gain of 0.6 ?? 0.2 ton C ha-1 year-1 in moss and wood offset by a loss of 0.8 ?? 0.5 ton C ha-1 year-1 from the soil. The soil remained frozen most of the year, and the decomposition of organic matter in the soil increased 10-fold upon thawing. The stability of the soil carbon pool (~150 tons C ha-1) appears sensitive to the depth and duration of thaw, and climatic changes that promote thaw are likely to cause a net efflux of carbon dioxide from the site.

Science↗

USGS1997

Comparing nocturnal eddy covariance measurements to estimates of ecosystem respiration made by scaling chamber measurements at six coniferous boreal sites

During the growing season, nighttime ecosystem respiration emits 30–100% of the daytime net photosynthetic uptake of carbon, and therefore measurements of rates and understanding of its control by the environment are important for understanding net ecosystem exchange. Ecosystem respiration can be measured at night by eddy covariance methods, but the data may not be reliable because of low turbulence or other methodological problems. We used relationships between woody tissue, foliage, and soil respiration rates and temperature, with temperature records collected on site to estimate ecosystem respiration rates at six coniferous BOREAS sites at half-hour or 1-hour intervals, and then compared these estimates to nocturnal measurements of CO 2 exchange by eddy covariance. Soil surface respiration was the largest source of CO 2 at all sites (48–71%), and foliar respiration made a large contribution to ecosystem respiration at all sites (25–43%). Woody tissue respiration contributed only 5–15% to ecosystem respiration. We estimated error for the scaled chamber predictions of ecosystem respiration by using the uncertainty associated with each respiration parameter and respiring biomass value. There was substantial uncertainty in estimates of foliar and soil respiration because of the spatial variability of specific respiration rates. In addition, more attention needs to be paid to estimating foliar respiration during the early part of the growing season, when new foliage is growing, and to determining seasonal trends of soil surface respiration. Nocturnal eddy covariance measurements were poorly correlated to scaled chamber estimates of ecosystem respiration ( r 2 =0.06–0.27) and were consistently lower than scaled chamber predictions (by 27% on average for the six sites). The bias in eddy covariance estimates of ecosystem respiration will alter estimates of gross assimilation in the light and of net ecosystem exchange rates over extended periods.

Journal of Geophysical Research D: Atmospheres↗