Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods
Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10021-005-0105-7
复制
发表时间：
2006-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Schulze, E. -D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chapin, F. S., III;Woodwell, G. M.;Schulze, E. -D.
气候变化的最新预测将大量的科学和公众关注放在碳循环及其控制的模式上，尤其是确定生态系统是大气二氧化碳（CO2）的净来源还是下沉的因素。净生态系统生产（NEP）是C-Cycling研究中的一个核心概念，科学家已使用了两个不同的概念。我们建议NEP仅限于其两个原始定义之一 - 总生产（GPP）和生态系统呼吸（ER）之间的不平衡。我们进一步建议将新的术语网络生态系统碳平衡（NECB）应用于（或[负符号]）生态系统中C累积的净率。当C固定和呼吸以外的其他C通量发生时，或者无机C进入或以溶解形式进入或叶子时，净生态系统碳平衡与NEP不同。这些通量包括从生态系统中C的浸出损失或侧向转移；挥发性有机C，甲烷和一氧化碳的排放；以及从火中释放烟灰和二氧化碳。除NEP外，碳通量是长期尺度上NECB的特别重要决定因素。但是，即使在短时间内，它们在诸如溪流，河口，湿地和城市等生态系统中也很重要。最近的技术进步导致了在不同的时间和空间尺度下测量C通量的多种方法。这些方法经常捕获NEP或NECB的不同组件，因此只能通过仔细指定测量中包含的通量来比较范围。通过明确识别包含NECB的通量和C周期的其他组件，例如净生态系统交换（NEE）和净生物群落生产（NBP），我们可以为理解和交流全球C周期的最新变化提供一个较不模棱两可的框架。
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 (CO2). 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 CO2 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.