Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods

Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2006. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Springer for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Ecosystems 9 (2006): 1041-1050, doi:10.1007/s10021-005-0105-7.Recent patterns and projections of climatic change have focused increased scientific and public attention on patterns of carbon (C) cycling and its controls, particularly the factors that determine whether an ecosystem is a net source or sink of atmospheric CO2. Net ecosystem production (NEP), a central concept in C-cycling research, has been used to represent two different concepts by C-cycling scientists. 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), and 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. NECB 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 leaching loss or lateral transfer of C from the ecosystem; emission of volatile organic C, methane, and carbon monoxide; and soot and CO2 from fire. C 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 measuring 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 provide a less ambiguous framework for understanding and communicating recent changes in the global C cycle. Key words: Net ecosystem production, net ecosystem carbon balance, gross primary production, ecosystem respiration, autotrophic respiration, heterotrophic respiration, net ecosystem exchange, net biome production, net primary production

No effects of experimental warming but contrasting seasonal patterns for soil peptidase and glycosidase enzymes in a sub-arctic peat bog

The nature of linkages between soil C and N cycling is important in the context of terrestrial ecosystem responses to global environmental change. Extracellular enzymes produced by soil microorganisms drive organic matter decomposition, and are considered sensitive indicators of soil responses to environmental variation. We investigated the response of eight hydrolytic soil enzymes (four peptidases and four glycosidases) to experimental warming in a long-term climate manipulation experiment in a sub-arctic peat bog, to determine to what extent the response of these two functional groups are similar. We found no significant effect of experimental spring and summer warming and/or winter snow addition on either the potential activity or the temperature sensitivity (of Vmax) of any of the enzymes. However, strong and contrasting seasonal patterns in both variables were observed. All of the peptidases, as well as alpha-glucosidase, had lower potential activity at the end of summer (August) compared to the beginning (June). Conversely, beta-glucosidase had significantly higher potential activity in August. Peptidases had consistently higher temperature sensitivities in June compared to August, while all four glycosidases showed the opposite pattern. Our results suggest that warming effects on soil enzymes are small compared to seasonal differences, which are most likely mediated by the seasonality of substrate supply and microbial nutrient demand. Furthermore the contrasting seasonal patterns for glycosidases and peptidases suggest that enzyme-based models of soil processes need to allow for potential divergence between the production and activity of these two enzyme functional groups.