Estimating uncertainty in ecosystem budget calculations

© The Authors, 2010. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. The definitive version was published in Ecosystems 13 (2010): 239-248, doi:10.1007/s10021-010-9315-8.Ecosystem nutrient budgets often report values for pools and fluxes without any indication of uncertainty, which makes it difficult to evaluate the significance of findings or make comparisons across systems. We present an example, implemented in Excel, of a Monte Carlo approach to estimating error in calculating the N content of vegetation at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire. The total N content of trees was estimated at 847 kg ha−1 with an uncertainty of 8%, expressed as the standard deviation divided by the mean (the coefficient of variation). The individual sources of uncertainty were as follows: uncertainty in allometric equations (5%), uncertainty in tissue N concentrations (3%), uncertainty due to plot variability (6%, based on a sample of 15 plots of 0.05 ha), and uncertainty due to tree diameter measurement error (0.02%). In addition to allowing estimation of uncertainty in budget estimates, this approach can be used to assess which measurements should be improved to reduce uncertainty in the calculated values. This exercise was possible because the uncertainty in the parameters and equations that we used was made available by previous researchers. It is important to provide the error statistics with regression results if they are to be used in later calculations; archiving the data makes resampling analyses possible for future researchers. When conducted using a Monte Carlo framework, the analysis of uncertainty in complex calculations does not have to be difficult and should be standard practice when constructing ecosystem budgets

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

Phylogenetic Constraints Do Not Explain the Rarity of Nitrogen-Fixing Trees in Late-Successional Temperate Forests

Symbiotic nitrogen (N)-fixing trees are rare in late-successional temperate forests, even though these forests are often N limited. Two hypotheses could explain this paradox. The 'phylogenetic constraints hypothesis' states that no late-successional tree taxa in temperate forests belong to clades that are predisposed to N fixation. Conversely, the 'selective constraints hypothesis' states that such taxa are present, but N-fixing symbioses would lower their fitness. Here we test the phylogenetic constraints hypothesis.Using U.S. forest inventory data, we derived successional indices related to shade tolerance and stand age for N-fixing trees, non-fixing trees in the 'potentially N-fixing clade' (smallest angiosperm clade that includes all N fixers), and non-fixing trees outside this clade. We then used phylogenetically independent contrasts (PICs) to test for associations between these successional indices and N fixation. Four results stand out from our analysis of U.S. trees. First, N fixers are less shade-tolerant than non-fixers both inside and outside of the potentially N-fixing clade. Second, N fixers tend to occur in younger stands in a given geographical region than non-fixers both inside and outside of the potentially N-fixing clade. Third, the potentially N-fixing clade contains numerous late-successional non-fixers. Fourth, although the N fixation trait is evolutionarily conserved, the successional traits are relatively labile.These results suggest that selective constraints, not phylogenetic constraints, explain the rarity of late-successional N-fixing trees in temperate forests. Because N-fixing trees could overcome N limitation to net primary production if they were abundant, this study helps to understand the maintenance of N limitation in temperate forests, and therefore the capacity of this biome to sequester carbon