Evaluating the convergence between eddy-covariance and biometric methods for assessing carbon budgets of forests.

The eddy-covariance (EC) micro-meteorological technique and the ecology-based biometric methods (BM) are the primary methodologies to quantify CO2 exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere (net ecosystem production, NEP) and its two components, ecosystem respiration and gross primary production. Here we show that EC and BM provide different estimates of NEP, but comparable ecosystem respiration and gross primary production for forest ecosystems globally. Discrepancies between methods are not related to environmental or stand variables, but are consistently more pronounced for boreal forests where carbon fluxes are smaller. BM estimates are prone to underestimation of net primary production and overestimation of leaf respiration. EC biases are not apparent across sites, suggesting the effectiveness of standard post-processing procedures. Our results increase confidence in EC, show in which conditions EC and BM estimates can be integrated, and which methodological aspects can improve the convergence between EC and BM.

Fertile forests produce biomass more efficiently.

Trees with sufficient nutrition are known to allocate carbon preferentially to aboveground plant parts. Our global study of 49 forests revealed an even more fundamental carbon allocation response to nutrient availability: forests with high-nutrient availability use 58 ± 3% (mean ± SE; 17 forests) of their photosynthates for plant biomass production (BP), while forests with low-nutrient availability only convert 42 ± 2% (mean ± SE; 19 forests) of annual photosynthates to biomass. This nutrient effect largely overshadows previously observed differences in carbon allocation patterns among climate zones, forest types and age classes. If forests with low-nutrient availability use 16 ± 4% less of their photosynthates for plant growth, what are these used for? Current knowledge suggests that lower BP per unit photosynthesis in forests with low- versus forests with high-nutrient availability reflects not merely an increase in plant respiration, but likely results from reduced carbon allocation to unaccounted components of net primary production, particularly root symbionts.