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

M. Campioli (), Y. Malhi, S. Vicca, S. Luyssaert, D. Papale, J. Peñuelas, M. Reichstein, M. Migliavacca, M. A. Arain and I. A. Janssens
Additional contact information
M. Campioli: Centre of Excellence PLECO (Plant and Vegetation Ecology), University of Antwerp
Y. Malhi: Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford
S. Vicca: Centre of Excellence PLECO (Plant and Vegetation Ecology), University of Antwerp
S. Luyssaert: LSCE CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Orme des Merisiers
D. Papale: DIBAF, University of Tuscia
J. Peñuelas: CSIC, Global Ecology Unit, CREAF-CEAB-CSIC-UAB, Cerdanyola del Vallès
M. Reichstein: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
M. Migliavacca: Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
M. A. Arain: School of Geography & Earth Sciences, McMaster University
I. A. Janssens: Centre of Excellence PLECO (Plant and Vegetation Ecology), University of Antwerp

Nature Communications, 2016, vol. 7, issue 1, 1-12

Abstract: Abstract 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.

Date: 2016
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13717 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:7:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1038_ncomms13717

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13717

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().