Blog List

Monday 28 November 2016

Forest Processes and Global Environmental Change: Predicting the Effects of Individual and Multiple Stressors We review the effects of several rapidly changing environmental drivers on ecosystem function, discuss interactions among them, and summarize predicted changes in productivity, carbon storage, and water balance

Author


  • Raymond J. Drapek

    • ↵John Aber (e-mail: john.aber@unh.edu) is a professor at the Complex Systems Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.
    • ↵Ron Neilson is a bioclimatologist with the USDA Forest Service, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97333.
    • ↵Steve McNulty is project leader at the Southern Global Change Program, USDA Forest Service, 1509 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606.
    • ↵James Lenihan, Dominique Bachelet, and Raymond Drapek are research associate, associate professor, and faculty research assistant, respectively, at Oregon State University, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97333.

    References cited

    1. ↵ 
      1. Aber J. D., 
      2. Driscoll C. T.
      . 1997. Effects of land use, climate variation and N deposition on N cycling and C storage in northern hardwood forests. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 11:639–648.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    2. ↵ 
      1. Aber J. D., 
      2. Freuder R.
      . Variation among solar radiation data sets for the eastern U.S. and its effects on predictions of forest production and water yield. Climate Research. Forthcoming.
      Google Scholar
    3. ↵ 
      1. Aber J. D., 
      2. Magill A., 
      3. McNulty S. G., 
      4. Boone R. D., 
      5. Nadelhoffer K. J., 
      6. Downs M., 
      7. Hallett R.
      . 1995. Forest biogeochemistry and primary production altered by nitrogen saturation. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 85:1665–1670.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. Aber J. D., 
      2. Ollinger S. V., 
      3. Federer C. A., 
      4. Reich P. B., 
      5. Goulden M. L., 
      6. Kicklighter D. W., 
      7. Melillo J. M., 
      8. Lathrop R. G.
      . 1995. Predicting the effects of climate change on water yield and forest production in the northeastern U.S. Climate Research5:207–222.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    5. ↵ 
      1. Aber J. D., 
      2. Reich P. B., 
      3. Goulden M. L.
      . 1996. Extrapolating leaf CO2 exchange to the canopy: A generalized model of forest photosynthesis validated by eddy correlation. Oecologia 106:257–265.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    6. ↵ 
      1. Aber J. D., 
      2. McDowell W. H., 
      3. Nadelhoffer K. J., 
      4. Magill A., 
      5. Berntson G., 
      6. KamakeaM., 
      7. McNulty S. G., 
      8. Currie W., 
      9. Rustad L., 
      10. Fernandez I.
      . 1998. Nitrogen saturation in temperate forest ecosystems: hypotheses revisited. BioScience 48:921–934.
      FREE Full Text
    7. ↵ 
      1. Allen T. F. H., 
      2. Hoekstra T. W.
      . 1990. The confusion between scale-defined levels and conventional levels of organization in ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science1:5–12.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    8. ↵ 
      1. Bachelet D., 
      2. Neilson R. P., 
      3. Lenihan J. M., 
      4. Drapek R. J.
      . 2001. Climate change effects on vegetation distribution and carbon budget in the US. Ecosystems4:164–185.
      CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    9. ↵ 
      1. Bassow S. L., 
      2. McConnaughay K. D. M., 
      3. Bazzaz F. A.
      . 1994. The response of temperate tree seedlings grown in elevated CO2 to extreme temperature events.Ecological Applications 4:593–603.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    10. ↵ 
      1. Bazzaz F. A.
       1990. The response of natural ecosystems to the rising global CO2levels. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21:167–196.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    11. ↵ 
      1. Berntson G. M., 
      2. Bazzaz F. A.
      . 1998. Regenerating temperate forest mesocosms in elevated CO2: Belowground growth and nitrogen cycling. Oecologia113:115–125.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    12. ↵ 
      1. Boer G. J., 
      2. Denis B.
      . 1997. Numerical convergence of the dynamics of a GCM.Climate Dynamics 13:359–372.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    13. ↵ 
      1. Brooks J. R., 
      2. Flanagan L. B., 
      3. Ehleringer J. R.
      . 1998. Responses of boreal conifers to climate fluctuations: Indications from tree ring widths and carbon isotope analyses. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28:524–533.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    14. ↵ 
      1. Castro M., 
      2. Steudler P. A., 
      3. Melillo J. M., 
      4. Aber J. D., 
      5. Bowden R. D.
      . 1995. Factors controlling atmospheric methane consumption by temperate forest soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9:1–10.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    15. ↵ 
      1. Constable J. V. H., 
      2. Taylor G. E.
      . 1997. Modeling the effects of elevated tropospheric O3 on two varieties of Pinus ponderosa. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27:527–537.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    16. ↵ 
      1. Cotrufo M. F., 
      2. Briones M. J. I., 
      3. Ineson P.
      . 1998. Elevated CO2 affects field decomposition rate and palatability of tree leaf litter: Importance of changes in substrate quality. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30:1565–1571.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    17. ↵ 
      1. Crookshanks M., 
      2. Taylor G., 
      3. Broadmeadow M.
      . 1998. Elevated CO2 and tree root-growth contrasting responses in Fraxinus excelsior, Quercus petraea, and Pinus sylvestris. New Phytologist 138:241–250.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    18. ↵ 
      1. Cullen M. J. P.
       1993. The unified forecast/climate model. Meteorological Magazine 122:81–95.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    19. ↵ 
      1. Curtis P. S., 
      2. Wang X. Z.
      . 1998. A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on woody plant mass, form, and physiology. Oecologia 113:299–313.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    20. ↵ 
      1. Dale V. H.
       1997. The relationship between land-use change and climate change.Ecological Applications 7:753–769.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    21. ↵ 
      1. Daly C., 
      2. Bachelet D., 
      3. Lenihan J. M., 
      4. Parton W., 
      5. Neilson R. P., 
      6. Ojima D.
      . 2000. Dynamic simulations of tree-grass interactions for global change studies. Ecological Applications 10:449–469.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    22. ↵ 
      1. Daubenmire R.
       1978. Plant Geography with Special Reference to North America. New York: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    23. ↵ 
      1. DeLucia E. H.
       1999. Net primary production of a forest ecosystem with experimental CO2 enrichment. Science 284:1177–1179.
      Abstract/FREE Full Text
    24. ↵ 
      1. Eamus D., 
      2. Jarvis P. G.
      . 1989. The direct effects of increase in the global atmospheric CO2 concentration on natural and commercial temperate trees and forests. Advances in Ecological Research 19:1–55.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    25. ↵ 
      1. Egli P., 
      2. Körner C.
      . 1997. Growth responses to elevated CO2 and soil quality in beech-spruce model ecosystems. Oecologica 18:343–349.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    26. ↵ 
      1. Foley J. A., 
      2. Prentice I. C., 
      3. Ramankutty N., 
      4. Levis S., 
      5. Pollard D., 
      6. Sitch S., 
      7. Haxeltine A.
      . 1996. An integrated biosphere model of land surface processes, terrestrial carbon balance, and vegetation dynamics. Global Biogeochemical Cycles10:603–628.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    27. ↵ 
      1. Friend A. D., 
      2. Stevens A. K., 
      3. Knox R. G., 
      4. Cannell M. G. R.
      . 1997. A process-based, terrestrial biosphere model of ecosystem dynamics (Hybrid V3.0). Ecological Modelling 95:249–287.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    28. ↵ 
      1. Galloway J. N.
       1995. Acid deposition: Perspectives in time and space. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 85:15–24.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    29. ↵ 
      1. Gates W. L., 
      2. Henderson-Sellers A., 
      3. Boer G. J.
      . 1996. Climate models—evaluation. Pages 235–284 in Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K, eds. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    30. ↵ 
      1. Godbold D. L., 
      2. Berntson G. M., 
      3. Bazzaz F. A.
      . 1997. Growth and mycorrhizal colonization of three North American tree species under elevated atmospheric CO2.New Phytologist 137:433–440.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    31. ↵ 
      1. Goulden M. L., 
      2. Munger J. M., 
      3. Fan S. M., 
      4. Daube B. C., 
      5. Wofsy S. C.
      . 1996. Exchange of carbon dioxide by a deciduous forest: Response to interannual climate variability. Science 271:1576–1578.
      Abstract
    32. ↵ 
      1. Graumlich L. J., 
      2. Brubaker L. B.
      . 1995. Long-term records of growth and distribution of conifers: Integration of paleoecology and physiological ecology. Pages 37–62 in Smith WK, Hinckley TM, eds. Ecophysiology of Coniferous Forests. San Diego: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    33. ↵ 
      1. Guak S., 
      2. Olsyzk D. M., 
      3. Fuchigani L. H., 
      4. Tingey D. T.
      . 1998. Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on cold hardiness and spring bud burst and growth in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Tree Physiology 18:671–679.
      Abstract/FREE Full Text
    34. ↵ 
      1. Hansen A. J., 
      2. Neilson R. P., 
      3. Dale V. H., 
      4. Flather C. H., 
      5. Iverson L. R., 
      6. Currie D. J., 
      7. Shafer S., 
      8. Cook R., 
      9. Bartlein P. J.
      . 2001. Global change in forests: Responses of species, communities, and biomes. BioScience 51:765–779.
      FREE Full Text
    35. ↵ 
      1. Haxeltine A., 
      2. Prentice I. C.
      . 1996. BIOME3: An equilibrium terrestrial biosphere model based on ecophysiological constraints, resource availability and competition among plant functional types. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 10:693–710.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    36. ↵ 
      1. Hunt E. R. Jr., 
      2. Running S. W.
      . 1992. Simulated dry matter yields for aspen and spruce stands in the North American boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 18:126–133.
      Google Scholar
    37. ↵ 
      1. Irland L. C., 
      2. Adams D., 
      3. Alig R., 
      4. Betz C. J., 
      5. Chen C-C., 
      6. Hutchins M., 
      7. McCarl B. A., 
      8. Skog K., 
      9. Sohngen B. L.
      . 2001. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of climate change on US forests, wood-product markets, and forest recreation. BioScience51:753–764.
      FREE Full Text
    38. ↵ 
      1. Iverson L. R., 
      2. Prasad A. M.
      . 1998. Predicting the abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States. Ecological Monographs68:465–485.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    39. ↵ 
      1. Jacoby G. C., 
      2. Darrigo R. D.
      . 1997. Tree rings, carbon dioxide, and climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94:8350–8353.
      Abstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵ 
      1. Johnson D. W., 
      2. Thomas R. B., 
      3. Griffin K. L., 
      4. Tissue D. T., 
      5. Ball J. T., 
      6. Strain B. R., 
      7. Walker R. F.
      . 1998. Effects of carbon dioxide and nitrogen on growth and nitrogen uptake in ponderosa and loblolly pine. Journal of Environmental Quality27:414–425.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    41. ↵ 
      1. Kerstiens G.
       1998. Shade tolerance as a predictor of responses to elevated CO2in trees. Physiologia Plantarum 102:472–480.
      CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    42. ↵ 
      1. Kingsolver J. G., 
      2. Huey R. B., 
      3. Kareiva P. M.
      . 1993. An agenda for population and community research on global change. Pages 480–486 in Vaveira PM, Kingsolver JG, Huey RB, eds. Biotic Interactions and Global Change. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer.
      Google Scholar
    43. ↵ 
      1. Kozlowski T. T., 
      2. Pallardy S. G.
      . 1997. Growth Control in Woody Plants. San Diego: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    44. ↵ 
      1. Kruger E. L., 
      2. Volin J. C., 
      3. Lindroth R. L.
      . 1998. Influences of atmospheric CO2enrichment on the responses of sugar maple and trembling aspen to defoliation.New Phytologist 140:85–94.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    45. ↵ 
      1. Lambers H., 
      2. Chapin F. S. III, 
      3. Pons T. L.
      . 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York: Springer.
      Google Scholar
    46. ↵ 
      1. Landolt W., 
      2. Pfenninger I.
      . 1997. The effect of elevated CO2 and soil type on nonstructural carbohydrates in beech leaves and Norway spruce needles growing in model ecosystems. Oecologica 18:351–359.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    47. ↵ 
      1. Langner J., 
      2. Rodhe H.
      . 1991. A global three-dimensional model of the tropospheric sulfur cycle. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 13:225–238.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    48. ↵ 
      1. Laurence J. A., 
      2. Kohut R. J., 
      3. Amundson R. G.
      . 1993. Use of TREGRO to simulate the effects of ozone on the growth of red spruce seedlings. Forest Science39:453–464.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    49. ↵ 
      1. Lenihan J. M., 
      2. Daly C., 
      3. Bachelet D., 
      4. Neilson R. P.
      . 1998. Simulation of broad-scale fire severity in a dynamic global vegetation model. Northwest Science72:91–103.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    50. ↵ 
      1. Linn D. M., 
      2. Doran J. W.
      . 1984. Effects of water-filled pore space on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide production in tilled and nontilled soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48:1267–1272.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    51. ↵ 
      1. Loehle C.
       1998. Height growth rate tradeoffs determine northern and southern range limits for trees. Journal of Biogeography 25:735–742.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    52. ↵ 
      1. Loehle C., 
      2. LaBlanc D.
      . 1996. Model based assessments of climate change effects on forests: A critical review. Ecological Modelling 90:1–31.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    53. ↵ 
      1. Long S. P., 
      2. Osborne C. P., 
      3. Humphries S. W.
      . 1996. Photosynthesis, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and climate change. Pages 121–159 in Breymeyer AI, Hall DO, Melillo JM, Ågren GI, eds. Global Change: Effects on Coniferous Forests and Grasslands. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
      Google Scholar
    54. ↵ 
      1. Luxmoore R. J., 
      2. Pearson S. M., 
      3. Tharp M. L., 
      4. McLaughlin S. B.
      . 1997. Scaling up physiological responses of loblolly pine to ambient ozone exposure under natural weather variations. Pages 407–428 in Mickler RA, Fox S, eds. The Productivity and Sustainability of Southern Forest Ecosystems in a Changing Environment. New York: Springer-Verlag.
      Google Scholar
    55. ↵ 
      1. Manabe S., 
      2. Wetherald R. T., 
      3. Mitchell J. F. B., 
      4. Meleshko V., 
      5. Tokioka T.
      . 1990. Equilibrium climate change and its implications for the future. Pages 131–172 in Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ, eds. Climate Change: The IPCCScientific Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    56. ↵ 
      1. McGuire A. D., 
      2. Melillo J. M., 
      3. Joyce L. A., 
      4. Kicklighter D. W., 
      5. Grace A. L., 
      6. Moore B., 
      7. Vorosmarty C. J.
      . 1992. Interactions between carbon and nitrogen dynamics in estimating net primary productivity for potential vegetation in North America.Global Biogeochemical Cycles 6:101–124.
      CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    57. ↵ 
      1. McNulty S.
       2000. Application of linked regional scale growth, biogeography and economic models for southeastern United States pine forests. World Resources Review 12:298–320.
      Google Scholar
    58. ↵ 
      1. Melillo J. M., 
      2. McGuire A. D., 
      3. Kicklighter D. W., 
      4. Moore B., 
      5. Vorosmarty C. J., 
      6. Schloss A. L.
      . 1993. Global change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature363:234–240.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    59. ↵ 
      1. Mohren G. M. J., 
      2. Kramer K., 
      3. Sabate S.
      . 1996. Impacts of Global Change on Tree Physiology and Forest Ecosystems. Boston: Kluwer.
      Google Scholar
    60. ↵ 
      1. Neilson R. P.
       1995. A model for predicting continental-scale vegetation distribution and water balance. Ecological Applications 5:362–385.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    61. ↵ 
      1. Neilson R. P., 
      2. Marks D.
      . 1994. A global perspective of regional vegetation and hydrologic sensitivities from climate change. Journal of Vegetation Science5:715–730.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    62. ↵ 
      1. Neilson R. P., 
      2. Drapek R. J.
      . 1998. Potentially complex biosphere responses to transient global warming. Global Change Biology 4:505–521.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    63. ↵ 
      1. Neilson R. P., 
      2. Running S. W.
      . 1996. Global dynamic vegetation modeling: Coupling biogeochemistry and biogeography models. Pages 451–465 in Walker B, Steffen W, eds. Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    64. ↵ 
      1. Norby R. J., 
      2. Gunderson C. A., 
      3. Wullschleger S. D., 
      4. O'Neill E. G., 
      5. McCracken M. K.
      . 1992. Productivity and compensatory responses of yellow poplar trees in elevated CO2. Nature 357:322–324.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    65. ↵ 
      1. Ollinger S. V., 
      2. Aber J. D., 
      3. Reich P. B.
      . 1997. Simulating ozone effects on forest productivity: Interactions among leaf-, canopy- and stand-level processes.Ecological Applications 7:1237–1251.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    66. ↵ 
      1. Ollinger S. V., 
      2. Aber J. D., 
      3. Federer C. A.
      . 1998. Estimating regional forest productivity and water yield using an ecosystem model linked to a GIS. Landscape Ecology 13:323–334.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    67. ↵ 
      1. Pan Y.
       1998. Modeled responses of terrestrial ecosystems to elevated atmospheric CO2: A comparison of simulations by the biogeochemistry models of the Vegetation/Ecosystem Modeling and Analysis Project (VEMAP). Oecologia114:389–404.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    68. ↵ 
      1. Parton W. J., 
      2. Stewart J. W. B., 
      3. Cole C. V.
      . 1988. Dynamics of C, N, S and P in grassland soils: A model. Biogeochemistry 5:109–132.
      CrossRefGoogle Scholar
    69. ↵ 
      1. Parton W. J.
       1993. Observations and modeling of biomass and soil organic matter dynamics for the grassland biome worldwide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles7:785–809.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    70. ↵ 
      1. Prentice K. C.
       1990. Bioclimatic distribution of vegetation for General Circulation Model studies. Journal of Geophysical Research 95:811–830.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    71. ↵ 
      1. Pritchard S. G., 
      2. Mosjidis C., 
      3. Peterson C. M., 
      4. Runion G. B., 
      5. Rogers H. H.
      . 1998. Anatomical and morphological alterations in longleaf pine needles resulting from growth in elevated CO2: Interaction with soil resource availability. International Journal of Plant Sciences 159:1002–1009.
      Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    72. ↵ 
      1. Raich J. W., 
      2. Rastetter E. B., 
      3. Melillo J. M., 
      4. Kicklighter D. W., 
      5. Steudler P. A., 
      6. Peterson B. J., 
      7. Grace A. L., 
      8. Moore B. M., 
      9. Vorosmarty C. J.
      . 1991. Potential net primary productivity in South America: Application of a global model. Ecological Applications 1:399–429.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    73. ↵ 
      1. Reader C., 
      2. Boer G. J.
      . 1998. The modification of greenhouse gas warming by the direct effect of sulphate aerosols. Climate Dynamics 14:593–608.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    74. ↵ 
      1. Reich P. B.
       1987. Quantifying plant response to ozone: A unifying theory. Tree Physiology 3:63–91.
      Abstract
    75. ↵ 
      1. Reich P. B., 
      2. Amundson R. G.
      . 1984. Low level O3 and/or SO2 exposure causes a linear decline in soybean yield. Environmental Pollution (Series A) 34:345–355.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    76. ↵ 
      1. Reily R. H., 
      2. Vitousek P. M.
      . 1995. Nutrient dynamics and nitrogen trace gas flux during ecosystem development in montane rain forest. Ecology 76:292–304.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. Retzlaff W. A., 
      2. Weinstein D. A., 
      3. Laurence J. A., 
      4. Gollands B.
      . Simulating the growth of a 160-year-old sugar maple (Acer saccharum) tree with and without ozone exposure using the TREGRO model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 783–789.
      Google Scholar
    78. ↵ 
      1. Rey A., 
      2. Jarvis P. G.
      . 1998. Long-term photosynthetic acclimation to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration in young birch (Betula pendula) trees. Tree Physiology 18:441–450.
      Abstract
    79. ↵ 
      1. Roth S., 
      2. McDonald E. P., 
      3. Lindroth R. L.
      . 1997. Atmospheric CO2 and soil water availability consequences for tree-insect interactions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27:1281–1290.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    80. ↵ 
      1. Running S. W., 
      2. Hunt E. R.
      . 1993. Generalization of a forest ecosystem process model for other biomes, BIOME-BGC, and an application for global-scale models. Pages 141–158 in Ehleringer JR, Field CB, eds. Scaling Physiological Processes: Leaf to Globe. San Diego: Academic Press.
      Google Scholar
    81. ↵ 
      1. Saxe H., 
      2. Ellsworth D. S., 
      3. Heath J.
      . 1998. Tree and forest functioning in an enriched CO2 atmosphere. New Phytologist 139:395–436.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    82. ↵ 
      1. Scherzer A. J., 
      2. Rebbeck J., 
      3. Boerner R. E. J.
      . 1998. Foliar nitrogen dynamics and decompostition of yellow-poplar and eastern white pine during four seasons of exposure to elevated ozone and carbon dioxide. Forest Ecology and Management109:355–366.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    83. ↵ 
      1. Schlesinger M. E., 
      2. Zhao Z. C.
      . 1989. Seasonal climatic change introduced by double CO2 as simulated by the OSU atmospheric GCM/mixed-layer ocean model.Journal of Climate 2:429–495.
      Google Scholar
    84. ↵ 
      1. Schulze E. D.
       1989. Air pollution and forest decline in a spruce (Picea abies) forest. Science 244:776–783.
      Abstract/FREE Full Text
    85. ↵ 
      1. Skoop J., 
      2. Jawson M. D., 
      3. Doran J. W.
      . 1990. Steady-state aerobic microbial activity as a function of soil water content. Soil Science Society of America Journal54:1619–1625.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    86. ↵ 
      1. Thornley J. H. M., 
      2. Cannell M. G. R.
      . Temperate forest responses to carbon dioxide, temperature and nitrogen: A model analysis. Plant, Cell and Environment 19: 1331–1348.
      Google Scholar
    87. ↵ 
      1. Tjoelker M. G., 
      2. Volin J. C., 
      3. Oleksyn J., 
      4. Reich P. B.
      . 1995. Interaction of ozone pollution and light effects on photosynthesis in a forest canopy experiment. Plant, Cell and Environment 18:895–905.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    88. ↵ 
      1. Tjoelker M. G., 
      2. Oleksyn J., 
      3. Reich P. B.
      . 1998a. Seedlings of five boreal tree species differ in acclimation of net photosynthesis to elevated CO2 and temperature. Tree Physiology 18:715–726.
      Abstract
    89. ↵ 
      1. Tjoelker M. G., 
      2. Oleksyn J., 
      3. Reich P. B.
      . 1998b. Temperature and ontogeny mediate growth response to elevated CO2 in seedlings of five boreal tree species.New Phytologist 140:197–210.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    90. ↵ 
      1. VEMAP members
      1995. Vegetation/ecosystem modeling and analysis project: Comparing biogeography and biogeochemistry models in a continental-scale study of terrestrial ecosystem responses to climate change and CO2 doubling. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9:407–437.
      CrossRefWeb of Science
    91. ↵ 
      1. Wayne P. M., 
      2. Reekie E. G., 
      3. Bazzaz F. A.
      . 1998. Elevated CO2 ameliorates birch response to high temperature and frost stress: Implications for modeling climate-induced geographic range shifts. Oecologia 114:335–342.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
      1. Weinstein D. A., 
      2. Yanai R. D.
      . Integrating the effects of simultaneous stresses on plants using the simulation model TREGRO. Journal of Environmental Quality 23: 418–428.
      Google Scholar
    93. ↵ 
      1. Wetherald R. T., 
      2. Manabe S., 
      3. Cubasch U., 
      4. Cess R. D.
      . 1990. Processes and modeling. Pages 69–91 in Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ, eds. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    94. ↵ 
      1. Whittaker R. H.
       1975. Communities and Ecosystems. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.
      Google Scholar
    95. ↵ 
      1. Will R. E., 
      2. Teskey R. O.
      . 1997a. Effect of elevated carbon dioxide concentration and root restriction on net photosynthesis, water relations and foliar carbohydrate status of loblolly pine seedlings. Tree Physiology 17:655–661.
      Abstract
    96. ↵ 
      1. Will R. E., 
      2. Teskey R. O.
      . 1997b. Effect of irradiance and vapor-pressure deficit on stomatal response to CO2 enrichment of four tree species. Journal of Experimental Botany 48:2095–2102.
      Abstract/FREE Full Text
    97. ↵ 
      1. Williams R. S., 
      2. Lincoln D. E., 
      3. Norby R. J.
      . 1998. Leaf age effects of elevated CO2-grown white oak leaves on spring-feeding Lepidopterans. Global Change Biology 4:235–246.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    98. ↵ 
      1. Wilson C. A., 
      2. Mitchell J. F. B.
      . 1987. A doubled CO2 climate sensitivity experiment with a global climate model including a simple ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research 92:13315–13343.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    99. ↵ 
      1. Woodward F. I.
       1987. Climate and Plant Distribution. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
      Google Scholar
    100. ↵ 
      1. Woodward F. I., 
      2. Smith T. M.
      . 1994. Global photosynthesis and stomatal conductance: Modeling the controls by soil and climate. Botanical Research20:1–41.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    101. ↵ 
      1. Woodward F. I., 
      2. Smith T. M., 
      3. Emanuel W. R.
      . 1995. A global land primary productivity and phytogeography model. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 9:471–490.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    102. ↵ 
      1. Wright R. F., 
      2. Rasmussen L.
      . 1998. Introduction to the NITREX and EXMAN projects. Forest Ecology and Management 101:1–8.
      CrossRefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

    For further details log on website :
    http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/9/735.full
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Advantages and Disadvantages of Fasting for Runners

    Author BY   ANDREA CESPEDES  Food is fuel, especially for serious runners who need a lot of energy. It may seem counterintuiti...