Next Article in Journal
Differential Responses of Soil Bacterial and Fungal Community to Short-Term Crop Tree Management in a Larix gmelinii Plantation
Next Article in Special Issue
Tree Species and Stand Density: The Effects on Soil Organic Matter Contents, Decomposability and Susceptibility to Microbial Priming
Previous Article in Journal
Live Crown Ratio Models for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) with Beta Regression
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variability in Carbon Stocks across a Chronosequence of Masson Pine Plantations and the Trade-Off between Plant and Soil Systems
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Contribution of Roots, Mycorrhizal Hyphae, and Soil Free-Living Microbes to Soil Respiration and Its Temperature Sensitivity in a Larch Forest

Faculty of Science, Shinshu University, Nagano 390-8621, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2021, 12(10), 1410; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101410
Submission received: 26 September 2021 / Revised: 12 October 2021 / Accepted: 13 October 2021 / Published: 15 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Soil Carbon and Climate Changes)

Abstract

:
Soil respiration plays a critical role in driving soil carbon (C) cycling in terrestrial forest ecosystems. However, evidence to demonstrate the response of roots, mycorrhizal hyphae, and soil free-living microbes of soil respiration and their temperature sensitivity (Q10) remains lacking. Here, we used a root exclusion method to assess the contribution and response of root respiration (Rroot), mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and (soil organic matter) SOM respiration (Rsom) to soil temperature in a larch forest. During the growing period, the contributions of Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom to soil respiration were 42%, 6%, and 52%, respectively. The respiration rates of all components increased exponentially with increasing temperature. Based on these constitutive respiration rates with soil temperature, the Q10 values for Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom were 3.84, 5.18, and 1.86, respectively. The results showed that the response to temperature change was different among roots, mycorrhizal hyphae, and microbes in the soil, while the temperature sensitivity of autotrophic respiration was higher than that of heterotrophic respiration. Importantly, the Rmyc at this site was extremely sensitive to temperature, although its overall emission was small. Mycorrhizal associations were identified as the key drivers of soil respiration and temperature sensitivity. A good understanding of the different soil CO2 efflux components will provide useful information for determining soil C fluxes and predicting soil C dynamics under changing environments.

1. Introduction

The CO2 emissions in terrestrial ecosystems are mainly derived from soil respiration (Rsoil), which is important for evaluating the net ecosystem carbon (C) balance because it represents the largest global C flux (75–100 Pg C yr−1) between ecosystems and the atmosphere [1,2]. This amount is over 10 times that currently produced by fossil fuel combustion. Thus, even a small change in soil respiration could significantly induce increases in atmospheric CO2, with potential feedback to climate change. Therefore, efforts should be made to develop a mechanistic understanding of how temperature and other environmental factors affect the Rsoil rate [3,4].
Temperature sensitivity is an important factor in quantifying the response of Rsoil to climate warming [5] and is often referred to as the Q₁₀ temperature coefficient, denoting the rate of change in a process caused by increasing the temperature by 10 °C. Experimental studies of Q₁₀ related to Rsoil have demonstrated that Q₁₀ values vary with temperature and soil moisture [5,6]. It has been recognized that Rsoil is sensitive to temperature, but many questions regarding the dynamic responses of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration to temperature changes remain unanswered. In theory, Rsoil is the sum of the autotrophic component produced by roots and the heterotrophic component derived from soil microorganisms that decompose soil organic matter (SOM). Several studies have shown that autotrophic respiration is more sensitive to temperature change than heterotrophic respiration [7,8]. Thus, the temperature dependency of Rsoil varies among different components [5,9].
Recently, the autotrophic component of Rsoil was further separated into respiration of the roots and their mycorrhizal symbionts [10]. It is known that plants can normally allocate a substantial fraction (up to 85%) of net photosynthesis to belowground and mycorrhizal fungi [11,12]. As a result, much of the assimilated C is respired by mycorrhizal fungi and fungal hyphae [13]. Because more than 80% of terrestrial plant species are associated with mycorrhizal fungi, we should not ignore the effect of mycorrhizal respiration. Consequently, real root respiration has often been overestimated due to difficulties in separating the root itself from mycorrhizal respiration.
Novel approaches to separate the autotrophic components have developed and enabled us to evaluate mycorrhizal hyphae growth in the soil, while excluding roots. For example, the mesh exclusion method involves the application of nylon meshes with pore sizes that allow the ingrowth of fungal hyphae while excluding roots [14]. Experiments using this method have produced growing evidence to suggest the high contribution of mycorrhizal respiration to Rsoil in the forest field [15,16]. Heinemeyer et al. [17] reported a contribution of mycorrhizal respiration to soil respiration of <25% in a temperate pine forest. However, such an approach is rarely applied for the evaluation of temperature sensitivity Q₁₀ of each component of Rsoil, especially the mycorrhizal component.
The variability of soil CO2 efflux associated with environmental drivers may also be mediated by the differential metabolic response of microbes, roots, and rhizosphere to moisture and temperature changes [18]. Here, we aimed to evaluate not only total Rsoil rates, but also the constructive root, mycorrhizal, and decomposition respiration rates in a larch (Larix kaempferi (Lamb.) Carrière) forest. Larch forests are one of the main vegetation cover types in boreal and cool-temperate forest ecosystems [19]. Our objectives were: (1) to quantify the temporal variation in Rsoil during the growing season, (2) to evaluate the relative contributions of heterotrophic and autotrophic respiration to total Rsoil, and (3) to determine the response of root respiration (Rroot), mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and SOM respiration (Rsom) to soil temperature in a larch forest.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study site was located on Mt. Iizuna, Nagano, central Japan (36°43′ N, 138°9′ E, 1030 m above sea level), where the annual precipitation is 1262 mm, and the mean annual temperature is 8.4 °C. The site consisted of a planted forest of Larix kaempferi, a deciduous conifer. The age of the forest in 2018 was 61 years, and the average diameter at breast height was 30.0 cm [20]. The soil type was volcanic ash-derived Andosols. We established a 30 × 30 m2 plot at the site where L. kaempferi was dominant. The tree density of L. kaempferi in the plot was 616 trees ha−1, and the stand basal area was 45 m2 ha−1 [20].

2.2. Chamber Experimental Design

Six plots of 2 × 2 m2 were established. In August 2018, the soil collars were placed randomly at a distance of approximately 100 cm from the stems in the six plots, as described in detail below. To separate the contribution of each component to Rsoil, the mesh-excision method was used to assess the total, root, mycorrhizal, and soil free-living microbial soil respiration, using the protocol proposed by Heinemeyer et al. [15] and Moyano et al. [16]. Three different soil collars (treatment collars) 12 cm in diameter were installed in the soil. The first type of collar (A) was made of polyvinylchloride. Type A was 5 cm in height and was inserted 2 cm into the ground and fixed with two metal sticks. The type-A collar did not interrupt the roots, mycorrhizal, or soil microbial dynamics and growth, which were evaluated as total Rsoil.
Before the set of other collars (B and C), soil cores (12 cm diameter × 35 cm depth for each) were extracted using thin sharp steel corers for long-term ingrowth core experiments. The second type of collar (B) was 5 cm in height, made of polyvinylchloride using a 50-mesh and was inserted into the soil to a depth of 35 cm. The soil collar was covered with nylon fabric of 50-µm mesh, allowing the ingrowth of fungal hyphae, but not roots. The soil depth in B-type collars (35 cm depth) prevented the ingrowth of almost all plant roots because most roots are produced up to 30 cm. After the set of type-B collars, the cored holes were filled using the soils sieved through a 2.0-mm mesh sieve to remove the original roots, soil, and organic matter and divided into 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, and 20–35 cm soil depths. The third type of collar (C) was made of polyvinylchloride. Type C was the same size as type-B and was installed at the same depth, but they did not have mesh holes, thus preventing the ingrowth of both roots and mycorrhizal hyphae. In other words, the type-C collar was evaluated as SOM respiration (Rsom) of only the heterotrophic soil free-living microbial community. Respiration fluxes (R) from the root, mycorrhiza, and soil organic matter were estimated from the difference in CO2 efflux values according to the following equation:
  • Type-A = total soil respiration (Rsoil).
  • Type-A − Type-B = root respiration (Rroot)
  • Type-B − Type-C = mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc)
  • Type-C = soil organic matter (SOM) respiration (Rsom).

2.3. Respiration Manual Measurement and Calculations

The respiration measurements began in early May 2019. The CO2 efflux from each soil chamber was measured 1 or 2 times a month during a fixed period 11:00–13:00 daytime. Measurements were conducted using a closed static chamber system fitted with an infrared CO2 analyzer (GMP343; VAISALA, Helsinki, Finland). To minimize errors in the CO2 efflux measurements in the chamber through pressure changes, we designed a chamber with sufficient volume to achieve the steady pressure in the closed chamber. The chamber was closed with a lid that has a small fan to achieve near-perfect headspace mixing. The time for each measurement was set to 360 s. To compensate for air disturbances caused by opening the chamber, the data for the first 60 s were discarded. The flux measurement was accepted when the determination coefficient of linear regression (R2) was larger than 0.9 as a function of time.
At the same time as the respiration measurements, soil environmental data were observed. Soil temperatures at 5-cm soil depth were measured using a portable thermometer (AD-5612A, A&D, Tokyo, Japan). Soil moisture levels at 5-cm soil depth were determined using a portable soil water content sensor (SM150T; Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, UK).
By pooling all measurement data, the variation in respiration rate in response to temperature change was described by an exponential model [21]:
R = α e β T  
where R is the respiration rate measured at a given temperature (T), and α and β are fitting parameters. Parameter α is referred to as respiration rate at 0 °C
, and β defines the temperature dependence of the respiration. Then, the respiratory Q₁₀. The Q₁₀ was used to describe the temperature sensitivity of respiration and was calculated as the proportional increase in the respiration for each 10 °C rise in temperature. The Q₁₀ can be calculated according to:
Q 10 = e 10 β
The respiration was not measured between January and April due to snowpack in the winter season. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.5.1 software.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Environmental Factors and Respiration

The seasonal soil temperature patterns in the plot were observed (Figure 1a). The soil temperature at 5 cm depth varied seasonally, ranging from 3.4 °C in December to 21.2 °C in August during the study period. The soil moisture ranged from 9.2 to 27.1% (Figure 1b). The seasonal pattern of soil moisture was not as clear as the temperature, but it seemed to peak at the end of the fall. The soil respiration (Rsoil) ranged from 0.7 to 4.4 μmol m−2 s−1 during the study period (Figure 1c). Rsoil showed strong seasonality; it was lowest in December and highest in mid-August. Similarly, temporal variation in root respiration (Rroot), mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and SOM respiration (Rsom) could be observed throughout the seasons. Between May and December 2019, the mean percentage of Rsoil was 42%, 6%, and 52% in Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom, respectively (Figure 1d). The relative contributions of the different Rsoil components varied during the study period. The contribution of Rroot to Rsoil increased during early summer and fall, while the contribution of Rmyc to Rsoil did not show any seasonal pattern and remained low throughout the study period. The contribution of Rsom to Rsoil was highest during spring and winter and lowest during summer.

3.2. Response of Respiration to Soil Temperature and Moisture

Rsoil was significantly associated with changes in the measurement temperatures (p < 0.05), suggesting an exponential relationship between respiration and temperature (Figure 2a). The Q₁₀ value of Rsoil during the study period was 2.74. The estimated parameters for Rsoil–temperature are shown in Table 1. The Rsoil tended to respond linearly to the soil moisture across the study period, although it only explained 7% (p > 0.05) of the variation in Rsoil (Figure 2b). There was no significant linear relationship between Rsoil and soil moisture at this site.
When different Rsoil components were considered, the effect of soil temperature on respiration was significant in the forest (p < 0.001). Rroot and Rmyc, markers of autotrophic respiration, increased with increasing soil temperature, with an exponential regression (p < 0.001) (Figure 3a,b). Similar to autotrophic respiration, Rsom, a heterotrophic respiration was also associated with temperature (Figure 3c). The Q₁₀ values of Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom were 3.84, 5.18, and 1.86, respectively (Table 1). Both Rroot and Rmyc had higher Q₁₀ values than Rsom in this larch forest.

4. Discussion

We assessed the contribution of different Rsoil components in a mature larch forest. The mean contribution of soil autotrophic respiration (Rroot + Rmyc) to Rsoil was 48%, suggesting that soil autotrophic respiration was slightly lower than heterotrophic respiration. This finding agrees with estimates in other larch forests. For example, Liang et al. [22] reported that the contribution of autotrophic and heterotrophic components was approximately 43% and 57% in a larch plantation in northern Japan. Teramoto et al. [23] estimated that autotrophic and heterotrophic components in a larch plantation in central Japan accounted for 18% and 82% of Rsoil, respectively. Heterotrophic respiration is a crucial component of soil CO2 efflux associated with the mineralization of dead organic matter via metabolism by fungi and bacteria [24,25]. The Rsom from the soil surface has been estimated as 53–57 Pg C yr−1 globally and is typically 30–80% of the total annual Rsoil [26]. We confirmed the relatively large contribution of Rsom to Rsoil in this forest species and the important role of microbial decomposition activity for Rsom in our forest.
We found that soil autotrophic respiration, including Rroot and Rmyc, was highly variable and showed seasonal patterns (Figure 1d). In our study, soil autotrophic respiration accounted for approximately 55–70% between late June and early September, which might be due to the C substrate from plant photosynthesis activity. Shoot C assimilation rates are strongly correlated with belowground C allocation to roots and mycorrhizae [17,27,28]. Additionally, belowground growth in deciduous species is assumed to peak early in the growing season and is correlated with aboveground growth [29]. When a pulse of root and mycorrhizal growth occurs to support leaf production, the respiring tissue and rhizosphere CO2 efflux are simultaneously increased. Indeed, the larch shoot at our site expanded from May, when the plants grew rapidly. Soil autotrophic respiration might reflect a combination of phenological timing of leaf development in spring and leaf senescence and abscission in autumn and seasonal root and mycorrhizal hyphae growth variations.
Importantly, Rmyc accounted for 6% of total Rsoil, although the contribution of Rmyc was lower than that of Rroot at this site. Moyano et al. [30] evaluated Rmyc in beech and spruce forests and found that Rroot contributed 45% and Rmyc contributed 5% to Rsoil, which is similar to our results. On the other hand, Heinemeyer et al. [17] measured Rsoil separation in Pinus sylvestris and found contributions to total Rsoil of 10% in Rroot and 25% in Rmyc, with higher values for Rmyc contribution. A large fraction of the C translocated belowground is allocated to the mycorrhizal hyphae [14]. The production of mycorrhizal hyphae is known to change with the type and infection rate of mycorrhizal fungi symbiotic with the root system [31]. Although our study did not determine the type and infection rate of mycorrhizal fungi, it is believed that the mycorrhizal fungal community structure is similar to that of Moyano et al. [30]. A qualitative assessment of mycorrhizal fungal species and infection rates is needed to understand the contribution and variability of Rmyc.
For the heterotrophic component, Rsom accounted for most (52–67%) of Rsoil in early spring and late autumn (Figure 1d), probably because of increases in decomposition activity for spring thaw and autumn litter accumulation. The high contribution of Rsom in a deciduous forest in specific seasons could also be related to the high input of litter during autumn and the high C availability for microbial decay during soil wetting in spring. Therefore, seasonal variation in litter accumulation and its decomposition may affect CO2 production through microbial physiology during the growing season.
During the growing season in this study, Rsoil increased exponentially with soil temperature (Figure 2a). The temperature sensitivity in this study was consistent with that reported in many previous studies [32]. Our Q₁₀ value at Rsoil was 2.7 and well within the global median of 2.4 [33] and the range (2.0–6.3) reported for European and North American forest ecosystems [5,6]. The Q₁₀ values in previous studies of larch forests also ranged from to 2.3–3.1 [22,23,34]. This suggests that the temperature sensitivity of the Rsoil rate at our site had ecological characteristics similar to those of larch forests in previous studies.
Focusing on each constitutive respiration rate with soil temperature, Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom also showed an exponential increasing relationship with temperature (Figure 3). Based on these relationships, the Q₁₀ values for Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom were 3.84, 5.18, and 1.86, respectively. The results showed that the response to temperature change was different among roots, mycorrhizal hyphae, and microbes in the soil, and the temperature sensitivity of autotrophic respiration was higher than that of heterotrophic respiration, according to previous studies [3,7,26]. Furthermore, the Rmyc at this site had to be extremely sensitive to temperature, although the overall emission was small. One possible reason for the high temperature sensitivity of Rmyc might be that mycorrhizal component enhance the availability of substrate and its allocation to belowground sinks along the temperature gradients. Consequently, most of the previous studies on Q10 of Rroot under the field have been overestimated, because they are usually included in the autotrophic flux component when derived from separating Rmyc from Rroot without further partitioning.
In this study, we used an approach to separate Rmyc from Rroot under field conditions using ingrowth bags of different mesh sizes, allowing only the ingrowth of fungal hyphae or the roots and fungal hyphae. Using this method, the net effect of mycorrhizal hyphae on CO2 flux was evaluated. However, technical problems in the methodology for evaluating Rmyc separation from Rroot are still debated [35]. For example, Rmyc resulted from the combination of the growth and mortality of mycorrhizal hyphae in mesh bags. Thus, the observed effluxes from mycorrhizal hyphae may depend on the incubation time in the mesh bags through the biomass and turnover rates of hyphae. Nevertheless, we emphasize the potential high Q10 of Rmyc to soil temperatures in this forest. Future advances in techniques, considering the separation of roots and mycorrhizal biomass and turnover, could elucidate the accurate response of forest soil C sequestration and C fluxes to temperatures.
The relationship between Rsoil and soil moisture suggested a negative relationship, but this was not significant (Figure 2b). Liang et al. [22] showed that root respiration in larch was reported to have no clear correlation with moisture content. In contrast, Heinemeyer et al. [17] showed that autotrophic respiration was not significantly affected by changes in soil temperature but was strongly affected by soil moisture. Thus, previous studies have not provided a unified view of soil moisture; therefore, further research is needed for data accumulation across tree species and ecosystems.
In this study, the actual components of Rsoil in larch forests were observed. The contributions of Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom to soil respiration was 42%, 6%, and 52%, respectively. The respiration rates of all components increased exponentially with increasing temperature. The temperature sensitivity Q₁₀ of respiration for each component was high for Rroot and Rmyc and low for Rsom. In particular, the temperature sensitivity of Rmyc was extremely high, although the amount released was not. The results of this study emphasize the role of the mycorrhizal strategy in the ecosystem response to climate temperature for Rsoil in forest soils.
Future increases in temperature could generate potential positive feedback between climate warming and soil C flux in forest ecosystems. Most empirical models of soil C dynamics have primarily focused on total Rsoil or SOM fraction decomposition, implying an over- or underestimation of the soil C flux and soil C sequestration [36]. This is because empirical models often do not include the temperature sensitivity of constructive components such as Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom. In particular, Rmyc has a relatively higher temperature sensitivity, with major consequences for the current models of C dynamics in the larch forest. A good understanding of the different soil CO2 efflux components will provide useful information for modeling soil C fluxes and predicting soil C dynamics in a future climate.

Author Contributions

N.M.: planned and performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, and prepared it for submission; R.F.: planned and performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper; A.T. performed the experiments and analyzed the data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF20182R03) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank M. Kuribayashi and staff members of the Nagano Environmental Conservation Research Institute for their helpful support in field experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bond-Lamberty, B.; Thomson, A. A global database of soil respiration data. Biogeosciences 2010, 7, 1915–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bond-Lamberty, B.; Thomson, A. Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Nature 2010, 464, 579–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Epron, D.; Dantec, V.L.; Dufrene, E.; Granier, A. Seasonal dynamics of soil carbon dioxide efflux and simulated rhizosphere respiration in a beech forest. Tree Physiol. 2001, 21, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Savage, K.; Davidson, E.A.; Tang, J. Diel patterns of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration among phenological stages. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 1151–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Janssens, I.A.; Pilegaard, K. Large seasonal changes in Q10 of soil respiration in a beech forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 911–918. [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidson, E.A.; Belk, E.; Boone, R.D. Soil water content and temperature as independent or confounded factors controlling soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1998, 4, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Boone, R.D.; Nadelhoffer, K.J.; Canary, J.D.; Kaye, J.P. Roots exert a strong influence on the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration. Nature 1998, 396, 570–572. [Google Scholar]
  8. Zhou, T.; Shi, P.J.; Hui, D.F.; Luo, Y.Q. Global pattern of temperature sensitivity of soil heterotrophic respiration Q10 and its implications for carbon-climate feedback. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2009, 114, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Davidson, E.A.; Janssens, I.A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 2006, 440, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Hughes, J.K.; Hodge, A.; Fitter, A.H.; Atkin, O.K. Mycorrhizal respiration: Implications for global scaling relationships. Trends Plant Sci. 2008, 13, 583–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Franklin, O.; Näsholm, T.; Högberg, P.; Högberg, M.N. Forests trapped in nitrogen limitation—An ecological market perspective on ectomycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol. 2014, 203, 657–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ficken, C.D.; Warren, J.M. The carbon economy of drought: Comparing respiration responses of roots, mycorrhizal fungi, and free-living microbes to an extreme dry-rewet cycle. Plant Soil 2019, 435, 407–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Talbot, J.M.; Allison, S.D.; Treseder, K.K. Decomposers in disguise: Mycorrhizal fungi as regulators of soil C dynamics in ecosystems under global change. Funct. Ecol. 2008, 22, 955–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wallander, H.; Ekblad, A.; Godbold, D.L.; Johnson, D.; Bahr, A.; Baldrian, P.; Björk, R.G.; Kieliszewska-Rokicka, B.; Kjøller, R.; Kraigher, H.; et al. Evaluation of methods to estimate production, biomass and turnover of ectomycorrhizal mycelium in forests soils—A review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 1034–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Heinemeyer, A.; Ineson, P.; Ostle, N.; Fitter, A.H. Respiration of the external mycelium in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis shows strong dependence on recent photosynthates and acclimation to temperature. New Phytol. 2006, 171, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Moyano, F.E.; Kutsch, W.L.; Schulze, E.D. Response of mycorrhizal, rhizosphere and soil basal respiration to temperature and photosynthesis in a barley field. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 843–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Heinemeyer, A.; Hartley, I.P.; Evans, S.P.; De la Fuente, J.A.C.; Ineson, P. Forest soil CO2 flux: Uncovering the contribution and environmental responses of ectomycorrhizas. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 1786–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heinemeyer, A.; Wilkinson, M.; Vargas, R.; Subke, J.A.; Casella, E.; Morison, J.I.L.; Ineson, P. Exploring the “overflow tap” theory: Linking forest soil CO2 fluxes and individual mycorrhizosphere components to photosynthesis. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Mamet, S.D.; Brown, C.D.; Trant, A.J.; Laroque, C.P. Shifting global Larix distributions: Northern expansion and southern retraction as species distributions: Northern expansion and southern retraction as species respond to changing climate. J. Biogeogr. 2019, 46, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ozeki, M.; Kuribayashi, M. Tree growth of old man-made larch stands in lizuna Heights, Ngano Prefecture, central Japan. Bull. Nagano Environ. Conserv. Res. Inst. 2019, 15, 45–49, (In Japanese with English summary). [Google Scholar]
  21. Lloyd, J.; Taylor, J.A. On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct. Ecol. 1994, 8, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liang, N.; Hirano, T.; Zheng, Z.M.; Tang, J.; Fujimura, Y. Soil CO₂ efflux of a larch forest in northern Japan. Biogeosciences 2010, 7, 3447–3457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Teramoto, M.; Liang, N.; Takahashi, Y.; Zeng, J.; Saigusa, N.; Ide, R.; Zhao, X. Enhanced understory carbon flux components and robustness of net CO2 exchange after thinning in a larch forest in central Japan. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 274, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Harmon, M.E.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Tang, J.W.; Vargas, R. Heterotrophic respiration in disturbed forests: A review with examples from North America. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2011, 116, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kominami, Y.; Jomura, M.; Ataka, M.; Tamai, K.; Miyama, T.; Dannoura, M.; Makita, N.; Yoshimura, K. Heterotrophic respiration causes seasonal hysteresis in soil respiration in a warm-temperate forest. J. For. Res. 2012, 17, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bond-Lamberty, B.; Wang, C.; Gower, S.T. A global relationship between the heterotrophic and autotrophic components of soil respiration? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2004, 10, 1756–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vargas, R.; Baldocchi, D.D.; Allen, M.F.; Bahn, M.; Black, T.A.; Collins, S.L.; Yuste, J.C.; Hirano, T.; Jassal, R.S.; Pumpanen, J.; et al. Looking deeper into the soil: Biophysical controls and seasonal lags of soil CO2 production and efflux. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20, 1569–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Makita, N.; Kosugi, Y.; Sakabe, A.; Kanazawa, A.; Ohkubo, S.; Tani, M. Seasonal and diurnal patterns of soil respiration in an evergreen coniferous forest: Evidence from six years of observation with automatic chambers. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192622. [Google Scholar]
  29. Newman, G.S.; Arthur, M.A.; Muller, R.N. Above- and belowground net primary production in a temperate mixed deciduous forest. Ecosystems 2006, 9, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moyano, F.E.; Kutsch, L.W.; Rebmann, C. Soil respiration fluxes in relation to photosynthetic activity in broad-leaf and needle-leaf forest stands. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2008, 148, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ekblad, A.; Wallander, H.; Godbold, D.L.; Cruz, C.; Johnson, D.; Baldrian, P.; Bjork, R.G.; Epron, D.; Kieliszewska-Rokicka, B.; Kjoller, R.; et al. The production and turnover of extramatrical mycelium of ectomycorrhizal fungi in forest soils: Role in carbon cycling. Plant Soil 2013, 366, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Hamdi, S.; Moyano, F.; Sall, S.; Bernoux, M.; Chevallier, T. Synthesis analysis of the temperature sensitivity of soil respiration from laboratory studies in relation to incubation methods and soil conditions. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 58, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Raich, J.W.; Schlesinger, W.H. The global carbon dioxide flux in soil respiration and its relationship to vegetation and climate. Tellus 1992, 44, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Liang, N.; Nakadai, T.; Hirano, T.; Qu, L.; Koike, T.; Fujinuma, Y.; Inoue, G. In situ comparison of four approaches to estimating soil CO2 efflux in a northern larch (Larix kaempferi Sarg.) forest. Agr. For. Meteorol. 2004, 123, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Neumann, J.; Matzner, E. Contribution of newly grown extrametrical ectomycorrhizal mycelium and fine roots to soil respiration in a young Norway spruce site. Plant Soil 2014, 378, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Reichstein, M.; Janssens, I.A. Semi-empirical modeling of the response of soil respiration to environmental factors in laboratory and field conditions. In Soil Carbon Dynamics: An Integrated Methodology; Kutsch, W.L., Michael, B., Heinemeyer, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 207–220. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Time courses of (a) soil temperature at 0–5 cm depth, (b) soil moisture at 0–5 cm depth, (c) respiration rates in soil, and (d) percentages of different soil respiration components (Root respiration (Rroot), mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and SOM respiration (Rsom)) during the months from May to December with non-snowpack period in 2019.
Figure 1. Time courses of (a) soil temperature at 0–5 cm depth, (b) soil moisture at 0–5 cm depth, (c) respiration rates in soil, and (d) percentages of different soil respiration components (Root respiration (Rroot), mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and SOM respiration (Rsom)) during the months from May to December with non-snowpack period in 2019.
Forests 12 01410 g001
Figure 2. Relationships between soil respiration, (a) soil temperature, and (b) soil moisture in Larix kaempferi forest. Solid line indicates the regression line for all data; p < 0.05, while a dashed line indicates for all data; p > 0.05.
Figure 2. Relationships between soil respiration, (a) soil temperature, and (b) soil moisture in Larix kaempferi forest. Solid line indicates the regression line for all data; p < 0.05, while a dashed line indicates for all data; p > 0.05.
Forests 12 01410 g002
Figure 3. Responses of (a) root respiration (Rroot), (b) mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and (c) SOM respiration (Rsom) to soil temperature in a Larix kaempferi forest. Solid line indicates regression line for all data; p < 0.05. Temperature sensitivity (Q10) in each soil respiration components are given in this Figure.
Figure 3. Responses of (a) root respiration (Rroot), (b) mycorrhizal respiration (Rmyc), and (c) SOM respiration (Rsom) to soil temperature in a Larix kaempferi forest. Solid line indicates regression line for all data; p < 0.05. Temperature sensitivity (Q10) in each soil respiration components are given in this Figure.
Forests 12 01410 g003
Table 1. Estimated parameters (α and β) and coefficient of determination from Equation (1) for Rsoil, Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom during growing season in Larix kaempferi forest.
Table 1. Estimated parameters (α and β) and coefficient of determination from Equation (1) for Rsoil, Rroot, Rmyc, and Rsom during growing season in Larix kaempferi forest.
RsoilRrootRmycRsom
α0.52100.13460.00860.4349
β0.09980.13450.16440.0618
R20.890.780.550.64
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makita, N.; Fujimoto, R.; Tamura, A. The Contribution of Roots, Mycorrhizal Hyphae, and Soil Free-Living Microbes to Soil Respiration and Its Temperature Sensitivity in a Larch Forest. Forests 2021, 12, 1410. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101410

AMA Style

Makita N, Fujimoto R, Tamura A. The Contribution of Roots, Mycorrhizal Hyphae, and Soil Free-Living Microbes to Soil Respiration and Its Temperature Sensitivity in a Larch Forest. Forests. 2021; 12(10):1410. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101410

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makita, Naoki, Roma Fujimoto, and Azusa Tamura. 2021. "The Contribution of Roots, Mycorrhizal Hyphae, and Soil Free-Living Microbes to Soil Respiration and Its Temperature Sensitivity in a Larch Forest" Forests 12, no. 10: 1410. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12101410

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop