DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecosystem Productivity and Diversity Primary Focus of Ecosystem Ecology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecosystem Productivity and Diversity Primary Focus of Ecosystem Ecology Ecosystem Productivity and Diversity Primary Focus of Ecosystem Ecology --> examine the exchange of Many Ecologists ENERGY Æ productivity has a pervasive influence on diversity MATTER Radiant Energy All Ecosystems Producers - have 3 basic components C o CO2 n CO2 r s O e u O 2 tt m 2 Autotrophs / Primary Producers i n p H O L o t H O 2 f ti io 2 a a n e c L lo Heterotrophs / Consumers s N n ut s a rie ent r nt ri T s ut De Abiotic Components N com pos ition Abiotic Elements Consumers Deposition Three measure that can be used to define relative importance: Studying Ecosystems 1) BIOMASS Mass of standing crop of each species First Step Rate of production of new biomass (YIELD) --> determine the food web 2) Flow of Chemical Materials - defines the qualitative movement of ENERGY and Superorganism analogy useful here NUTRIENTS view community as taking in, processing, re-using, discarding nutrients Then eg P molecule: soil--> grass--> grasshopper --> feces --> decide significance of various species to -->bacteria--> soil movement of ENERGY and NUTRIENTS 3) Flow of Energy transform solar energy and transfers it to green plants, consumers… most is lost as heat, requires constant input 1 Primary Production Most ecologists use energy - chemicals are often tied up in peculiarities of organisms Photosynthesis - solar energy ----> chemical energy - energy is not recirculated (easier to measure) 12 H2O + 6CO2 + solar energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O - reduces diverse communities to calories Carbohydrates Energy enters almost all ecosystems via solar radiation, and is fixed by the process of photosynthesis Primary Production Compensation Point Photosynthesis - - P’synthesis = Respiration --> no new production solar energy ----> chemical energy Gross Primary Production 12 H2O + 6CO2 + solar energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O --> energy fixed during photosysnthesis Respiration - opposite of P’synthesis Net Primary Production C H O + 6O --> 12 H O + 6CO + energy for work and heat 6 12 6 2 2 2 --> energy fixed in photosynthesis - energy lost due to respiration Daily patterns of CO2 assimilation in Douglas fir during spring and summer How do you measure these 2 aspects of Primary Production? Terrestrial Systems --> measure change in CO2 or O2 concentrations around a plant Daytime P’syn and Resp occurring Light Temperature/ CO2 uptake measures NET production Assimilation Nighttime only Resp occurring 2 CO2 output measure respiration Net CO 2 Alternative methods Can determine the energetic equivalent using: --> measure uptake of radioactive Carbon (14C) 14 12 H2O + 6CO2 + 709 kcal --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 + 6H2O --> CO2 of known concentration around plant --> harvest plant at later time Absorption of 6 moles of CO2 indicates absorption of 709 kcal --> determine amount of 14C in plant tissues Method is difficult to do in the field. But can do easily in lab Measure concentration of Chlorophyll Simplest Method --> know how much carbon is assimilated per --> measure amount of plant material present at 2 times gram of chlorophyll produced ∆B = B2 -B1 One way, --> collect plant tissue and extract Chlorophyll, B1 = Plant Biomass at time 1 determine how much chlorophyll per gram of tissue B2 = Plant Biomass at time 2 ∆B = change in Biomass from time 1 to time 2 Another way, --> satellite imagery --> use reflectance of light from LOSSES occur due to plants --> different reflectance patterns depending on how much cholorphyll is present death (L) consumption (G) If you know death rate and consumption rate Convert Biomass to Energy Net Primary Production = ∆B + L + G --> determine caloric equivalent of plant material in bomb calorimeter Can apply this method to individual plants, or above ground production or below ground production, or all plants of one species or of all plants... Mean of 57 species (cal/g dry wt) (J/g dry wt) Leaves 4,229 17,694 Roots 4,720 19,748 Seeds 5,065 21,192 3 Aquatic Systems - P’syn measured in much the same way Light bottle - Dark bottle method as in terrestrial Water samples (containing the primary producer) But easier to look at CO2 changes --> placed in two bottles Most aquatic primary producers don’t require remaining rooted in order to function --> one bottle transparent (light bottle) --> one bottle opaque (dark bottle) Use a ‘light bottle - dark bottle’ technique --> measure CO2 and O2 in each bottle at various times Net primary production --> light bottle Gross primary production --> light bottle + dark bottle Prod (g/m2/yr) Ecosystem Area Range Mean World Net (t/yr) Tropical 17.0 1000-3500 2200 37.4 Rainforest Efficiency of Primary Production Temperate 5.0 600-2500 1300 6.5 Coniferous How efficient are plants at converting solar energy to Temperate 7.0 600-2500 1200 8.4 Deciduous biochemical energy? Temperate 9.0 200-1500 600 5.4 Grassland Desert 18.0 10-250 90 1.6 Efficiency = Wetlands 2.0 800-3500 2000 4.0 Energy fixed by plant / energy in incident solar radiation Lakes 2.0 100-1500 250 0.5 Phytoplankton usually < 0.5% Open Ocean 332.0 2-400 125 41.5 Forest plants 2.0-3.5% Continental 26.6 200-600 360 9.6 Shelf Estuaries 1.4 200-3500 1500 2.1 Factors that Limit Primary Productivity in Ecosystems dI/dt = -kI Marine Systems LIGHT - obvious factor - water absorbs solar radiation - 1/2 is absorbed in first metre k=0.02 - 5 - 10% reaches 20m in very clear water k=0.1 Relative Light Intensity Depth (m) 4 Clear Lk Rate of P’synthesis in Three CA Lakes 60 50 Castle Lk 8 40 Lk Tahoe ---> zone of primary productivity at surface 6 0.4 30 4 0.2 20 2 0.1 10 0 0 0 042 02010 30 020 40 60 0 100% If you know: 50% 20 30% --> extinction coefficient, k 20% --> amount of solar radiation 40 Average values for tropical marine --> amount of chlorophyll present 10% 60 locations Depth (m) Depth ---> Rate of P’synthesis 80 Relative light intensity P = (R/k) * C * 3.7 100 (3.7 - average value - g C fixed by 1 g chl in 1 hour under Gross production light saturation) P = rate of photosynthesis - g C fixed / m2 ocean / day Example from Gulf of Alaska R = relative rate of P’synthesis for amount of light entering water k = extinction coefficient per metre solar radiation = 229 cal/cm2/day C = grams of chlorphyll per cubic metre k = 0.1/m chlorophyll = 0.0025 g/m3 water R = 14.5 P = 14.5/0.1*0.0025*3.7 = 1.34 g C/m3/day Measured rate is 1.5 g C/m3/day --> so formula does good job predicting Relative P’synthesis, rate of R Total daily surface radiation, kcal/m2 5 Summer Fall Solar radiation varies greatly globally --> so should primary productivity 20 June 15 Sept 10 Dec 5 Potential productivity Winter Spring 0 0 20406080 North Latitude 0.01 0.3 1.6 8.7 47.0 (mg/m3) Why are tropical regions under productive when light Nitrogen in bays on Long Island intensity is good year round? Duck farms were common - source of nutrient input Something else must be limiting P’synthesis. P and N --> nutrients --> increased P observed in bays, but not N N and P --> N taken up right away by algae --> oceans typically low in N and P at surface Nutrient Enrichment in Sargasso Sea Freshwater Ecosystems Low productivity despite good sun --> solar radiation limits 1o prod’n Addition of Nutrient combinations to algal cultures --> Nutrient limitation also operates Nutrients Uptake of 14C Added (% relative to controls) N+P+metals 1290 N+P 110 N+P+metals (no Fe) 108 N+P+Fe 1200 Addition of Fe alone stimulated Primary P’tion for short time 6 Lake 226 - split with impermeablebarrier P, C and N on one side, C and N on the other. the Non Cand side, one CandNon P, Algal biomass (mg chla/m3) 1974 Ringler and Dillon Average # ‘large’ of zooplanktonper litre 2 years Fertilizer - Phosphorus,Potassium Nitrogen, (Langford) Lakes Algonquin to nutrients of Addition McCauley Kearney Brewer Lake Pre-Fertilization Post-Fertilization Phosphorous and Primary productivity Primary and Phosphorous Phosphorous (mg/m Phosphorous 19100 47000 7000 3 ) 135400 31100 74600 Phytoplankton Biomass (mg/m3) Lake 227 -Lake 227 nitrogen and phosphate with annually fertilized Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) Lakes Experimental 1970 1975 1980 1985 1975 Year 1994 7 Primary Productivity in Terrestrial Systems AET - Actual Evapotranspiration Solar radiation vs temperature - moisture into atmosphere --> tightly linked in aquatic systems --> evaporation from ground --> transpiration from plants --> but, in terrestrial Function of --> large range of temps among areas with same --> solar radiation solar radiation --> temperature --> rainfall eg Arizona - desert to alpine Tennessee North Carolina Massachussetts New York Net Primary Production Primary Net Production Primary Net Wisconsin AET Length of photosynthetic period Boreal coniferous Deciduous Pine Temperate Coniferous Production Gross Primary Evergreen Broadleaf 0 10203040 Leaf area duration Net primary production 8 Solar radiation, temperature and moisture Old Growth Forests and Salmon --> good for predicting global patterns of primary produciton --> nutrient input Local? --> black bears consume tonnes of salmon each year --> nutrients --> 8 dragged 1600kg each from river to forest --> fertilizer increases yields in crop plants --> up to 100m away --> consume only fraction of each carcass --> feces --> up to half of N in samples originated in ocean Secondary Production Energy from Plant Biomass from plants Not Used Consumed Herbivory Feces Digested Detritus Urine Metabolizable Energy Resting E Activity Growth Reproduction Maintenance Production How can you estimate secondary production in an animal Estimate Respiration community? - measured in a lab Gross energy intake --> watch the animal Basal metabolic rate --> not really a good estimate Assimilated energy --> gross E in minus e in urine and feces Maintenance and activity rates can be much higher than basal Assimilated = Respiration + Production --> temperature is very important 9 Ecological Efficiencies Net Production Net productivity at trophic level n (P) Production Efficiency = --> growth of individuals in a population Assimilation at trophic level n (P+R) --> Population size Production = Growth + Birth BIOMASS --> calories Group Production Efficiency No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7.014 Handout PRODUCTIVITY: the “METABOLISM” of ECOSYSTEMS
    7.014 Handout PRODUCTIVITY: THE “METABOLISM” OF ECOSYSTEMS Ecologists use the term “productivity” to refer to the process through which an assemblage of organisms (e.g. a trophic level or ecosystem assimilates carbon. Primary producers (autotrophs) do this through photosynthesis; Secondary producers (heterotrophs) do it through the assimilation of the organic carbon in their food. Remember that all organic carbon in the food web is ultimately derived from primary production. DEFINITIONS Primary Productivity: Rate of conversion of CO2 to organic carbon (photosynthesis) per unit surface area of the earth, expressed either in terns of weight of carbon, or the equivalent calories e.g., g C m-2 year-1 Kcal m-2 year-1 Primary Production: Same as primary productivity, but usually expressed for a whole ecosystem e.g., tons year-1 for a lake, cornfield, forest, etc. NET vs. GROSS: For plants: Some of the organic carbon generated in plants through photosynthesis (using solar energy) is oxidized back to CO2 (releasing energy) through the respiration of the plants – RA. Gross Primary Production: (GPP) = Total amount of CO2 reduced to organic carbon by the plants per unit time Autotrophic Respiration: (RA) = Total amount of organic carbon that is respired (oxidized to CO2) by plants per unit time Net Primary Production (NPP) = GPP – RA The amount of organic carbon produced by plants that is not consumed by their own respiration. It is the increase in the plant biomass in the absence of herbivores. For an entire ecosystem: Some of the NPP of the plants is consumed (and respired) by herbivores and decomposers and oxidized back to CO2 (RH).
    [Show full text]
  • Thermophilic Lithotrophy and Phototrophy in an Intertidal, Iron-Rich, Geothermal Spring 2 3 Lewis M
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/428698; this version posted September 27, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Thermophilic Lithotrophy and Phototrophy in an Intertidal, Iron-rich, Geothermal Spring 2 3 Lewis M. Ward1,2,3*, Airi Idei4, Mayuko Nakagawa2,5, Yuichiro Ueno2,5,6, Woodward W. 4 Fischer3, Shawn E. McGlynn2* 5 6 1. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA 7 2. Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo, 152-8550, Japan 8 3. Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 9 91125 USA 10 4. Department of Biological Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, 11 Japan 12 5. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo, 13 152-8551, Japan 14 6. Department of Subsurface Geobiological Analysis and Research, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth 15 Science and Technology, Natsushima-cho, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan 16 Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] 17 18 Abstract 19 Hydrothermal systems, including terrestrial hot springs, contain diverse and systematic 20 arrays of geochemical conditions that vary over short spatial scales due to progressive interaction 21 between the reducing hydrothermal fluids, the oxygenated atmosphere, and in some cases 22 seawater. At Jinata Onsen, on Shikinejima Island, Japan, an intertidal, anoxic, iron- and 23 hydrogen-rich hot spring mixes with the oxygenated atmosphere and sulfate-rich seawater over 24 short spatial scales, creating an enormous range of redox environments over a distance ~10 m.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationships Between Net Primary Production, Water Transparency, Chlorophyll A, and Total Phosphorus in Oak Lake, Brookings County, South Dakota
    Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science, Vol. 92 (2013) 67 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NET PRIMARY PRODUCTION, WATER TRANSPARENCY, CHLOROPHYLL A, AND TOTAL PHOSPHORUS IN OAK LAKE, BROOKINGS COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA Lyntausha C. Kuehl and Nels H. Troelstrup, Jr.* Department of Natural Resource Management South Dakota State University Brookings, SD 57007 *Corresponding author email: [email protected] ABSTRACT Lake trophic state is of primary concern for water resource managers and is used as a measure of water quality and classification for beneficial uses. Secchi transparency, total phosphorus and chlorophyll a are surrogate measurements used in the calculation of trophic state indices (TSI) which classify waters as oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic or hypereutrophic. Yet the relationships between these surrogate measurements and direct measures of lake productivity vary regionally and may be influenced by external factors such as non-algal tur- bidity. Prairie pothole basins, common throughout eastern South Dakota and southwestern Minnesota, are shallow glacial lakes subject to frequent winds and sediment resuspension. Light-dark oxygen bottle methodology was employed to evaluate vertical planktonic production within an eastern South Dakota pothole basin. Secchi transparency, total phosphorus and planktonic chlorophyll a were also measured from each of three basin sites at biweekly intervals throughout the 2012 growing season. Secchi transparencies ranged between 0.13 and 0.25 meters, corresponding to an average TSISD value of 84.4 (hypereutrophy). Total phosphorus concentrations ranged between 178 and 858 ug/L, corresponding to an average TSITP of 86.7 (hypereutrophy). Chlorophyll a values corresponded to an average TSIChla value of 69.4 (transitional between eutrophy and hypereutro- phy) and vertical production profiles yielded areal net primary productivity val- ues averaging 288.3 mg C∙m-2∙d-1 (mesotrophy).
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity Within the Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada by Breanna Beaver Submit
    Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity within The Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada by Breanna Beaver Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Environmental Science Program YOUNGSTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY December, 2017 Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Ecosystem Connectivity within The Castle Parks, Alberta, Canada Breanna Beaver I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand that this thesis will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for scholarly research. Signature: Breanna Beaver, Student Date Approvals: Dawna Cerney, Thesis Advisor Date Peter Kimosop, Committee Member Date Felicia Armstrong, Committee Member Date Clayton Whitesides, Committee Member Date Dr. Salvatore A. Sanders, Dean of Graduate Studies Date Abstract Habitat fragmentation is an important subject of research needed by park management planners, particularly for conservation management. The Castle Parks, in southwest Alberta, Canada, exhibit extensive habitat fragmentation from recreational and resource use activities. Umbrella and keystone species within The Castle Parks include grizzly bears, wolverines, cougars, and elk which are important animals used for conservation agendas to help protect the matrix of the ecosystem. This study identified and analyzed the nature of habitat fragmentation within The Castle Parks for these species, and has identified geographic areas of habitat fragmentation concern. This was accomplished using remote sensing, ArcGIS, and statistical analyses, to develop models of fragmentation for ecosystem cover type and Digital Elevation Models of slope, which acted as proxies for species habitat suitability.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Systems of the United States a Working Classification of U.S
    ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES A WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF U.S. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS NatureServe is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing the scientific knowledge that forms the basis for effective conservation action. Citation: Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. © NatureServe 2003 Ecological Systems of the United States is a component of NatureServe’s International Terrestrial Ecological Systems Classification. Á Funding for this report was provided by a grant from The Nature Conservancy. Front cover: Maroon Bells Wilderness, Colorado. Photo © Patrick Comer NatureServe 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 908-1800 www.natureserve.org ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES A WORKING CLASSIFICATION OF U.S. TERRESTRIAL SYSTEMS Á Á Á Á Á Patrick Comer Don Faber-Langendoen Rob Evans Sue Gawler Carmen Josse Gwen Kittel Shannon Menard Milo Pyne Marion Reid Keith Schulz Kristin Snow Judy Teague June 2003 Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the generous support provided by The Nature Conservancy for this effort to classify and characterize the ecological systems of the United States. We are particularly grateful to the late John Sawhill, past President of The Nature Conservancy, who was an early supporter of this concept, and who made this funding possible through an allocation from the President’s Discretionary Fund. Many of the concepts and approaches for defining and applying ecological systems have greatly benefited from collaborations with Conservancy staff, and the classification has been refined during its application in Conservancy-sponsored conservation assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions Between Photosynthesis and Respiration in an Aquatic Ecosystem
    Interactions between Photosynthesis and Respiration in an Aquatic Ecosystem Jane E. Caldwell and Kristi Teagarden 53 Campus Drive, P.O. Box 6057 Dept. of Biology West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506 [email protected] (304)293-5201 extension 31459 [email protected] (304)293-5201 extension 31542 Abstract: Students measure the results of respiration and photosynthesis separately, combined, and in comparison to a non-living control “ecosystem”. The living ecosystem uses only snails and water plants. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia nitrogen concentrations are measured with simple colorimetric and titration water tests using commercially available kits. The exercise is designed for large enrollment non-majors labs, but modifications for large and small classrooms are described. Introduction This lab exercise was developed for a freshman course for non-science majors at West Virginia University. The exercise asks students to apply their knowledge of basic metabolic processes to a series of simple aquatic ecosystems, which students monitor through water testing. These ecosystems consist of aquaria containing plants and/or snails with or without light exposure, and are compared against a non-living control system (an aquarium with water, light, and gravel). As they analyze their results, students observe the interplay of respiration, photosynthesis, protein digestion (or waste excretion), and decomposition through their effects on dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. Students synthesize these observations into written explanations of their results. During the course of the lab, students: • predict the relative levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia for various aquaria compared to a control aquarium. • observe and conduct titrimetric and colorimetric tests for dissolved compounds in water.
    [Show full text]
  • Productivity Is Defined As the Ratio of Output to Input(S)
    Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM) Development Economics and Public Policy Working Paper Series WP No. 31/2011 Published by: Development Economics and Public Policy Cluster, Institute of Development Policy and Management, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; email: [email protected]. PRODUCTIVITY MEASUREMENT IN INDIAN MANUFACTURING: A COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS Vinish Kathuria SJMSOM, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay [email protected] Rajesh S N Raj * Centre for Multi-Disciplinary Development Research, Dharwad [email protected] Kunal Sen IDPM, University of Manchester [email protected] Abstract Very few other issues in explaining economic growth has generated so much debate than the measurement of total factor productivity (TFP) growth. The concept of TFP and its measurement and interpretation have offered a fertile ground for researchers for more than half a century. This paper attempts to provide a review of different issues in the measurement of TFP including the choice of inputs and outputs. The paper then gives a brief review of different techniques used to compute TFP growth. Using three different techniques – growth accounting (non-parametric), production function accounting for endogeniety (semi-parametric) and stochastic production frontier (parametric) – the paper computes the TFP growth of Indian manufacturing for both formal and informal sectors from 1989-90 to 2005-06. The results indicate that the TFP growth of formal and informal sector has differed greatly during this 16-year period but that the estimates are sensitive to the technique used. This suggests that any inference on productivity growth in India since the economic reforms of 1991 is conditional on the method of measurement used, and that there is no unambiguous picture emerging on the direction of change in TFP growth in post-reform India.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Distribution of Cold Seep Communities Along the Peruvian Active Margin: Relationship to Geological and Fluid Patterns
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 132: 109-125, 1996 Published February 29 Mar Ecol Prog Ser l Structure and distribution of cold seep communities along the Peruvian active margin: relationship to geological and fluid patterns 'Laboratoire Ecologie Abyssale, DROIEP, IFREMER Centre de Brest, BP 70, F-29280 Plouzane, France '~epartementdes Sciences de la Terre, UBO, 6 ave. Le Gorgeu, F-29287 Brest cedex, France 3~aboratoireEnvironnements Sedimentaires, DROIGM, IFREMER Centre de Brest, BP 70, F-29280 Plouzane, France "niversite P. et M. Curie, Observatoire Oceanologique de Banyuls, F-66650 Banyuls-sur-Mer, France ABSTRACT Exploration of the northern Peruvian subduction zone with the French submersible 'Nau- tile' has revealed benthlc communities dominated by new species of vesicomyid bivalves (Calyptogena spp and Ves~comyasp ) sustained by methane-nch fluid expulsion all along the continental margin, between depths of 5140 and 2630 m Videoscoplc studies of 25 dives ('Nautiperc cruise 1991) allowed us to describe the distribution of these biological conlnlunities at different spahal scales At large scale the communities are associated with fluid expuls~onalong the major tectonic features (scarps, canyons) of the margln At a smaller scale on the scarps, the distribuhon of the communities appears to be con- trolled by fluid expulsion along local fracturatlon features such as joints, faults and small-scale scars Elght dlves were made at one particular geological structure the Middle Slope Scarp (the scar of a large debns avalanche) where numerous
    [Show full text]
  • Carlson's Trophic State Index
    Carlson's Trophic State Index The cloudiness of lake water and how far down you can see is often related to the amount of nutrients in the water. Nutrients promote growth of microscopic plant cells (phytoplankton) that are fed upon by microscopic animals (zooplankton). The more the nutrients, the more the plants and animals and the cloudier the water is. This is a common, but indirect, way to roughly estimate the condition of the lake. This condition, called eutrophication, is a natural aging process of lakes, but which is unnaturally accelerated by too many nutrients. A Secchi disk is commonly used to measure the depth to which you can easily see through the water, also called its transparency. Secchi disk transparency, chlorophyll a (an indirect measure of phytoplankton), and total phosphorus (an important nutrient and potential pollutant) are often used to define the degree of eutrophication, or trophic status of a lake. The concept of trophic status is based on the fact that changes in nutrient levels (measured by total phosphorus) causes changes in algal biomass (measured by chlorophyll a) which in turn causes changes in lake clarity (measured by Secchi disk transparency). A trophic state index is a convenient way to quantify this relationship. One popular index was developed by Dr. Robert Carlson of Kent State University. Trophic State Index Carlson's index uses a log transformation of Secchi disk values as a measure of algal biomass on a scale from 0 - 110. Each increase of ten units on the scale represents a doubling of algal biomass. Because chlorophyll a and total phosphorus are usually closely correlated to Secchi disk measurements, these parameters can also be assigned trophic state index values.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Implications Is Biogeography: For
    FEATURE BIODIVERSITY IS BIOGEOGRAPHY: IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION By G. Carleton Ray THREE THEMES DOMINATEthis review. The first is similarities, as is apparent within the coastal zone, that biodiversity is biogeography. Or, as Nelson the biodiversity of which depends on land-sea in- and Ladiges (1990) put it: "Indeed, what beyond teractions. biogeography is "biodiversity' about?" Second, "Characteristic Biodiversity"--a Static View watershed and seashed patterns and their scale-re- A complete species inventory for any biogeo- lated dynamics are major modifiers of biogeo- graphic province on Earth is virtually impossible. graphic pattern. And, third, concepts of biodiver- In fact, species lists, absent a biogeographic frame sity and biogeography are essential guides for of reference, can be ecologically meaningless, be- conservation and management of coastal-marine cause such lists say little about the dynamics of systems, especially for MACPAs (MArine and environmental change. To address such dynamics, Coastal Protected Areas). biodiversity is best expressed at a hierarchy of Conservation and conservation bioecology have scales, which this discussion follows. entered into an era of self-awareness of their suc- cesses. Proponents of "biodiversity" have achieved Global Patterns worldwide recognition. Nevertheless: "Like so Hayden el al. (1984) attempted a summary of the many buzz words, biodiversity has many shades of state-of-the-art of global, coastal-marine biogeogra- • . the coastal zone, meaning and is often used to express vague and phy at the behest of UNESCO's Man and the Bios- which is the most bio- ill-thought-out concepts" (Angel, 1991), as phere Programme (MAB) and the International reflected by various biodiversity "strategies" Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Production Ecology • Objectives – Overview of Forest Production Ecology • C Cycling – Primary Productivity of Trees and Forest Ecosystems
    Forest Production Ecology • Objectives – Overview of forest production ecology • C cycling – Primary productivity of trees and forest ecosystems … ecologists and ecosystem managers are unlikely to achieve desired management objectives unless they are familiar with the distribution and movements of energy that are responsible for the character and productivity of ecosystems under their management. (Kimmins 2004) – First: questions, take-home points, things you learned, etc. from reading assignment 1 Forest Production Ecology • Why should you care about C cycling? – C is the energy currency of all ecosystems • Plant (autotrophic) production is the base of almost all food/energy pyramids • Underlies all ecosystem goods & services – Plant C cycling, to a large extent, controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations (i.e., climate) • 3-4x as much C in terrestrial ecosystems as the atmosphere • Forests account for ~80% of global plant biomass and ~50% of global terrestrial productivity – C is fundamental to soil processes (i.e., SOM) • Belowground resources are a primary control over all ecosystem processes 2 Forest Production Ecology •Global Carbon Cycle ≈ “Breathing” of Earth 3 Forest Production Ecology • C enters via photosynthesis The C Bank Account 1. Gross Primary Production (GPP) •Total C input via photosynthesis 2. Accumulates in ecosystems (C pools/storage) as: (a) plant biomass; (b) SOM & microbial biomass; or (c) animal biomass 3. Returned to the atmosphere via: (a) respiration (R; auto- or hetero-trophic); (b) VOC emissions; or (c) disturbance Chapin et al. (2011) 4. Leached from or transferred laterally to another ecosystem Forest Production Ecology • Keys to understanding biological C cycling 1. Pools (storage) vs. fluxes (flows) of C • Live and dead (detrital) biomass • Above- and belowground 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Productivity Significant Ideas
    2.3 Flows of Energy & Matter - Productivity Significant Ideas • Ecosystems are linked together by energy and matter flow • The Sun’s energy drives these flows and humans are impacting the flows of energy and matter both locally and globally Knowledge & Understandings • As solar radiation (insolation) enters the Earth’s atmosphere some energy becomes unavailable for ecosystems as the energy absorbed by inorganic matter or reflected back into the atmosphere. • Pathways of radiation through the atmosphere involve the loss of radiation through reflection and absorption • Pathways of energy through an ecosystem include: • Conversion of light to chemical energy • Transfer of chemical energy from one trophic level to another with varying efficiencies • Overall conversion of UB and visible light to heat energy by the ecosystem • Re-radiation of heat energy to the atmosphere. Knowledge & Understandings • The conversion of energy into biomass for a given period of time is measured by productivity • Net primary productivity (NPP) is calculated by subtracting respiratory losses (R) from gross primary productivity (GPP) NPP = GPP – R • Gross secondary productivity (GSP) is the total energy/biomass assimulated by consumers and is calculated by subtracting the mass of fecal loss from the mass of food eaten. GSP = food eaten – fecal loss • Net secondary productivity (NSP) is calculated by subtracting the respiratory losses (R) from GSP. NSP=GSP - R Applications and Skills • Analyze quantitative models of flows of energy and matter • Construct quantitative
    [Show full text]