DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecosystem Energy Flow- Productivity Studying Organisms in Their Environment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecosystem Energy Flow- Productivity Studying Organisms in Their Environment Ecosystem Energy Flow- Productivity Studying organisms in their environment organism population community ecosystem biosphere Essential Questions: . What limits the production in ecosystems? . How do nutrients move in the ecosystem? . How does energy move through the ecosystem? Ecosystem . All the organisms in a community plus abiotic factors ecosystems are transformers of energy & processors of matter . Ecosystems are self-sustaining what is needed? . capture energy . transfer energy . cycle nutrients Ecosystem inputs constantenergy flows input ofthrough energy nutrients cycle MatterDon’t forget cannot bethe created laws of or destroyedPhysics! nutrients inputs can only . energy biospherecycle . nutrients Generalized Nutrient consumers cycling consumersproducers decomposers nutrients ENTER FOODnutrients CHAIN = mademade available available to producersto producers return to Decomposition abiotic reservoir connects all abiotic trophic levels reservoir geologic processes Carbon cycle CO2 in Combustion of fuels atmosphere Industry and home Photosynthesis Diffusion Respiration Plants Animals Dissolved CO2 abiotic reservoir: . CO2 in atmosphere Bicarbonates enter food chain: . photosynthesis = Photosynthesis carbon fixation in Calvin cycle Deposition recycle: of dead Animals . return to abiotic: material Plants and algae . respiration . combustion Fossil fuels Deposition of (oil, gas, coal) Carbonates in sediment dead material abiotic reservoir: . N in atmosphere enter food chain: Nitrogen cycle . nitrogen fixation by soil & aquatic bacteria recycle: . decomposing & nitrifying bacteria return to abiotic: . denitrifying bacteria Atmospheric Carnivores nitrogen Herbivores Birds Plankton with Plants nitrogen-fixing bacteria Death, excretion, feces Fish Nitrogen-fixing Decomposing bacteria bacteria (plant roots) excretion amino acids Ammonifying bacteria Nitrogen-fixing bacteria loss to deep sediments (soil) Nitrifying bacteria Denitrifying soil nitrates bacteria abiotic reservoir: . rocks, minerals, soil enter food chain: . erosion releases soluble phosphate Phosphorus cycle . uptake by plants recycle: . decomposing bacteria & fungi return to abiotic: . loss to ocean sediment Plants Land animals Animal tissue Urine and feces Soluble soil phosphate Decomposers Loss in (bacteria and drainage fungi) Rocks and minerals Decomposers Phosphates (bacteria & fungi) in solution Animal tissue and feces Aquatic Plants and animals algae Precipitates Loss to deep sediment abiotic reservoir: . surface & atmospheric water enter food chain: Water cycle . precipitation & plant uptake recycle: . transpiration return to abiotic: . evaporation & runoff Solar energy Transpiration Water vapor Evaporation Precipitation Oceans Runoff Lakes Percolation in soil Aquifer Groundwater Transpiration Why does water flow We will discuss into, up process in and out of detail soon! a plant? Energy flows through ecosystems secondary loss of consumers energy sun (carnivores) primary consumers Energy is (herbivores) loss of incorporated energy into a community by what group? producers (plants) . Ecosystem dynamics involve two main processes: energy flow (productivity) and chemical cycling (biogeochemical cycles) . Energy flows through ecosystems . Matter cycles within them . Physical laws govern energy flow and chemical cycling in ecosystems Conservation of Energy (first law of thermodynamics) Energy enters from solar radiation and is lost as heat Conservation of matter - Chemical elements are continually recycled within ecosystems . Ecosystems are open systems, absorbing energy and mass and releasing heat and waste products Productivity . Primary productivity: Term for the rate which producers photosynthesize organic compounds in an ecosystem. Gross primary productivity: total amount of photosynthetic biomass production in an ecosystem Net Primary Productivity = GPP – respiration cost . Ecosystems with greater productivity are more stable and diverse than ecosystems with less productivity. Which ecosystems are most productive? Energy transfer between trophic levels is typically only 10% efficient . Net Primary Production (NPP) is the amount of new biomass added in a given time period . Only NPP is available to consumers . Ecosystems vary greatly in NPP and contribution to the total NPP on Earth Limited by light, nutrients and other abiotic factors . Secondary is the amount of chemical energy in food converted to new biomass Inefficiency of energy transfer . Loss of energy between levels of food chain To where is the energy lost? The cost of living! sun 17% growth energy lost to only this energy daily living moves on to the 33% next level in cellular the food chain respiration 50% waste (feces) Production Efficiency . When a caterpillar feeds on a leaf, only about one-sixth of the leaf’s energy is used for secondary production . An organism’s production efficiency is the fraction of energy stored in food that is not used for respiration Figure 55.10 Plant material eaten by caterpillar 200 J 67 J Cellular 100 J respiration Feces 33 J Not assimilated Growth (new biomass; Assimilated secondary production) Trophic Efficiency and Ecological Pyramids . Trophic efficiency is the percentage of production transferred from one trophic level to the next . It is usually about 10% (“10% Law”), with an actual range of 5% to 20% . Trophic efficiency is multiplied over the length of a food chain sun Ecological pyramid . Loss of energy between levels of food chain can feed fewer animals in each level 10% energy available for next level Notice only 1% of sunlight energy converted by plants Interesting Energy production facts: . Birds and mammals have efficiencies in the range of 13% . Fishes have production efficiencies of around 10% . Insects and microorganisms have efficiencies of 40% or more . WHY?? Role of Humans in Energy flow and nutrient cycling: . Dynamics of energy flow in ecosystems have important implications for the human population . Eating meat is a relatively inefficient in terms of utilizing photosynthetic production (and water) . Worldwide agriculture could feed many more people if humans ate only plant material . Fossil fuels used to produce foods Humans in food chains-carbon cycle . Dynamics of energy through ecosystems have important implications for human populations How much energy does it take to feed a human? . if we are meat eaters? . if we are vegetarian? Better harvest? Combustion and water/ ocean pollution Humans and the water cycle . Deforestation breaks the water cycle groundwater is not transpired to the atmosphere, so precipitation is not created forest desert desertification Effects of deforestation 40% increase in runoff . 60x loss in nitrogen loss of water . 10x loss in calcium loss into 80 nitrate levels in runoff surface water 40 loss out of 4 ecosystem! Deforestation 2 Concentration of nitrate (mg/l ) Why0 is nitrogen1965 so 1966 1967 1968 important? Year What you need to be able to do: . Using the laws of conservation of matter and energy to do some basic accounting and determine different aspects of energy and matter usage in a community. Remember: Inputs have to equal outputs Sample problem . A caterpillar consumes 100 kcal of energy. It uses 35 kcal for cell respiration, and loses 50 kcal as waste. Determine the trophic efficiency for its creation of new biomass. Total energy = 100 kcal Lost and Respired: 35 + 50 = 85 kcal Total energy for growth: 15 kcal . Efficiency = part/total = 15/100 = .15 (or 15% transfer or 3/20 as fraction) The “take home” energy defines ecology!.
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]
  • Terrestrial Decomposition
    Terrestrial Decomposition • Objectives – Controls over decomposition • Litter breakdown • Soil organic matter formation and dynamics – Carbon balance of ecosystems • Soil carbon storage 1 Overview • In terrestrial ecosystems, soils (organic horizon + mineral soil) > C than in vegetation and atmosphere combined 2 Overview • Decomposition is: 1. Major pathway for C loss from ecosystems 2. Central to ecosystem C loss and storage 3 Overview 4 Incorporation 1 year later Overview • Predominant controls on litter decomposition are fairly well constrained 1. Temperature and moisture 2. Litter quality • N availability • Lignin concentration • Lignin:N • Mechanisms for soil organic matter stabilization: 1. Recalcitrance (refers to chemistry) 2. Physical protection • Within soil aggregates • Organo-mineral associations 3. Substrate supply regulation (energetic limitation) 5 Overview • Disturbance can override millenia in a matter of days or years: 1. Land use change 2. Invasive species 3. Climate change • Understanding the mechanistic drivers of decomposition, soil organic matter formation, and carbon stabilization help us make management decisions, take mitigation steps, and protect resources. 6 Overview Native Ōhiʻa - Koa forest Conversion to Reforestation in grass-dominated pasture (80 yr) Eucalyptus plantation (10 yr) Conventional sugar cane harvest. 20° C 18° C 16° C 14° C 7 Sustainable ratoon harvest. Decomposition • Decomposition is the biological, physical and chemical breakdown of organic material – Provides energy for microbial growth
    [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]
  • Plant Species Effects on Nutrient Cycling: Revisiting Litter Feedbacks
    Review Plant species effects on nutrient cycling: revisiting litter feedbacks Sarah E. Hobbie Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA In a review published over two decades ago I asserted reinforce those gradients and patterns of NPP, focusing that, along soil fertility gradients, plant traits change in on feedbacks operating through plant litter decomposition. ways that reinforce patterns of soil fertility and net Specifically, I evaluate two key assumptions underlying primary productivity (NPP). I reevaluate this assertion the plant litter feedback idea: (i) plant litter traits vary in light of recent research, focusing on feedbacks to NPP predictably along fertility gradients, and (ii) such variation operating through litter decomposition. I conclude that reinforces soil fertility gradients through effects on decom- mechanisms emerging since my previous review might position and litter N release. Given the number of synthetic weaken these positive feedbacks, such as negative cross-site analyses of plant traits and their consequences effects of nitrogen on decomposition, while others for nutrient cycling over the past two decades, the time is might strengthen them, such as slower decomposition ripe for revisiting my original assertions. Indeed, I show of roots compared to leaf litter. I further conclude that that my original assertion is more nuanced and complex predictive understanding of plant species effects on than originally claimed. In particular, I discuss the need to nutrient cycling will require developing new frameworks consider leaf litter decomposition more carefully and move that are broadened beyond litter decomposition to con- beyond consideration of leaf litter feedbacks to a more sider the full litter–soil organic matter (SOM) continuum.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Matter Decomposition in Simulated Aquaculture Ponds Group Fish Culture and Fisheries Daily Supervisor(S) Dr
    O rganic matter decomposition in simulated aquaculture ponds Beatriz Torres Beristain Promotor: Prof. Dr. J.A .J. V erreth H oogleraar in de V isteelt en V isserij W ageningen U niversiteit C o-promotor: Dr. M .C .J. V erdegem U niversitair docent bij the Leerstoelgroep V isteelt en V isserij W ageningen U niversiteit Samenstelling promotiecommissie: Prof. Dr. Y . A vnimelech Technion, Israel Institute of Technology Prof. Dr. Ir. H .J. Gijzen U N ESC O -IH E, Delf, N etherlands Prof. Dr. Ir. M . W .A . V erstegen W ageningen U niversiteit Prof. Dr. Ir. A .A . K oelmans W ageningen U niversiteit Dit onderzoek is uitgevoerd binnen de onderzoekschool W IA S O rganic matter decomposition in simulated aquaculture ponds Beatriz Torres Beristain Proefschrift Ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor O p gezag van de rector magnificus van W ageningen U niversiteit, Prof. Dr. Ir. L. Speelman, In het openbaar te verdedigen O p dinsdag 15 A pril 2005 des namiddags te half tw ee in de A ula Torres Beristain, B. O rganic matter decomposition in simulated aquaculture ponds PhD thesis, Fish C ulture and Fisheries Group, W ageningen Institute of A nimal Sciences. W ageningen U niversity, P.O . Box 338, 6700 A H W ageningen, The N etherlands. - W ith R ef. œW ith summary in Spanish, Dutch and English ISBN : 90-8504-170-8 A Domingo, Y olanda y A lejandro Table of contents C hapter 1 General introduction. 1 C hapter 2 R eview microbial ecology and role in aquaculture ponds.
    [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]
  • Fermentation and Anaerobic Decomposition in a Hot Spring
    Fermentation and anaerobic decomposition in a hot spring microbial mat by Karen Leigh Anderson A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Microbiology Montana State University © Copyright by Karen Leigh Anderson (1984) Abstract: Fermentation was investigated in a low sulfate hot spring microbial mat (Octopus Spring) according to current models on anaerobic decomposition. The mat was studied to determine what fermentation products accumulated, where in the mat they accumulated, and what factors affected their accumulation. Mat samples were incubated under dark anaerobic conditions to measure accumulation of fermentation products. Acetate and propionate (ca. 3:1) were the major products to accumulate in a 55&deg,C mat. Other products accumulated to a much lesser extent. Incubation of mat samples of varying thickness showed that fermentation occurred in the top 4mm of the mat. This has interesting implications for fermentative organisms in the mat due to the diurnal changes in mat oxygen concentrations. Fermentation measured in mat samples collected at various temperatures (50&deg,-70°C) showed acetate and propionate to be the major accumulation products. According to the interspecies hydrogen transfer model, the hydrogen concentration in a system affects the types of fermentation products produced. At a 65° C site, with natural high hydrogen levels, and at a 55°C site, with active methanogenesis, fermentation product accumulation was compared. There was a greater ratio of reduced fermentation products to acetate, with the exception of propionate, at 65°C. Ethanol accumulated at the 65°C site, as did lactate, though to a lesser extent.
    [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]
  • Decomposition Responses to Climate Depend on Microbial Community Composition
    Decomposition responses to climate depend on microbial community composition Sydney I. Glassmana,b,1, Claudia Weihea, Junhui Lic, Michaeline B. N. Albrighta,d, Caitlin I. Loobya,e, Adam C. Martinya,c, Kathleen K. Tresedera, Steven D. Allisona, and Jennifer B. H. Martinya aDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697; bDepartment of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521; cDepartment of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697; dBioscience Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545; and eDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Denver, CO 80210 Edited by Mary K. Firestone, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved October 10, 2018 (received for review June 29, 2018) Bacteria and fungi drive decomposition, a fundamental process in soil moisture and extracellular enzyme production across a natural the carbon cycle, yet the importance of microbial community climate gradient (16). composition for decomposition remains elusive. Here, we used an Given that the factors regulating decomposition are often 18-month reciprocal transplant experiment along a climate gradient context dependent and can vary in their influence across a range in Southern California to disentangle the effects of the microbial of spatial and temporal scales (17, 18), we hypothesized that community versus the environment on decomposition. Specifically, decomposition responses to changing climatic conditions would we tested whether the decomposition response to climate change depend on microbial community composition. To test this hy- depends on the microbial community. We inoculated microbial pothesis, we conducted the largest microbial community trans- decomposers from each site onto a common, irradiated leaf litter plant experiment to date.
    [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]
  • Organic Matter Decomposition and Ecosystem Metabolism As Tools to Assess the Functional Integrity of Streams and Rivers–A Systematic Review
    water Review Organic Matter Decomposition and Ecosystem Metabolism as Tools to Assess the Functional Integrity of Streams and Rivers–A Systematic Review Verónica Ferreira 1,* , Arturo Elosegi 2 , Scott D. Tiegs 3 , Daniel von Schiller 4 and Roger Young 5 1 Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre–MARE, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3000–456 Coimbra, Portugal 2 Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), P.O. Box 644, 48080 Bilbao, Spain; [email protected] 3 Department of Biological Sciences, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309, USA; [email protected] 4 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Institut de Recerca de l’Aigua (IdRA), University of Barcelona, Diagonal 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain; [email protected] 5 Cawthron Institute, Private Bag 2, Nelson 7042, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 4 November 2020; Accepted: 8 December 2020; Published: 15 December 2020 Abstract: Streams and rivers provide important services to humans, and therefore, their ecological integrity should be a societal goal. Although ecological integrity encompasses structural and functional integrity, stream bioassessment rarely considers ecosystem functioning. Organic matter decomposition and ecosystem metabolism are prime candidate indicators of stream functional integrity, and here we review each of these functions, the methods used for their determination, and their strengths and limitations for bioassessment. We also provide a systematic review of studies that have addressed organic matter decomposition (88 studies) and ecosystem metabolism (50 studies) for stream bioassessment since the year 2000. Most studies were conducted in temperate regions. Bioassessment based on organic matter decomposition mostly used leaf litter in coarse-mesh bags, but fine-mesh bags were also common, and cotton strips and wood were frequent in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]