Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 144, Issue 2, pp 215–227 | Cite as

Measured estimates of semi-natural terrestrial NPP in Great Britain: comparison with modelled values, and dependence on atmospheric nitrogen deposition

  • Edward TippingEmail author
  • Jessica A. C. Davies
  • Peter A. Henrys
  • Susan G. Jarvis
  • Edwin C. Rowe
  • Simon M. Smart
  • Michael G. Le Duc
  • Robert H. Marrs
  • Robin J. Pakeman
Article
  • 8 Downloads

Abstract

Plant growth in nitrogen (N)-limited, unfertilised terrestrial ecosystems should respond to additional N inputs from atmospheric deposition (Ndep). We investigated this for sites in Great Britain (GB) by compiling 796 estimates of net primary productivity (NPP) from measured biomass production over the period 1932–2014, although the great majority were for 1990 onwards. The sites were largely vegetated with shrubs, grass and bracken, and had a wide range of Ndep (0.5–3.3 gN m−2 a−1 in 2000). The measured NPP estimates were compared with calculated values from the biogeochemical ecosystem model N14CP, which predicts that NPP depends strongly upon Ndep. The measured and modelled average total NPP values (gC m−2 a−1) from all data were 387 (standard deviation, SD = 193) and 377 (SD = 72) respectively. Measured and modelled averages for vegetation classes followed the sequence: broadleaved trees ~ needle-leaved trees > herbs (rough grassland + bracken) ~ shrubs. After averaging measured values for sites in individual model grid cells (5 km × 5 km) with 10 or more replicates, the measured and modelled NPP values were correlated (n = 26, r2 = 0.22, p = 0.011), with a slope close to unity. Significant linear relationships were found between measured ln NPP and cumulative Ndep for both herbs (n = 298, p = 0.021) and shrubs (n = 473, p = 0.006), with slopes comparable to those predicted with the model. The results suggest that semi-natural NPP in GB depends positively upon Ndep, in a manner that agrees quantitatively with N14CP predictions. Calculations with the model, using modelled temporal variation in Ndep, indicate that fertilisation by Ndep caused average increases in semi-natural NPP over the period 1800 to 2010 of 30% for shrubs, 71% for herbs, and 91% for broadleaved trees. Combined with previous published results for forests, our findings suggest a general and widespread vegetation response to fertilisation by Ndep.

Keywords

Net primary production Nitrogen deposition Modelling Grass Bracken Shrubs Long-term change 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council Macronutrient Cycles Programme (Grant nos. NE/J011533/1, NE/J011703/1, NE/J011991/1). We are grateful to U. Dragosits, E.J. Carnell, A.J. Dore, S.J. Tomlinson and M.A. Sutton (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, CEH Edinburgh) for providing modelled atmospheric nitrogen deposition data. We dedicate this paper to the memory of the late John Milne of the Macaulay Land Use Research (now James Hutton) Institute who pioneered large-scale measurements of plant production across GB and inspired several of the authorship team.

Supplementary material

10533_2019_582_MOESM1_ESM.docx (511 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 510 kb)
10533_2019_582_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (120 kb)
Table S1. The data base. Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 119 kb)

References

  1. Adler PB, Seabloom EW, Borer ET et al (2011) Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 333:1750–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chapin FS, Woodwell GM, Randerson JT et al (2006) Reconciling carbon-cycle concepts, terminology, and methods. Ecosystems 9:1041–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chapin FS, Matson PA, Mooney HA (2011) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark DA, Brown S, Kicklighter DW et al (2001) Measuring net primary production in forests: concepts and field methods. Ecol Appl 11:356–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission Forestry (2002) UK indicators of sustainable forestry. Forestry Commission Economics and Statistics Unit, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies JAC, Tipping E, Rowe EC et al (2016a) Long-term P weathering and recent N deposition control contemporary plant-soil C, N, and P. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 30:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies JAC, Tipping E, Whitmore AP (2016b) 150 years of macronutrient change in unfertilized UK ecosystems: observations vs simulations. Sci Total Environ 572:1485–1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis BAS, Brewer S, Stevenson AC, Guiot J (2003) The temperature of Europe during the Holocene reconstructed from pollen data. Quat Sci Rev 22:1701–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vries W, Reinds GJ, Gundersen P, Sterba H (2006) The impact of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration in European forests and forest soils. Glob Change Biol 12:1151–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Vries W, Solberg S, Dobbertin M et al (2009) The impact of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration by European forests and heathlands. For Ecol Manage 258:1814–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Vries W, Du E, Butterbach-Bahl K (2015) Short and long-term impacts of nitrogen deposition on carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 9–10:90–104Google Scholar
  12. Del Grosso S, Parton W, Stohlgren T, Zheng D, Bachelet D, Prince S, Hibbard K, Olson R (2008) Global potential net primary production predicted from vegetation class, precipitation, and temperature. Ecology 89(8):2117–2126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duprè C, Stevens CJ, Ranke T et al (2010) Changes in species richness and composition in European acidic grasslands over the past 70 years: the contribution of cumulative atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Glob Change Biol 16:344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elser JJ, Bracken MES, Cleland EE et al (2007) Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett 10:1135–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fenn K, Malhi Y, Morecroft M et al (2015) The carbon cycle of a maritime ancient temperate broadleaved woodland at seasonal and annual scales. Ecosystems 18:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Field CD, Evans CD, Dise NB et al (2017) Long-term nitrogen deposition increases heathland carbon sequestration. Sci Total Environ 592:426–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fraser LH, Pither J, Jentsch A et al (2015) Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science 349:302–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gill RA, Kelly RH, Parton WJ et al (2002) Using simple environmental variables to estimate below-ground productivity in grasslands. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gower ST, Krankina O, Olson RJ et al (2001) Net primary production and carbon allocation patterns of boreal forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 11:1395–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant SA, Milne JA, Barthram GT, Souter WG (1982) Effects of season and level of grazing on the utilization of heather by sheep. 3. Longer-term responses and sward recovery. Grass Forage Sci 37:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grime JP (1973a) Control of species density in herbaceous vegetation. J Environ Manage 1:151–167Google Scholar
  22. Grime JP (1973b) Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall DO, Ojima DS, Parton WJ, Scurlock JMO (1995) Response of temperate and tropical grasslands to CO2 and climate change. J Biogeog 22:537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahle H-P (ed) (2008) Causes and consequences of forest growth trends in Europe. European Forest Institute Research reports, vol 21. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  25. Lauenroth WK, Hunt HW, Swift DM, Singh JS (1986) Estimating aboveground net primary production in grasslands: a simulation approach. Ecol Model 33:297–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Le Duc MG, Pakeman RJ, Putwain PD, Marrs RH (2000) The variable responses of bracken fronds to control treatments in Great Britain. Ann Bot 85(Supplement B):17–29Google Scholar
  27. LeBauer DS, Treseder KK (2008) Nitrogen limitation of net primary productivity in terrestrial ecosystems is globally distributed. Ecology 89:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee M, Manning P, Rist J et al (2010) A global comparison of grassland biomass responses to CO2 and nitrogen enrichment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 365:2047–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Magnani F, Mencuccini M, Borghetti M et al (2007) The human footprint in the carbon cycle of temperate and boreal forests. Nature 447:848–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Marrs RH, Watt AS (2006) Biological flora of Pteridium aquilinum. J Ecol 94:1272–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marrs RH, Johnson SW, Le Duc MG (1998) Control of bracken and the restoration of heathland. VI. The response of fronds to 18 years of continued bracken control or six years of control followed by recovery. J Appl Ecol 35:479–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maskell LC, Smart SM, Bullock JM et al (2010) Nitrogen deposition causes widespread loss of species richness in British habitats. Glob Change Biol 16:671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGuire AD, Melillo JM, Joyce LA et al (1992) Interactions between carbon and nitrogen dynamics in estimating net primary productivity for potential vegetation in North America. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 6:101–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller GR (1979) Quantity and quality of the annual production of shoots and flowers by Calluna vulgaris. north-east Scotland. J Ecol 67:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller GR, Watson A (1978) Heather productivity and its relevance to the regulation of red grouse populations. In: Heal OW, Perkins DF, Brown WM (eds) Production ecology of British Moors and Montane Grasslands. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Milne JA, Pakeman RJ, Kirkham FW et al (2002) Biomass production of upland vegetation types in England and Wales. Grass Forage Sci 57:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morison J, Matthews R, Miller G et al (2012) Understanding the Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Balance of Forests in Britain. Forestry Commission Research Report, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  39. Morton D, Rowland C, Wood C, et al (2011) Final report for LCM2007—the new UK LAND COVER MAP. CS technical report no 11/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, p 108Google Scholar
  40. National Soil Resources Institute (2013) Soilscapes. http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes
  41. NEGTAP (2001) National Expert Group on transboundary air pollution: acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone in the UK. First Report. UK Department of the Environment. Transport and the Regions and the Devolved Administrations. www.nbu.ac.uk/negtap/finalreport.htm
  42. Olson RJ, Scurlock JMO, Prince SD, Zheng DL, Johnson KR (eds) (2013) NPP Multi-Biome: NPP and driver data for ecosystem model-data intercomparison, R2. Data set. [http://daac.ornl.gov] from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.  https://doi.org/10.3334/ornldaac/615
  43. Ovington JD (1962) Quantitative ecology and the woodland ecosystem concept. Adv Ecol Res 1:103–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ovington JD, Pearsall WH (1956) Production ecology II. Estimates of average production by trees. Oikos 7:202–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH, Jacob PJ (1994) A model of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) growth and the effects of control strategies and changing climate. J Appl Ecol 31:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paterson S, Marrs RH, Pakeman RJ (1997) Efficacy of bracken (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn) control treatments across a range of climatic zones in Great Britain. Ann Appl Biol 130(2):283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearsall WH, Gorham E (1956) Production ecology I. Standing crops of natural vegetation. Oikos 7:193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peterken GF, Newbould PJ (1966) Dry matter production by Ilex Aquifolium L. in the new forest. J Ecol 54:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  50. Reichle DE (1981) Dynamic properties of forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Roberts N (2014) The holocene: an environmental history. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Rowe EC, Emmett BA, Frogbrook ZL et al (2012) Nitrogen deposition and climate effects on soil nitrogen availability: influences of habitat type and soil characteristics. Sci Total Environ 434:62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rowe EC, Smart SM, Emmett BA (2014) Phosphorus availability explains patterns in a productivity indicator in temperate semi-natural vegetation. Environ Sci Process Impacts 16:2156–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rowe EC, Toberman H, Adams JL et al (2016) Productivity in a dominant herbaceous species is largely unrelated to soil macronutrient stocks. Sci Total Environ 572:1636–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scarascia-Mugnozza G, Bauer GA, Persson H et al (2000) Tree biomass, growth and nutrient pools. In: Schulze ED (ed) Carbon and nitrogen cycling in european forest ecosystems. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schlesinger WH, Bernhardt ES (2013) Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change, 3rd edn. Academic, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  57. Scurlock JMO, Johnson K, Olson RJ (2002) Estimating net primary productivity from grassland biomass dynamics measurements. Glob Change Biol 8:736–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sims PL, Singh JS (1971) Herbage dynamics and net primary production in certain ungrazed and grazed grasslands in North America. In: French NR (ed) Preliminary analysis of structure and function in grasslands, vol 10. Range Science Department Science Series. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, pp 59–124Google Scholar
  59. Smart SM, Glanville HC, del Carmen Blanes M et al (2017) Leaf dry matter content is better at predicting above-ground net primary production than specific leaf area. Funct Ecol 38:42–49Google Scholar
  60. Smith RI, Fowler D, Sutton MA et al (2000) Regional estimation of pollutant gas dry deposition in the UK: model description, sensitivity analyses and outputs. Atmos Environ 34:3757–3777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soil Survey of Scotland Staff (1981) Soil maps of Scotland at a scale of 1:250 000. Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  62. Stamp LD (1931) The land utilization survey of Britain. Geogr J 78:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stevens CJ, Dise NB, Mountford JO, Gowing DJ (2004) Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science 303:1876–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Thirsk J (ed) (1989) The agrarian history of England and Wales, vol 4. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Thomas RQ, Canham CD, Weathers KC, Goodale CL (2010) Increased tree carbon storage in response to nitrogen deposition in the US. Nat Geosci 3:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tipping E, Rowe EC, Evans CD et al (2012) N14C: a plant–soil nitrogen and carbon cycling model to simulate terrestrial ecosystem responses to atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Ecol Model 247:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tipping E, Davies JAC, Henrys PA et al (2017) Long-term increases in soil carbon due to ecosystem fertilization by atmospheric nitrogen deposition demonstrated by regional scale modelling and observations. Sci Rep 7:1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams GH, Foley A (1976) Seasonal variations in the carbohydrate content of bracken. Bot J Linn Soc 73:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Tipping
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica A. C. Davies
    • 2
  • Peter A. Henrys
    • 1
  • Susan G. Jarvis
    • 1
  • Edwin C. Rowe
    • 3
  • Simon M. Smart
    • 1
  • Michael G. Le Duc
    • 4
  • Robert H. Marrs
    • 4
  • Robin J. Pakeman
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyLancaster Environment CentreLancasterUK
  2. 2.Lancaster Environment Centre, Pentland Centre for Sustainability in BusinessLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Environment Centre WalesBangorUK
  4. 4.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  5. 5.The James Hutton InstituteAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations