Gradual Global Environmental Change in the Real World and Step Manipulative Experiments in Laboratory and Field: The Necessity of Inverse Analysis
Ecosystem responses to perturbation generated by a step increase in climatic variables, such as CO2 concentration and temperature as in field manipulative experiments, are different from responses as a result of a gradual increase in climatic variables as in the real world. This chapter discusses how results from manipulative experiments can be analyzed to improve our predictive understanding of ecosystem responses to future gradual climate change. We first describe gradual changes in several global environmental variables and the corresponding manipulative experiments. Then we review a modeling study by Luo and Reynolds (1999) on differential responses of ecosystems to gradual vs. step changes in CO2 concentration. We also review results from several experiments to verify that ecosystem responses to step CO2 increases are different from those to gradual changes. Finally, we introduce a framework of analysis techniques – inverse analysis – that extract information from experimental data toward predictive understanding in ecological research. The inverse analysis fundamentally focuses on data analysis for parameter estimation and evaluation of alternative model structures so as to improve our predictive understanding from both experimental observations and prior knowledge about the ecosystem processes.
KeywordsSoil Respiration Inverse Analysis Ecosystem Response Manipulative Experiment Global Change Factor
We thank Dr. Miao and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that made this chapter much improved. Our work has been supported by grants from the Office of Science (BER), U.S. Department of Energy, grant DE-FG03-99ER62800 DE-FG02-006ER64319, and National Science Foundation (DEB0444518).
- Allen, L.H., Jr., B.G. Drake, H.H. Rogers, and J.H. Shinn. 1992. Field techniques for exposure of plants and ecosystems to elevated CO2 and other trace gases. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 11:85–119.Google Scholar
- Barrett, D.J. 2002. Steady state turnover time of carbon in the Australian terrestrial biosphere. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 16, 1108, doi:10.1029/2002GB001860.Google Scholar
- Hui, D., and Y. Luo. 2004. Evaluation of soil CO2 production and transport in Duke Forest using a process-based modeling approach. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 18, GB4029, doi:10.1029/2004GB002297.Google Scholar
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 1992 (IPCC, Geneva, 1992); www.ipcc.ch.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007 (IPCC, Geneva, 2007); www.ipcc.ch.
- Kimball, B.A. 2005. Theory and performance of an infrared heater for ecosystem warming. Global Change Biology 11:2041–2056.Google Scholar
- Koch, G.W. 1993. The use of natural situations of CO2 enrichment in studies of vegetation responses to increasing atmospheric CO2. Pages 381–391 in E.D. Schulze, and H.A. Mooney, editors. Design and Execution of Experiments on CO2 Enrichment. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
- Laidler, K.J., and J.H. Meiser. 1982. Physical Chemistry. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. Menlo Park, CA.Google Scholar
- Luo Y., B. Medlyn, D. Hui, D. Ellsworth, J. Reynolds, and G. Katul. 2001a. Gross primary productivity in Duke Forest: Modeling synthesis of CO2 experiment and eddy-flux data. Ecological Applications 11: 239–252.Google Scholar
- Luo, Y., B. Su, W.S. Currie, J.S. Dukes, A. Finzi, U. Hartwig, B. Hungate, R.E. McNurtrie, R. Oren, W.J. Parton, D.E. Pataki, M.R. Shaw, D.R. Zak, C.B. Field. 2004. Progressive nitrogen limitation of ecosystem responses to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. BioScience 54: 731–739.Google Scholar
- Luo, Y., L. White, J. Canadell, E. DeLucia, D. Ellsworth, A. Finzi, J. Lichter, and W. Schlesinger. 2003. Sustainability of terrestrial carbon sequestration: A case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 17, 1021, doi:10.1029/2002GB001923Google Scholar
- Luo, Y., L. Wu, J.A. Andrews, L. White, R. Matamala, K.V.R. Schafer, and W. H. Schlesinger. 2001b. Elevated CO2 differentiates ecosystem carbon processes: Deconvolution analysis of Duke Forest FACE data. Ecological Monographs 71: 357–376.Google Scholar
- McGuire, A.D., S. Sitch, J.S. Clein, R. Dargaville, G. Esser, J. Foley, M. Heimann, F. Joos, et al. 2001. Carbon balance of the terrestrial biosphere in the twentieth century: Analyses of CO2, climate and land use effects with four process-based ecosystem models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15: 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raschi, A., F. Milglietta, R. Tognetti, and P.R. van Gardingen, editors. 1997. Plant responses to elevated CO2: evidence from natural springs. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Rastetter, E.B., G.I. Ågren, and G.R. Shaver. 1997. Responses of N-limited ecosystems to increased CO2: A balanced-nutrition, coupled-element-cycles model. Ecological Applications 7: 444–460.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, J.F., and P.W. Leadley. 1992. Modeling the response of arctic plants to changing climate. Pages 413–438 in F. S. Chapin, III, R. Jefferies, J. F. Reynolds, G. Shaver and J. Svoboda, editors. Arctic Physiological Processes in a Changing Climate, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
- Rustad, L.E., J.L. Campbell, G.M. Marion, R.J. Norby, M.J. Mitchell, A.E. Hartley AE, and J. Gurevitch. 2001. A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126: 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rustad, L.E. 2006. From transient to steady-state response of ecosystems to atmospheric enrichment and global climate change: conceptual challenges and need for an integrated approach. Plant Ecology 182: 43–62.Google Scholar
- Xu, T., L. White, D. Hui, and Y. Luo. 2006. Probabilistic inversion of a terrestrial ecosystem model: Analysis of uncertainty in parameter estimation and model prediction, Global Biogeochemical Cycles 20, GB2007, doi:10.1029/2005GB002468Google Scholar