Rising CO2 and warming reduce global canopy demand for nitrogen

Summary Nitrogen (N) limitation has been considered as a constraint on terrestrial carbon uptake in response to rising CO2 and climate change. By extension, it has been suggested that declining carboxylation capacity (Vcmax) and leaf N content in enhanced‐CO2 experiments and satellite records signif...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe New phytologist Vol. 235; no. 5; pp. 1692 - 1700
Main Authors Dong, Ning, Wright, Ian J., Chen, Jing M., Luo, Xiangzhong, Wang, Han, Keenan, Trevor F., Smith, Nicholas G., Prentice, Iain Colin
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Lancaster Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2022
Wiley
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Summary Nitrogen (N) limitation has been considered as a constraint on terrestrial carbon uptake in response to rising CO2 and climate change. By extension, it has been suggested that declining carboxylation capacity (Vcmax) and leaf N content in enhanced‐CO2 experiments and satellite records signify increasing N limitation of primary production. We predicted Vcmax using the coordination hypothesis and estimated changes in leaf‐level photosynthetic N for 1982–2016 assuming proportionality with leaf‐level Vcmax at 25°C. The whole‐canopy photosynthetic N was derived using satellite‐based leaf area index (LAI) data and an empirical extinction coefficient for Vcmax, and converted to annual N demand using estimated leaf turnover times. The predicted spatial pattern of Vcmax shares key features with an independent reconstruction from remotely sensed leaf chlorophyll content. Predicted leaf photosynthetic N declined by 0.27% yr−1, while observed leaf (total) N declined by 0.2–0.25% yr−1. Predicted global canopy N (and N demand) declined from 1996 onwards, despite increasing LAI. Leaf‐level responses to rising CO2, and to a lesser extent temperature, may have reduced the canopy requirement for N by more than rising LAI has increased it. This finding provides an alternative explanation for declining leaf N that does not depend on increasing N limitation. See also the Commentary on this article by Smith, 235: 1683–1685.
Bibliography:1683–1685
235
See also the Commentary on this article by
.
Smith
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
USDOE
AC02-05CH11231
ISSN:0028-646X
1469-8137
1469-8137
DOI:10.1111/nph.18076