No study sponsor was involved in the work.
We used BioScience Writers LLC, Huston, Texas, USA for language editing. We acknowledge Jan Hagberg, Ph.D., for help with statistical analysis. “
“Over two decades, plant and ecosystem responses to future elevated atmospheric CO2 (eCO2) levels have been examined by experimental manipulation. Such research was tasked with understanding how this global environmental change factor will affect plants and communities and how they influence carbon budgets for the future. Predicting vegetation responses to eCO2 is important because it may directly alter future net primary productivity (NPP) in ecosystems across the globe (Korner, Epigenetic Reader Domain inhibitor 2006), thereby modulating carbon dynamics and the balance of terrestrial carbon. Experimental free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) of semi-natural plant communities was implemented to determine the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to sequester carbon under future conditions of eCO2. This research demonstrated initially higher rates of photosynthesis (Korner, 2006 and Norby and Zak, 2011), stimulation
ON 1910 of above- and below-ground biomass and increased microbial and soil C (Ainsworth and Long, 2005 and Luo et al., 2006). However, plant communities often acclimate to eCO2 in the long-term and above ground growth rates do not continue to positively respond to CO2 addition (Reddy et al., 2010 and Norby and Zak, 2011). Uncertainty as to the duration of the eCO2 response and its variation globally limits our ability to predict how plant communities will continue to take up additional anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. In an assessment of such research presented herein, we suggest that throughout its experimental history, a collective spatial bias has existed in eCO2
research which is weighted towards temperate biomes (Korner, 2009, Luo et al., 2006 and Luo et al., 2011). eCO2 research has therefore missed important regions with large C sink potentials, including globally significant biomes, such as boreal and tropical forest. With many eCO2 experimental programs now in decline, questions are outstanding regarding the effect of eCO2 on global carbon budgets. Given a geographical bias we observe in experimental locations, we reappraise what has been learnt and consider remaining uncertainties. A disparity exists between the Amine dehydrogenase global distribution of eCO2 experiments and hotspots for NPP, total plant biomass-carbon and soil-carbon. We review how such limitations might affect our capacity to predict atmospheric CO2 uptake for the future and, thereby, constrain the effectiveness of policy decisions relating to the world’s major terrestrial biomes for C uptake and storage. By indicating opportunities for future development in this area we suggest how researchers and policymakers can work together to understand the global impact of eCO2 on plant communities and ecosystem services to complete the FACE of elevated CO2 research.