Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux

Literature Cited

1. ↵
   1. Bloemen J,
   2. Agneessens L, Van
   3. Meulebroek L,
   4. Aubrey DP,
   5. McGuire MA,
   6. Teskey RO,
   7. Steppe K.

   2014. Stem girdling affects the quantity of CO₂ transported in xylem as well as CO₂ efflux from soil. New Phytologist. 201(3):897–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12568

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. ↵
   1. Bloemen J,
   2. McGuire MA,
   3. Aubrey DP,
   4. Teskey RO,
   5. Steppe K.

   2013. Transport of root-respired CO₂ via the transpiration stream affects aboveground carbon assimilation and CO₂ efflux in trees. New Phytologist. 197(2):555–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04366.x

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Bužková R,
   2. Acosta M,
   3. Dařenová E,
   4. Pokorný R,
   5. Pavelka M.

   2015. Environmental factors influencing the relationship between stem CO₂ efflux and sap flow. Trees. 29(2):333–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-014-1113-z

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Czaja M,
   2. Kołton A,
   3. Muras P

   . 2020. The complex issue of urban trees—Stress factor accumulation and ecological service possibilities. Forests. 11(9):932. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11090932

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Egerer M,
   2. Buchholz S.

   2021. Reframing urban “wildlife” to promote inclusive conservation science and practice. Biodiversity Conservation. 30:2255–2266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02182-y

   OpenUrl
6. ↵
   1. Ford CR,
   2. Wurzburger N,
   3. Hendrick RL,
   4. Teskey RO.

   2007. Soil DIC uptake and fixation in Pinus taeda seedlings and its C contribution to plant tissues and ectomycorrhizal fungi. Tree Physiology. 27(3):375–383. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/27.3.375

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. ↵
   1. Geider RJ,
   2. Delucia EH,
   3. Falkowski PG,
   4. Finzi AC,
   5. Grime JP,
   6. Grace J,
   7. Kana TM,
   8. LaRoche J,
   9. Long SP,
   10. Osborne BA,
   11. Platt T,
   12. Prentice IC,
   13. Raven JA,
   14. Schlesinger WH,
   15. Smetacek V,
   16. Stuart V,
   17. Sath-yendranath S,
   18. Thomas RB,
   19. Vogelmann TC,
   20. Williams P,
   21. Woodward FI.

   2001. Primary productivity of planet earth: Biological determinants and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Global Change Biology. 7(8):849–882. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2001.00448.x

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. ↵
   1. Kunert N.

   2018. A case study on the vertical and diurnal variation of stem CO₂ effluxes in an Amazonian forest tree. Trees. 32:913–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-018-1680-5

   OpenUrl
9. ↵
   1. Kunert N,
   2. Edinger J.

   2015. Xylem sap flux affects conventional stem CO₂ efflux measurements in tropical trees. Biotropica. 47(6):650–653.

   OpenUrl
10. ↵
    1. Kuzyakov Y

    . 2006. Sources of CO₂ efflux from soil and review of partitioning methods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 38(3):425–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.08.020

    OpenUrl
11. ↵
    1. Marler TE.

    2022. Stem carbon dioxide efflux of lignophytes exceeds that of cycads and arborescent monocots. Agronomy. 12(1):159. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010159

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Marler TE,
    2. Lindstrom AJ.

    2020. Diel patterns of stem CO₂ efflux vary among cycads, arborescent monocots, and woody eudicots and gymnosperms. Plant Signaling and Behavior. 15(3):1732661. https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2020.1732661

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Moore DJ,
    2. Gonzalez-Meler MA,
    3. Taneva L,
    4. Pippen JS,
    5. Kim HS,
    6. DeLucia EH.

    2008. The effect of carbon dioxide enrichment on apparent stem respiration from Pinus taeda L. is confounded by high levels of soil carbon dioxide. Oecologia. 158(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-1118-7

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. ↵
    1. Salomón RL, De
    2. Roo L,
    3. Oleksyn J,
    4. Steppe K.

    2022. Mechanistic drivers of stem respiration: A modelling exercise across species and seasons. Plant, Cell & Environment. 45(4):1270–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14246

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Salomón RL, De
    2. Schepper V,
    3. Valbuena-Carabaña M,
    4. Gil L,
    5. Steppe K.

    2018. Daytime depression in temperature-normalised stem CO2 efflux in young poplar trees is dominated by low turgor pressure rather than by internal transport of respired CO2. New Phytologist. 217(2):586–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14831

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Tarvainen L,
    2. Wallin G,
    3. Lim H,
    4. Linder S,
    5. Oren R,
    6. Löfvenius MO,
    7. Räntfors M,
    8. Tor-ngern P,
    9. Marshall J.

    2018. Photosynthetic refixation varies along the stem and reduces CO2 efflux in mature boreal Pinus sylvestris trees. Tree Physiology. 38(4): 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx130

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Trumbore S.

    2006. Carbon respired by terrestrial ecosystems—Recent progress and challenges. Global Change Biology. 12(2): 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01067.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. ↵
    1. Wang X,
    2. Mao Z,
    3. McGuire MA,
    4. Teskey RO.

    2019. Stem radial CO2 conductance affects stem respiratory CO2 fluxes in ash and birch trees. Journal of Forestry Research. 30:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-018-0737-z

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    1. Yang Q,
    2. Xu M,
    3. Chi Y,
    4. Zheng Y,
    5. Shen R,
    6. Li P,
    7. Dai H.

    2012. Temporal and spatial variations of stem CO₂ efflux of three species in subtropical China. Journal of Plant Ecology. 5(2):229–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr023

    OpenUrlCrossRef