Close Home
Journal of Biogeosciences and Forestry published by SISEF
ISSN: 1971-7458
iForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry
vol. 3, pp. 109-112 (Jul 2010)
Copyright © by the Italian Society of Silviculture and Forest Ecology
doi: 10.3832/ifor0545-003

Collection: NFZ Summer School 2009 - Birmensdorf (Switzerland)
“Long-term ecosystem research: understanding the present to shape the future”
Guest Editors: Marcus Schaub (WSL, Switzerland)

Review Paper

Field experiments using CO2 enrichment: a comparison of two main methods

Mauri A.Corresponding author

Introduction 

Global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm in 1850 to 387 ppm in 2009 ([19]) and it will probably exceed 700 ppm by the end of the 21st century ([7]). A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will most likely lead to a global warming of 3-5 °C ([8]), whilst also inducing other non-climatic changes in the Earth system, particularly in the terrestrial biosphere which uses CO2 for photosynthesis. It is crucial to understand the consequences of elevated CO2 on terrestrial ecosystems, since land plants, through the process of carbon sequestration, can take up part of the atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activities, potentially slowing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and delaying climate change.

Körner ([10]) estimated that the global terrestrial biosphere sequesters 1-2 Pg C/yr (Fig. 1). However, much uncertainty exists in quantifying carbon sequestration due to natural variability in carbon pools and fluxes among the different terrestrial ecosystems ([22]).

Fig. 1 - Major components involved in the global biological carbon cycle, a synthesis from many sources (from: [10]).

Therefore, there is a need for a better understanding of the physiological responses of plant and forest ecosystems to elevated CO2. This information can provide support for ecosystem models and fill the gap between individual plants, forests and regional ecosystems.

To address these questions, a number of methodologies have been developed since the 1970s to simulate the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations on plants. Most of these methods used leaf cuvettes, plant grow chambers and greenhouses ([24]). However, these methods have important constraints in plot and plant size, and require active control of all environmental variables ([23]). To overcome some of these limitations, other methodologies were developed that could be performed under unenclosed conditions: Open Top Chamber (OTC), Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) and Screen-aided CO2 Control (SACC).

OTCs are made of a plastic enclosure with inclined walls and an open top while FACE is characterized by a series of vertical vent pipes, placed circularly around the plot, which release CO2 towards the centre of the ring. SACC is a middle ground between FACE and OTC; it includes screens to break the wind minimizing its effects on the microclimate (a well-known problem in OTC). Windscreens also reduce the amount of CO2 to be used and therefore its often-prohibitive costs (Leadley et al 1997).

OTC studies provided knowledge of mechanistic plant physiological responses such as stomatal conductance (Gs), transpiration, respiration, down-regulation of photosynthesis and yield. Those processes were further investigated under real forest conditions, by developing FACE technology ([6]). Although SACC resulted to be a good compromise between FACE and OTC, especially in a grassland environment ([13], [11], [18], [24]), it is still not able to replace FACE in a forest environment. Therefore in this mini-review paper I will only focus on FACE and OTC, which are also considered the two main methods used for CO2 enrichment.

I will review the design, advantages, and limitations of both methods, and discuss common and contrasting results of studies using either method. I have placed a particular emphasis on evaluating the effects of side walls in OTC, especially regarding microclimate (temperature, humidity, solar radiation and wind) and plant-atmosphere feedbacks.

OTC and FACE design 

OTCs are made of a plastic enclosure with inclined walls and an open top. Air enriched with CO2 enters near the bottom and flows out the open top creating an enriched CO2 environment inside the chamber (Fig. 2). FACE, by contrast, is characterized by a series of vertical vent pipes, placed circularly around the plot, which release CO2 towards the center of the ring. CO2 concentration, wind velocity and wind direction are continuously measured and the information collected are used by a computer-controlled systems to maintain elevated concentration of CO2 throughout the plot ([2] - Fig. 3). Generally the CO2 concentration-using OTC is maintained at 700 ppm while in FACE concentrations between 550 and 600 ppm are more typical.

Fig. 2 - Open-top field chamber design. The diagram shows the air path through the chamber and its relative size (from: [2]).
Fig. 3 - FACE plots at the Aspen FACE experiment (from: ⇒ http:/­/­aspenface.­mtu.­edu/­).

Advantages and limitations of OTC and FACE 

The main aspects of the two techniques are summarized in Tab. 1. In the OTC the presence of side walls limits CO2 consumption but induces a significant impact on the microclimate, altering air flow, intercepting rainfall, restricting access to insect pollinators and pests, increasing air temperature and water vapour humidity and lowering transmittance on sunny days ([12], [17]). In OTC, the wind is removed, preventing wind effects and dispersal of pathogens and pests. In FACE experiments, microclimate is minimally affected, but large quantities of CO2 are required to compensate the CO2 that diffuses away from the plot, especially under windy conditions.

Tab. 1 - Main aspects of the two major techniques used for CO2 enrichment.

An additional limitation of OTC is the presence of a rooting barrier that prevents roots from exploiting soil outside the chamber and vice-versa, eventually inducing feedback inhibition on photosynthesis and production ([17]).

While OTC is made of inexpensive materials and requires low amounts of CO2, FACE requires a high investment in instrumentation, building material, CO2 and transport.

The major limitations of OTC in a forest environment are: the influence of trees and stand development patterns, the lack of an ecosystem prospective, scaling issues and absence of boundary layers. Trees and forests are very well coupled to the atmosphere, but this coupling is often greatly perturbed when enclosed in chambers ([16]). In the OTC method, ventilation disables the natural coupling between vegetation and atmosphere. The applied artificial turbulence alters the exchanging process between canopy and atmosphere, by means of periodic irruptions of air in the canopy instead of a continuous mixing as it occurs in a natural environment.

In FACE experiments, the components of the plant-soil nutrient cycle can be integrated, species can compete for resources, and a forest canopy may fully develop ([20]).

However, FACE also has several important limitations. For example, CO2-enriched through vent-pipes has the potential to cause microclimate perturbations (“blower effect”) under very stable and calm atmospheric conditions as during still nights ([6]).

FACE experiments typically impose a steep increase in CO2 concentrations at the beginning of the experiment. This abrupt change in environmental conditions may induce different responses of plants and ecosystem processes that have grown under normal CO2 for decades. In particular, enhanced photosynthesis induces an elevation in nitrogen-demand, which often leads to nutrient stress and consequent down-regulation of photosynthesis ([6]).

Finally, even though FACE experiments are sufficiently large to capture most critical ecosystem processes, they are still like an island within the surrounding ecosystem ([6]).

Results and discussion 

A considerable number of papers have been published that investigated plant responses to elevated CO2. Here we focus on reviews, where meta-analytic techniques have been adopted for quantitatively analyzing the results obtained by independent experiments made using chambers and FACE methodology. A synthesis of the results obtained with these studies is presented (Tab. 2).

Tab. 2 - Summary of meta-analysis results from FACE and chamber techniques and literature reviews. Gs: stomatal conductance; Asat: light saturated CO2 uptake. Sources: (a): [1]; (b): [4]; (c): [17]; (d): [5]; (e): [14].

Conclusions mainly drawn from chamber studies suggest that an increase in CO2 induced a reduction in Gs and transpiration while improved water-use efficiency, photosynthesis and light use efficiency ([5]). Drake et al. ([5]) also found that due to increased soil water content, water use efficiency and growth would be enhanced an that photosynthesis and growth increased even when N is limited, because of higher nitrogen use efficiency. In contrast, Norby et al. ([20]) reported from a meta-analysis of OTC experiments little evidence of Gs reduction, furthermore photosynthesis and growth did not increase where N is limiting. Results from Ainsworth & Long ([1]) and Curtis & Wang ([4]) confirm the findings of Drake et al. ([5]), reporting a 20% decrease in Gs.

Ainsworth & Long ([1]), found an increase in light-saturated carbon uptake (Asat) for trees, grass and crop of 47%, 37% and 17% respectively. Different functional group responses are also found by Norby et al. ([20]) regarding above-ground growth.

Norby et al. ([20]) found an increase of fine root density between 60 and 140% in elevated CO2. This induces an increase of carbon in the soil profile suggesting that forests may have more potential for C sequestration that may be apparent from aboveground analysis ([21]).

The lower increase in crop yield and the 20% increase in photosynthesis reported in FACE compared with chamber studies could be explained by the lower CO2 concentration of FACE (600 ppm) compared with chambers (700 ppm). However, as yield and photosynthesis responses are not linear, the alteration of microclimate in OTC could underestimate the effect of elevate CO2 on yield and photosynthesis.

Leaf Area Index (LAI) of seedlings and saplings grown in OTC has usually increased with CO2 enrichment ([20]), while no increases in LAI are reported in most of the FACE experiments ([1], [5]). This is in contrast with results from global vegetation models, which report an increase in LAI; consequently they may overestimate future evapotranspiration and photosynthesis carbon uptake ([17]).

Plant starch content observed by Long et al. ([17]) in a FACE study was 15.4% higher than the one observed by Curtis & Wang ([4]) using OTC. Plants grown in chambers receive less light than in FACE because of the effect of the sidewalls; this effect may be the cause of these contrasting results.

Chamber studies showed that the initial stimulation of photosynthesis and growth diminishes or disappears in the long term, while FACE studies show that there is little or no evidence of loss of stimulation of photosynthesis on the long-term ([17]). Reduction in stimulation could be the result of either down-regulation by carbohydrate accumulation or acclimation ([20]).

Arp ([3]) reported that rooting volume suppressed the response of plants to elevated CO2, demonstrating that loss of a response to increased CO2 through acclimation was an artifact of pot size (the “pot effect”). Experiments at the Oak Ridge FACE site confirm that there has been no evidence for acclimation of photosynthesis to elevated CO2 ([21]). However, a mechanism that fully explains this response is not yet known.

Dark respiration is usually inhibited by 15-20% in chamber studies while FACE experiments on average did not observe increased dark respiration ([14]).

Conclusions 

CO2 enrichment studies using OTC are useful for research conducted at a small scale such as seedlings or juveniles, where detailed measurements are conducted to provide a fundamental and mechanistic understanding of component plant-processes. For investigations at ecosystem scale, FACE experiments are the only currently available method of providing realistic CO2 enrichment. Direct scaling from OTC to FACE is difficult because seedlings or saplings respond differently as compared with mature trees: competition is altered, plant architecture and species composition is different, leaf area and tree density may change.

FACE experiment provides support for the inclusion of a carbon sequestration effect into models of the future trajectory of the global carbon cycle ([21]).

Elevated CO2 leads to a decrease in Gs and therefore to a reduction in transpiration. It has been hypothesized that CO2 enrichment acting at regional scales (> 100 km2) may result in the drying of the lower troposphere. This in turn could increase evaporative demand on plants. But quantifying this feedback is difficult. Neither OTC nor FACE can provide an answer to this question that implies a direct action of the vegetation on the atmosphere.

Predicting the future responses of ecosystems to elevate CO2 remains difficult. This is because species respond differently and the complex interaction between plants, soils, pests and pollutants are difficult to detect. A description of the different species responses to CO2 enrichment, especially in form of functional groups, could be important for ecosystem models.

FACE is the best methodology available even though the study site remains an island in the host ecosystem and large-scale feedbacks cannot be detected ([6]). There is a need for studies under realistic conditions where trees are exposed to elevated CO2 for their entire life span of the stand, with natural stresses and where species can compete with each other ([9]. Further studies conducted in natural springs, where the local vegetation has been exposed to elevated CO2 for decades, could help to improve our understanding.

Acknowledgements 

I thank Dr. Marcus Schaub and Dr. Erwin Dreyer for beneficial discussions during the WSL Summer School that inspired me to write this review and Prof. Franco Miglietta, Prof. Jed Kaplan and Dr. Basil Davis for their valuable comments, which improved this manuscript. The Italian Ministry of Education (FIRB) through project CASTANEA (contract no. 511305) provided financial support for this work and my participation in the WSL Summer School.

List of abbreviations 

  • CO2: carbon dioxide;
  • Gs: stomatal conductance;
  • OTC: Open Top Chamber;
  • FACE: Free Air CO2 Enrichment;
  • LAI: Leaf Area Index;
  • Asat: light saturated carbon uptake.

References

(1)
Ainsworth EA, Long SP (2004). What have we learned from 15 years of free air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(2)
Allen LH, Baldocchi DJr, Bazzaz F, Burke K, Dahlman R, Denmead T, Hendrey G, McLeod A, Melillo J, Oechel W, Risser P, Rogers H, Rozema J, Wright R (1991). Available technologies for field experimentation with elevated CO2 in global change research. In: “SCOPE 45 Ecosystem Experiments”, Chapter 15 (Mooney HA, Medina E, Schindler D, Schulze ED, Walker BH eds). Wiley, UK, pp. 296.
::Google Scholar::
(3)
Arp WJ (1991). Effects of source-sink relations on photosynthetic acclimation to CO2. Plant, Cell and Environment 14: 869-875.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(4)
Curtis PS, Wang X (1998). A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on woody plant mass, form, and physiology. Oecologia 113: 299-313.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(5)
Drake BG, Gonzà lez-Meler MA, Long SP (1997). More efficient plants: a consequence of increased atmospheric CO2? Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609-639.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(6)
Hendrey GR, Miglietta F (2006). FACE technology: Past, Present, and Future. In: “Managed Ecosystems and CO2” (Nösberger J, Long SP, Norby RJ, Stitt M, Hendrey GR, Blum M eds). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp 15-43.
::Google Scholar::
(7)
IPPC (2007a). Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 10. Global climate projections. 10.7 Long Term Climate Change and Commitment 10.7.1, Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300. Based on AOGCM, pp. 822.
::Google Scholar::
(8)
IPPC (2007b). Fourth Assessment Report. Summary for Policymakers.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(9)
Karnosky DF (2003). Impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on forest trees and forest ecosystems: knowledge gaps. Environmental International. 29: 161-169.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(10)
Körner C (2000). Biosphere responses to CO2 enrichment. Ecological Applications 10 (6): 1590-1619.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(11)
Lauber W, Körner C (1997). In situ stomatal responses to long term CO2 enrichment in calcareous grassland plants. Acta Oecologica 18: 221-229.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(12)
Leadley PW, Drake BG (1993). Open top chambers for exposing plant canopies to elevated CO2, concentration and for measuring net gas exchange. Vegetatio 104/105: 3-15.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(13)
Leadley PW, Niklaus P, Stocker R, Körner C (1997). Screen-aided CO2 control (SACC): middle ground between FACE and open-top chambers. Acta Ecologica 18 (3): 207-219.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(14)
Leakey ADB, Ainsworth EA, Bernacchi CJ, Rogers A, Long SP, Ort DR (2009). Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. Journal of Experimental Botany 60: 2859-2876.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(15)
Ledford H (2008). Forestry carbon dioxide projects to close down. Nature 456 (7220): 289.
::Google Scholar::
(16)
Lee HSJ, Jarvis PG (1996). The effects of tree maturity on some responses to elevated CO2 in Sitka Spruce (Picea sitchensis Bong. Carr.). In: “Carbon Dioxide and Terrestrial Ecosystems” (Koch GW, Mooney HA eds). Academic Press Inc., S. Diego, CA, USA, pp 53-70.
::Google Scholar::
(17)
Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Rogers A, Ort DR (2004). Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide; plants FACE the future. Annual Review Plant Biology 55:591-628.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(18)
Niklaus PA, Spinnler D, Körner C (1998). Soil moisture dynamics of calcareous grassland under elevated CO2. Oecologia 117: 177-186.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(19)
NOAA/ESRL (2010). Use of NOAA/ESRL data (Conway T ed). Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US. Department of Commerce, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
::Online::Google Scholar::
(20)
Norby RJ, Wullschleger SD, Gunderson CA, Johnson DW, Ceulemans R (1999). Tree responses to rising CO2 in field experiments: implications for the future forest. Plant, Cell and Environment 22: 683-714.
::CrossRef::Google Scholar::
(21)
Norby RJ, Wullschleger SD, Hanson PJ, Gunderson CA, Tschaplinski TJ, Jastrow JD (2006). CO2 enrichment of a deciduous forest: the Oak Ridge FACE experiment. In: “Managed ecosystems and CO2: case studies, processes, and perspectives” (Nösberger J, Long SP, Norby RJ, Stitt M, Hendrey GR, Blum H eds). Ecological Studies, Springer, Berlin, vol. 187, pp. 231-251.
::Google Scholar::
(22)
Sarmiento JL, Wofsy SC (1999). A U.S. carbon cycle science plan: a report of the carbon and climate working group. U.S.Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 69.
::Google Scholar::
(23)
Schulze ED, Scholes RJ, Ehleringer JR, Hunt LA, Canadell J, Chaprin FS, Steffen WL (1999). The study of ecosystems in the context of global change. The terrestrial biosphere and global change. International geosphere-biosphere programme book series 4, pp 27.
::Google Scholar::
(24)
Uprety DC, Garg SC, Bisht BS, Maini HK, Dwivedi N, Paswan G, Raj A, Saxena DC (2006). Carbon dioxide enrichment technologies for crop response studies. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 65 (11): 859-866.
::Google Scholar::