It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
There is a substantial amount of carbon stored in the permafrost soils of boreal forest ecosystems, where it is currently protected from decomposition. The surface organic horizons insulate the deeper soil from variations in atmospheric temperature. The removal of these insulating horizons through consumption by fire increases the vulnerability of permafrost to thaw, and the carbon stored in permafrost to decomposition. In this study we ask how warming and fire regime may influence spatial and temporal changes in active layer and carbon dynamics across a boreal forest landscape in interior Alaska. To address this question, we (1)developed and tested a predictive model of the effect of fire severity on soil organic horizons that depends on landscape-level conditions and (2)used this model to evaluate the long-term consequences of warming and changes in fire regime on active layer and soil carbon dynamics of black spruce forests across interior Alaska. The predictive model of fire severity, designed from the analysis of field observations, reproduces the effect of local topography (landform category, the slope angle and aspect and flow accumulation), weather conditions (drought index, soil moisture) and fire characteristics (day of year and size of the fire) on the reduction of the organic layer caused by fire. The integration of the fire severity model into an ecosystem process-based model allowed us to document the relative importance and interactions among local topography, fire regime and climate warming on active layer and soil carbon dynamics. Lowlands were more resistant to severe fires and climate warming, showing smaller increases in active layer thickness and soil carbon loss compared to drier flat uplands and slopes. In simulations that included the effects of both warming and fire at the regional scale, fire was primarily responsible for a reduction in organic layer thickness of 0.06m on average by 2100 that led to an increase in active layer thickness of 1.1m on average by 2100. The combination of warming and fire led to a simulated cumulative loss of 9.6kgC m−2 on average by 2100. Our analysis suggests that ecosystem carbon storage in boreal forests in interior Alaska is particularly vulnerable, primarily due to the combustion of organic layer thickness in fire and the related increase in active layer thickness that exposes previously protected permafrost soil carbon to decomposition.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
2 US Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
3 US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK 99507, USA
4 International Arctic Research Center, Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning, University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA
5 Northern Plant Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5E2, Canada
6 Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, MD 20742, USA
7 Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
8 Ecosystem Analysis Laboratory, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
9 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Climate Change Science Institute, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA