It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
How aquatic primary productivity influences the carbon (C) sequestering capacity of wetlands is uncertain. We evaluated the magnitude and variability in aquatic C dynamics and compared them to net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and ecosystem respiration (Reco) rates within calcareous freshwater wetlands in Everglades National Park. We continuously recorded 30-min measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO), water level, water temperature (Twater), and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). These measurements were coupled with ecosystem CO2 fluxes over 5 years (2012–2016) in a long-hydroperiod peat-rich, freshwater marsh and a short-hydroperiod, freshwater marl prairie. Daily net aquatic primary productivity (NAPP) rates indicated both wetlands were generally net heterotrophic. Gross aquatic primary productivity (GAPP) ranged from 0 to − 6.3 g C m−2 day−1 and aquatic respiration (RAq) from 0 to 6.13 g C m−2 day−1. Nonlinear interactions between water level, Twater, and GAPP and RAq resulted in high variability in NAPP that contributed to NEE. Net aquatic primary productivity accounted for 4–5% of the deviance explained in NEE rates. With respect to the flux magnitude, daily NAPP was a greater proportion of daily NEE at the long-hydroperiod site (mean = 95%) compared to the short-hydroperiod site (mean = 64%). Although we have confirmed the significant contribution of NAPP to NEE in both long- and short-hydroperiod freshwater wetlands, the decoupling of the aquatic and ecosystem fluxes could largely depend on emergent vegetation, the carbonate cycle, and the lateral C flux.
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 Florida International University, Institute of Environment and Department of Biological Sciences, Miami, USA (GRID:grid.65456.34) (ISNI:0000 0001 2110 1845)
2 Florida International University, Institute of Environment and Department of Biological Sciences, Miami, USA (GRID:grid.65456.34) (ISNI:0000 0001 2110 1845); Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Department of Biogeochemistry and Soil Quality, Division of Environment and Natural Resources, Ås, Norway (GRID:grid.454322.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 4910 9859)
3 University of Alabama, Department of Biological Sciences, Tuscaloosa, USA (GRID:grid.411015.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0727 7545)
4 Florida International University, GIS Center, Miami, USA (GRID:grid.65456.34) (ISNI:0000 0001 2110 1845)
5 California Heartbeat Initiative, UC Natural Reserve System, Santa Cruz, USA (GRID:grid.65456.34)