Institute of Ecology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 1;8(8):e70997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070997. Print 2013.
1: Given the predictions of increased drought probabilities under various climate change scenarios, there have been numerous experimental field studies simulating drought using transparent roofs in different ecosystems and regions. Such roofs may, however, have unknown side effects, called artifacts, on the measured variables potentially confounding the experimental results. A roofed control allows the quantification of potential artifacts, which is lacking in most experiments. 2: We conducted a drought experiment in experimental grasslands to study artifacts of transparent roofs and the resulting effects of artifacts on ecosystems relative to drought on three response variables (aboveground biomass, litter decomposition and plant metabolite profiles). We established three drought treatments, using (1) transparent roofs to exclude rainfall, (2) an unroofed control treatment receiving natural rainfall and (3) a roofed control, nested in the drought treatment but with rain water reapplied according to ambient conditions. 3: Roofs had a slight impact on air (+0.14°C during night) and soil temperatures (-0.45°C on warm days, +0.25°C on cold nights), while photosynthetically active radiation was decreased significantly (-16%). Aboveground plant community biomass was reduced in the drought treatment (-41%), but there was no significant difference between the roofed and unroofed control, i.e., there were no measurable roof artifact effects. 4: Compared to the unroofed control, litter decomposition was decreased significantly both in the drought treatment (-26%) and in the roofed control treatment (-18%), suggesting artifact effects of the transparent roofs. Moreover, aboveground metabolite profiles in the model plant species Medicago x varia were different from the unroofed control in both the drought and roofed control treatments, and roof artifact effects were of comparable magnitude as drought effects. 5: Our results stress the need for roofed control treatments when using transparent roofs for studying drought effects, because roofs can cause significant side effects.
1: 鉴于在各种气候变化情景下干旱概率增加的预测,已经有许多实验性田间研究使用不同生态系统和地区的透明屋顶来模拟干旱。然而,这些屋顶可能会对测量变量产生未知的副作用,称为伪影,从而混淆实验结果。有顶对照允许量化潜在的伪影,而大多数实验都缺乏这一点。
2: 我们在实验草地进行了干旱实验,以研究透明屋顶的伪影以及与干旱相比,这些伪影对生态系统的影响,涉及三个响应变量(地上生物量、凋落物分解和植物代谢物谱)。我们建立了三种干旱处理方法,分别使用(1)透明屋顶来排除降雨,(2)无顶对照处理,接收自然降雨,(3)嵌套在干旱处理中的有顶对照,但根据环境条件重新应用雨水。
3: 屋顶对空气温度(夜间升高 0.14°C)和土壤温度(温暖天气下降 0.45°C,寒冷夜晚升高 0.25°C)有轻微影响,而光合有效辐射显著降低(-16%)。地上植物群落生物量在干旱处理中减少(-41%),但有顶对照和无顶对照之间没有显著差异,即没有可测量的屋顶伪影效应。
4: 与无顶对照相比,干旱处理和有顶对照处理中的凋落物分解均显著减少(分别减少 26%和 18%),表明透明屋顶存在伪影效应。此外,在模型植物 Medicago x varia 中,地上代谢物谱在干旱和有顶对照处理中均与无顶对照不同,且屋顶伪影效应的大小与干旱效应相当。
5: 我们的结果强调了在使用透明屋顶研究干旱效应时需要有顶对照处理,因为屋顶可能会导致显著的副作用。