When predicting the effects of climate change, global carbon circulation models that include a positive feedback effect of climate warming on the carbon cycle often assume that (1) plant respiration increases exponentially with temperature (with a constant Q10) and (2) that there is no acclimation of respiration to long-term changes in temperature. In this review, we show that these two assumptions are incorrect. While Q10 does not respond systematically to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations, other factors such as temperature, light, and water availability all have the potential to influence the temperature sensitivity of respiratory CO2 efflux. Roots and leaves can also differ in their Q10 values, as can upper and lower canopy leaves. The consequences of such variable Q10 values need to be fully explored in carbon modelling. Here, we consider the extent of variability in the degree of thermal acclimation of respiration, and discuss in detail the biochemical mechanisms underpinning this variability; the response of respiration to long-term changes in temperature is highly dependent on the effect of temperature on plant development, and on interactive effects of temperature and other abiotic factors (e.g. irradiance, drought and nutrient availability). Rather than acclimating to the daily mean temperature, recent studies suggest that other components of the daily temperature regime can be important (e.g. daily minimum and / or night temperature). In some cases, acclimation may simply reflect a passive response to changes in respiratory substrate availability, whereas in others acclimation may be critical in helping plants grow and survive at contrasting temperatures. We also consider the impact of acclimation on the balance between respiration and photosynthesis; although environmental factors such as water availability can alter the balance between these two processes, the available data suggests that temperature-mediated differences in dark leaf respiration are closely linked to concomitant differences in leaf photosynthesis. We conclude by highlighting the need for a greater process-based understanding of thermal acclimation of respiration if we are to successfully predict future ecosystem CO2 fluxes and potential feedbacks on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Summary: Tree stems from wetland, floodplain and upland forests can produce and emit methane (CH₄). Tree CH₄ stem emissions have high spatial and temporal variability, but there is no consensus on the biophysical mechanisms that drive stem CH₄ production and emissions. Here, we summarize up to 30 opportunities and challenges for stem CH₄ emissions research, which, when addressed, will improve estimates of the magnitudes, patterns and drivers of CH₄ emissions and trace their potential origin. We identified the need: (1) for both long‐term, high‐frequency measurements of stem CH₄ emissions to understand the fine‐scale processes, alongside rapid large‐scale measurements designed to understand the variability across individuals, species and ecosystems; (2) to identify microorganisms and biogeochemical pathways associated with CH₄ production; and (3) to develop a mechanistic model including passive and active transport of CH₄ from the soil–tree–atmosphere continuum. Addressing these challenges will help to constrain the magnitudes and patterns of CH₄ emissions, and allow for the integration of pathways and mechanisms of CH₄ production and emissions into process‐based models. These advances will facilitate the upscaling of stem CH₄ emissions to the ecosystem level and quantify the role of stem CH₄ emissions for the local to global CH₄ budget.

A recent study by Keppler et al. (2006; Nature 439, 187–191) demonstrated CH4 emission from living and dead plant tissues under aerobic conditions. This work included some calculations to extrapolate the findings from the laboratory to the global scale and led various commentators to question the value of planting trees as a greenhouse mitigation option. The experimental work of Keppler et al. (2006) appears to be largely sound, although some concerns remain about the quantification of emission rates. However, whilst accepting their basic findings, we are critical of the method used for extrapolating results to a global scale. Using the same basic information, we present alternative calculations to estimate global aerobic plant CH4 emissions as 10–60 Mt CH4 year–1. This estimate is much smaller than the 62–236 Mt CH4 year–1 reported in the original study and can be more readily reconciled within the uncertainties in the established sources and sinks in the global CH4 budget. We also assessed their findings in terms of their possible relevance for planting trees as a greenhouse mitigation option. We conclude that consideration of aerobic CH4 emissions from plants would reduce the benefit of planting trees by between 0 and 4.4%. Hence, any offset from CH4 emission is small in comparison to the significant benefit from carbon sequestration. However, much critical information is still lacking about aerobic CH4 emission from plants. For example, we do not yet know the underlying mechanism for aerobic CH4 emission, how CH4 emissions change with light, temperature and the physiological state of leaves, whether emissions change over time under constant conditions, whether they are related to photosynthesis and how they relate to the chemical composition of biomass. Therefore, the present calculations must be seen as a preliminary attempt to assess the global significance from a basis of limited information and are likely to be revised as further information becomes available.