<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Correia, a C. C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Minunno, F.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Caldeira, M. C. C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Banza, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mateus, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carneiro, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Wingate, L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shvaleva, a</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ramos, a</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jongen, M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bugalho, M. N. N.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nogueira, C.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lecomte, X.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pereira, J. S. S.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Soil water availability strongly modulates soil CO2 efflux in different Mediterranean ecosystems: Model calibration using the Bayesian approach</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bayesian calibration</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Empirical model</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mediterranean</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Soil CO2 efﬂux</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Soil moisture</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Soil respiration</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Soil temperature</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016788091200285X</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">161</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">88 - 100</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Soil respiration in drought prone regions is highly dependent on the precipitation regime and soil moisture conditions, which are expected to change in a global warming context. In the present study we used an extensive collection of ﬁeld chamber measurements of soil respiration (Rs ) from forest and grassland sites of centre and south of Portugal distributed over a 10 year period. This data were summarized and analysed with the objective to describe seasonal variability of Rs as affected by soil moisture (Hs ) and soil temperature (Ts ). A Bayesian framework was used to test the effectiveness of soil bioclimatic models in estimating Rs on a daily and monthly time step. Rs seasonality was similar between sites, reaching a maximum in spring and autumn and a minimum in the dry season (July–September). No differences were observed for Rs between sites with different standing biomass or soil carbon stocks either on an annual or seasonal timescale. Hs , and not Ts , was the driving factor of Rs during most of the year. Ts drove Rs response only above certain Hs limits: 10% for forest sites and 15% for grassland sites leading to a Q10 of 2.01, 1.61 and 1.31 for closed forests, open forests and grasslands, respectively. The Bayesian analysis showed that models using Hs as an independent variable performed better than models driven by Ts alone. Monthly estimates of Rs in grasslands can be predicted by simple climatic models based on Hs but none of them was suitable for forest ecosystems, stressing the need for a process-based approach. This study adds to the evidence that Hs controls Rs ﬂuxes for Mediterranean ecosystems and should always be taken into account for extrapolation purposes.</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The following values have no corresponding Zotero field:&lt;br/&gt;publisher: Elsevier B.V.</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>3</ref-type><contributors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evaluación de diferentes alternativas de forestación y agricultura como sumideros de carbono en Castilla y León</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">V Congreso Forestal Español</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Avila</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1-10</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">El proyecto SUM2006-00023-C05 plantea el análisis de diferentes alternativas agrícolas y forestales como herramienta para mejorar el efecto de sumidero de carbono en terrenos agrícolas de Castilla y León. Se materializa en una evaluación económica de las distintas alternativas por parte de una empresa afectada por el Plan Nacional de Asignación de Emisiones. Para ello se compara mediante el software CO2FIX el flujo de carbono en fincas de agricultura tradicional frente a diferentes alternativas (populicultura, truficultura, pino piñonero, cerezo y nogal para madera, laboreo mínimo, siembra directa, leguminosas arbustivas silvestres y cultivos agroenergéticos). También se analiza la aceptación de este tipo de proyecto por parte de los propietarios forestales de la región. En este artículo se desarrollan las principales aspectos prácticos que debería incluir un proyecto de “Uso de la Tierra, Cambio de Uso de la Tierra y Selvicultura” como sumidero de carbono (proyecto LULUCF según la terminología del Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos Sobre el Cambio Climático –IPCC-); así como los problemas y limitaciones que existen en su aplicación práctica. Como ejemplo se exponen resultados parciales del proyecto, correspondientes a la comparación de fincas de cereal en Zamadueñas (Valladolid) y Valdegeña (Soria) con plantaciones forestales (de chopo y de encina trufera respectivamente) y distintos sistemas de laboreo</style></abstract></record></records></xml>