The response of soil respiration to varying environmental factors was studi
ed in four Picea abies stands (47-, 87-, 111- and 146-year old) during the
1998 growing season. While within-site Variations of soil CO2 efflux (up to
1.6 mu mol CO2 m(-2) s(-1)) were larger than their diurnal variability (<0
.25 mu mol CO2 m(-2) s(-1)), spatial variations within a site were smaller
than seasonal changes in soil respiration rates (up to 4.4 mu mol CO2 m(-2)
s(-1)). Highest within-site variability of soil efflux was generally found
during the summer months when maximum flux rates of 4-6 mu mol CO2 m(-2) s
(-1) were reached (coefficient of variation 40%). Soil temperatures (in the
O-f and O-h layers, and A(h) horizon) showed a pronounced seasonal course,
in contrast to soil moisture. An exponential equation best described the r
elationships between soil temperature in the Of layer and soil CO2 efflux (
r(2) between 0.75 and 0.81). However, an Arrhenius type equation always res
ulted in lower r(2) values (0.52-0.71). The Q(10) values ranged between 2.3
9 (146-year old stand) and 3.22 (87-year old stand), averaging 2.72 for the
P. abies stands within the watershed. The removal of litter and organic la
yers generally affected soil CO2 efflux negatively. In three of the four P.
abies stands (47-, 87-, 146-year old stands), soil respiration rates were
reduced by 10-20% after removal of the L and O-f layer, and by 30-40% after
removal of the L and most of the O-f and O-h layers. Thus, mineral soil re
spiration seemed to contribute a major fraction to the total soil CO2 flux
(> 60%). Trenching shallow fine roots during collar insertion and mechanica
l inhibition of root in-growth during the following months allowed fine roo
t respiration to be separated from microbial respiration only in times of h
ighest root growth. Microbial respiration seemed to dominate the respirator
y CO2 loss from the forest floor (>70%). The comparison of the annual soil
CO2 efflux in the 47-year old P. abies stand (about 710 g C m(-2) yr(-1)) w
ith annual litterfall and root net primary productivity estimates supported
this conclusion. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.