Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 141, Issue 2, pp 109–123 | Cite as

Multiple models and experiments underscore large uncertainty in soil carbon dynamics

  • Benjamin N. Sulman
  • Jessica A. M. Moore
  • Rose Abramoff
  • Colin Averill
  • Stephanie Kivlin
  • Katerina Georgiou
  • Bhavya Sridhar
  • Melannie D. Hartman
  • Gangsheng Wang
  • William R. Wieder
  • Mark A. Bradford
  • Yiqi Luo
  • Melanie A. Mayes
  • Eric Morrison
  • William J. Riley
  • Alejandro Salazar
  • Joshua P. Schimel
  • Jinyun Tang
  • Aimée T. Classen
Biogeochemistry Letters

Abstract

Soils contain more carbon than plants or the atmosphere, and sensitivities of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks to changing climate and plant productivity are a major uncertainty in global carbon cycle projections. Despite a consensus that microbial degradation and mineral stabilization processes control SOC cycling, no systematic synthesis of long-term warming and litter addition experiments has been used to test process-based microbe-mineral SOC models. We explored SOC responses to warming and increased carbon inputs using a synthesis of 147 field manipulation experiments and five SOC models with different representations of microbial and mineral processes. Model projections diverged but encompassed a similar range of variability as the experimental results. Experimental measurements were insufficient to eliminate or validate individual model outcomes. While all models projected that CO2 efflux would increase and SOC stocks would decline under warming, nearly one-third of experiments observed decreases in CO2 flux and nearly half of experiments observed increases in SOC stocks under warming. Long-term measurements of C inputs to soil and their changes under warming are needed to reconcile modeled and observed patterns. Measurements separating the responses of mineral-protected and unprotected SOC fractions in manipulation experiments are needed to address key uncertainties in microbial degradation and mineral stabilization mechanisms. Integrating models with experimental design will allow targeting of these uncertainties and help to reconcile divergence among models to produce more confident projections of SOC responses to global changes.

Keywords

Soil organic carbon Warming Modeling Meta-analysis Litter addition Decomposition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study emerged from two INTERFACE RCN (US NSF DEB-0955771) workshops held in 2016. C. Averill was supported by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, administered by Cooperative Programs for the Advancement of Earth System Science (CPAESS), University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), Boulder, Colorado, USA. A. Classen and J. Moore were supported by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences program under Award Number DE-SC0010562. R. Abramoff, W.J. Riley, and J. Tang were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research as part of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Program under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. B. Sulman was supported by award NA14OAR4320106 from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. G. Wang and M. Mayes were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Biological and Environmental Research through the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Scientific Focus Area. ORNL is managed by the University of Tennessee-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US DOE. W. Wieder was supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Grant/Award Number: 2015-67003-23485. K. Georgiou was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science Graduate Student Research program (contract DE-SC0014664) and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture postdoctoral program. Individual litter addition and warming experiments that produced data for the publications we analyzed were supported by funding sources too numerous to list here. We thank K. Lajtha for helpful feedback on the study. Thanks to Diana Swantek for graphic design work on Fig. 1. Thanks to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10533_2018_509_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3918 kb)

References

  1. Allison SD, Wallenstein MD, Bradford MA (2010) Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology. Nat Geosci 3:336–340.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey VL, Bond-Lamberty B, DeAngelis K, Grandy AS, Hawkes CV, Heckman K et al (2018) Soil carbon cycling proxies: understanding their critical role in predicting climate change feedbacks. Glob Change Biol 24:895–905.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13926 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blagodatskaya E, Kuzyakov Y (2008) Mechanisms of real and apparent priming effects and their dependence on soil microbial biomass and community structure: critical review. Biol Fertil Soils 45:115–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-008-0334-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blagodatskaya E, Blagodatsky S, Anderson T-H, Kuzyakov Y (2014) Microbial growth and carbon use efficiency in the rhizosphere and root-free soil. PLoS ONE 9:e93282.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond-Lamberty B, Thomson A (2010) Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Nature 464:579.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08930 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond-Lamberty B, Bailey VL, Chen M, Gough CM, Vargas R (2018) Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature 560(7716):80–83.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowden RD, Nadelhoffer KJ, Boone RD, Melillo JM, Garrison JB (1993) Contributions of aboveground litter, belowground litter, and root respiration to total soil respiration in a temperate mixed hardwood forest. Can J For Res 23:1402–1407.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x93-177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bradford MA, Davies CA, Frey SD, Maddox TR, Melillo JM, Mohan JE et al (2008) Thermal adaptation of soil microbial respiration to elevated temperature. Ecol Lett 11:1316–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01251.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford MA, Wieder WR, Bonan GB, Fierer NP, Raymond A, Crowther TW (2016) Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change. Nat Clim Change 6:751–758.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradford MA, Veen GF, Bonis A, Bradford EM, Classen AT, Cornelissen JHC et al (2017) A test of the hierarchical model of litter decomposition. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1836–1845.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0367-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke IC, Reiners WA, Schimel DS (1989) Organic matter turnover in a sagebrush steppe landscape. Biogeochemistry 7:11–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00000895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carey JC, Tang J, Templer PH, Kroeger KD, Crowther TW, Burton AJ et al (2016) Temperature response of soil respiration largely unaltered with experimental warming. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 113:13797–13802.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605365113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Castellano MJ, Mueller KE, Olk DC, Sawyer JE, Six J (2015) Integrating plant litter quality, soil organic matter stabilization and the carbon saturation concept. Glob Change Biol 21:3200–3209.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chenu C, Plante AF (2006) Clay-sized organo-mineral complexes in a cultivation chronosequence: revisiting the concept of the ‘primary organo-mineral complex’. Eur J Soil Sci 57:596–607.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00834.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen BT (2001) Physical fractionation of soil and structural and functional complexity in organic matter turnover Eur. J Soil Sci 52:345–353.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2001.00417.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS (1996) RothC-26.3—a model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU (eds) Evaluation of soil organic matter models. Springer, Berlin, pp 237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conant RT, Ryan MG, Ågren GI, Birge HE, Davidson EA, Eliasson PE et al (2011) Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates—synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob Change Biol 17:3392–3404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02496.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cotrufo MF, Wallenstein MD, Boot CM, Denef K, Paul EA (2013) The microbial efficiency-matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob Change Biol 19:988–995.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crow SE, Lajtha K, Bowden RD, Yano Y, Brant JB, Caldwell BA, Sulzman EW (2009) Increased coniferous needle inputs accelerate decomposition of soil carbon in an old-growth forest. For Ecol Manage 258:2224–2232.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crowther TW, Todd-Brown KEO, Rowe CW, Wieder WR, Carey JC, Machmuller MB et al (2016) Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature 540:104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeAngelis KM, Pold G, Topçuoğlu BD, van Diepen LT, Varney RM, Blanchard JL et al (2015) Long-term forest soil warming alters microbial communities in temperate forest soils. Front Microbiol 6:104.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Del Galdo I, Six J, Peressotti A, Cotrufo MF (2003) Assessing the impact of land-use change on soil C sequestration in agricultural soils by means of organic matter fractionation and stable C isotopes. Glob Change Biol 9(8):1204–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Devevre OC, Horwath WR (2000) Decomposition of rice straw and microbial carbon use efficiency under different soil temperatures and moistures. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1773–1785.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00096-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doetterl S, Stevens A, Six J, Merckx R, van Oost K, Pinto MC et al (2015) Soil carbon storage controlled by interactions between geochemistry and climate. Nat Geosci 8:780–783.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doetterl S, Berhe AA, Arnold C, Bodé S, Fiener P, Finke P et al (2018) Links among warming, carbon and microbial dynamics mediated by soil mineral weathering. Nat Geosci 11:589–593.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0168-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dwivedi D, Riley WJ, Torn MS, Spycher N, Maggi F, Tang JY (2017) Mineral properties, microbes, transport, and plant-input profiles control vertical distribution and age of soil carbon stocks. Soil Biol Biochem 107:244–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.12.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Finke PA, Hutson JL (2008) Modelling soil genesis in calcareous loess. Geoderma 145(3–4):462–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frey S, Drijber R, Smith H, Melillo J (2008) Microbial biomass, functional capacity, and community structure after 12 years of soil warming. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2904–2907.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.07.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Frey SD, Lee J, Melillo JM, Six J (2013) The temperature response of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate. Nat Clim Change 3:395.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grandy AS, Neff JC, Weintraub MN (2007) Carbon structure and enzyme activities in alpine and forest ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2701–2711.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gulde S, Chung H, Amelung W, Chang C, Six J (2008) Soil carbon saturation controls labile and stable carbon pool dynamics. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:605–612.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological meta-analyses. Ecology 80:1142–1149.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080%5b1142:SIIEMA%5d2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Han L, Sun K, Jin J, Xing B (2016) Some concepts of soil organic carbon characteristics and mineral interaction from a review of literature. Soil Biol Biochem 94:107–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. John B, Yamashita T, Ludwig B, Flessa H (2005) Storage of organic carbon in aggregate and density fractions of silty soils under different types of land use. Geoderma 128:63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kallenbach C, Grandy AS (2011) Control over soil microbial biomass responses to carbon amendments in agricultural systems: a meta-analysis. Agr Ecosyst Environ 144:241–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kallenbach C, Grandy AS, Frey SD, Diefendorf A (2015) Microbial physiology and necromass regulate agricultural soil carbon accumulation. Soil Biol Biochem 91:279–290.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Grandy AS (2016) Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat Commun 7:13630.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kleber M, Nico PS, Plante A, Filley T, Kramer M, Swanston C, Sollins P (2011) Old and stable soil organic matter is not necessarily chemically recalcitrant: implications for modeling concepts and temperature sensitivity. Glob Change Biol 17(2):1097–1107.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02278.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kögel-Knabner I, Guggenberger G, Kleber M, Kandeler E, Kalbitz K, Scheu S et al (2008) Organo-mineral associations in temperate soils: integrating biology, mineralogy, and organic matter chemistry. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:61–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200700048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuzyakov Y, Blagodatskaya E (2015) Microbial hotspots and hot moments in soil: concept & review. Soil Biol Biochem 83:184–199.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.01.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lajtha K, Townsend KL, Kramer MG, Swanston C, Bowden RD, Nadelhoffer K (2014a) Changes to particulate versus mineral-associated soil carbon after 50 years of litter manipulation in forest and prairie experimental ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 119:341–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-014-9970-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lajtha K, Bowden RD, Nadelhoffer K (2014b) Litter and root manipulations provide insights into soil organic matter dynamics and stability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 78:S261–S269.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.08.0370nafsc CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528:60–68.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lennon JT, Jones SE (2011) Microbial seed banks: the ecological and evolutionary implications of dormancy. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:119–130.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li Y, Zhou G, Huang W, Liu J, Fang X (2016) Potential effects of warming on soil respiration and carbon sequestration in a subtropical forest. Plant Soil 409:247–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-2966-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu L, King J, Booker F, Giardina C, Allen H, Hu S (2009) Enhanced litter input rather than changes in litter chemistry drive soil carbon and nitrogen cycles under elevated CO2: a microcosm study. Glob Change Biol 15:441–453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01747.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lovenduski NS, Bonan GB (2017) Reducing uncertainty in projections of terrestrial carbon uptake. Environ Res Lett 12:044020.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa66b8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Luo Z, Wang E, Zheng H, Baldock J, Sun O, Shao Q (2015) Convergent modelling of past soil organic carbon stocks but divergent projections. Biogeosciences 12:4373–4383.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4373-2015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Luo Z, Wang E, Sun O (2017) Uncertain future soil carbon dynamics under global change predicted by models constrained by total carbon measurements. Ecol Appl 27:1001–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Melillo J, Frey SD, DeAngelis K, Werner W, Bernard M, Bowles F et al (2017) Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science 358:101–105.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan2874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nadelhoffer K, Aitkenhead J, Boone R, Bowden R, Canary J, Kaye J et al (2006) The DIRT experiment: Litter and root influences on forest soil organic matter stocks and function. In: Foster DR, Aber JD (eds) Forests in time: the environmental consequences of 1,000 years of change in New England. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 300–362Google Scholar
  53. Nakagawa S, Santos ES (2012) Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis. Evol Ecol 26(5):1253–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Parton WJ, Hartman M, Ojima D, Schimel D (1998) DAYCENT and its land surface submodel: description and testing. Glob Planet Change 19:35–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(98)00040-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phillips CL, Murphey V, Lajtha K, Gregg JW (2016) Asymmetric and symmetric warming increases turnover of litter and unprotected soil C in grassland mesocosms. Biogeochemistry 128:217–231.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-016-0204-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Placella SA, Brodie EL, Firestone MK (2012) Rainfall-induced carbon dioxide pulses result from sequential resuscitation of phylogenetically clustered microbial groups. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 109(27):10931–10936.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1204306109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poeplau C, Kätterer T, Leblans NIW, Sigurdsson BD (2017) Sensitivity of soil carbon fractions and their specific stabilization mechanisms to extreme soil warming in a subarctic grassland. Glob Change Biol 23(3):1316–1327.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pold G, Grandy AS, Melillo JM, DeAngelis KM (2017) Changes in substrate availability drive carbon cycle response to chronic warming. Soil Biol Biochem 110:68–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pries CEH, Castanha C, Porras R, Torn MS (2017) The whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming. Science 355:1420–1423.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  61. Rasmussen C, Heckman K, Wieder WR, Keiluweit M, Lawrence CR, Berhe AA et al (2018) Beyond clay: towards an improved set of variables for predicting soil organic matter content. Biogeochemistry 137:297–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0424-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Riley WJ, Maggi F, Kleber M, Torn MS, Tang JY, Dwivedi D, Guerry N (2014) Long residence times of rapidly decomposable soil organic matter: application of a multi-phase, multi-component, and vertically resolved model (BAMS1) to soil carbon dynamics. Geosci Model Dev 7:1335–1355.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1335-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Romero-Olivares A, Allison S, Treseder K (2017) Soil microbes and their response to experimental warming over time: a meta-analysis of field studies. Soil Biol Biochem 107:32–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.12.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rustad L, Campbell J, Marion G, Norby R, Mitchell M, Hartley A et al (2001) A meta-analysis of the response of soil respiration, net nitrogen mineralization, and aboveground plant growth to experimental ecosystem warming. Oecologia 126:543–562.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420000544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Salazar A, Sulman BN, Dukes JS (2018) Microbial dormancy promotes microbial biomass and respiration across pulses of drying-wetting stress. Soil Biol Biochem 116:237–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sanaullah M, Chabbi A, Maron P-A, Baumann K, Tardy V, Blagodatskaya E et al (2016) How do microbial communities in top- and subsoil respond to root litter addition under field conditions? Soil Biol Biochem 103:28–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.07.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmidt SK, Costello EK, Nemergut DR, Cleveland CC, Reed SC, Weintraub MN et al (2007) Biogeochemical consequences of rapid microbial turnover and seasonal succession in soil. Ecology 88:1379–1385.  https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G, Janssens IA et al (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schnecker J, Borken W, Schindlbacher A, Wanek W (2016) Little effects on soil organic matter chemistry of density fractions after seven years of forest soil warming. Soil Biol Biochem 103:300–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stewart CE, Plante AF, Paustian K, Conant RT, Six J (2008) Soil carbon saturation: linking concept and measurable carbon pools. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:379–392.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sulman BN, Phillips RP, Oishi AC, Shevliakova E, Pacala SW (2014) Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nat Clim Change 4:1099–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tan Z, Lal R, Owens L, Izaurralde RC (2007) Distribution of light and heavy fractions of soil organic carbon as related to land use and tillage practice. Soil Tillage Res 92:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tang JY, Riley WJ (2013) A total quasi-steady-state formulation of substrate uptake kinetics in complex networks and an example application to microbial litter decomposition. Biogeosciences 10:8329–8351.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-8329-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tang J, Riley WJ (2015) Weaker soil carbon–climate feedbacks resulting from microbial and abiotic interactions. Nat Clim Change 5:56–60.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Todd-Brown KEO, Hopkins FM, Kivlin SN, Talbot JM, Allison SD (2011) A framework for representing microbial decomposition in coupled climate models. Biogeochemistry 109:19–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9635-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Torn MS, Trumbore SE, Chadwick OA, Vitousek PM, Hendricks DM (1997) Mineral control of soil organic carbon storage and turnover. Nature 389:170–173.  https://doi.org/10.1038/38260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Gestel N, Shi Z, van Groenigen KJ, Osenberg CW, Andresen LC, Dukes JS et al (2018) Predicting soil carbon loss with warming. Nature 554(7693):E4–E5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van Groenigen KJ, Osenberg CW, Terrer C, Carrillo Y, Dijkstra F, Heath J et al (2016) Faster turnover of new soil carbon inputs under increased atmospheric CO2. Glob Change Biol 23:4420–4429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13752 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Verchot LV, Dutaur L, Shepherd KD, Albrecht A (2011) Organic matter stabilization in soil aggregates: understanding the biogeochemical mechanisms that determine the fate of carbon inputs in soils. Geoderma 161:182–193.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. von Lützow M, Kögel-Knabner I, Ekschmitt K, Flessa H, Guggenberger G, Matzner E, Marschner B (2007) SOM fractionation methods: relevance to functional pools and to stabilization mechanisms. Soil Biol Biochem 39:2183–2207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang G, Post WM, Mayes MA (2013) Development of microbial-enzyme-mediated decomposition model parameters through steady-state and dynamic analyses. Ecol Appl 23:255–272.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0681.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wang G, Jagadamma S, Mayes MA, Schadt CW, Steinweg JM, Gu L et al (2015) Microbial dormancy improves development and experimental validation of ecosystem model. ISME J 9:226–237.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. West TO, Six J (2006) Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim Change 80:25–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9173-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wieder WR, Bonan GB, Allison SD (2013) Global soil carbon projections are improved by modelling microbial processes. Nat Clim Change 3:909–912.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wieder WR, Grandy AS, Kallenbach CM, Bonan GB (2014) Integrating microbial physiology and physio-chemical principles in soils with the MIcrobial-MIneral Carbon Stabilization (MIMICS) model. Biogeosciences 11:3899–3917.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3899-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wieder WR, Allison SD, Davidson EA, Georgiou K, Hararuk O, He Y et al (2015) Explicitly representing soil microbial processes in Earth system models. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 29:1782–1800.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wieder WR, Hartman MD, Sulman BN, Wang Y-P, Koven CD, Bonan GB (2018) Carbon cycle confidence and uncertainty: exploring variation among soil biogeochemical models. Glob Change Biol 24:1563–1579.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Xu X, Shi Z, Li D, Rey A, Ruan H, Craine J et al (2016) Soil properties control decomposition of soil organic carbon: results from data-assimilation analysis. Geoderma 262:235–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.08.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Xu X, Schimel JP, Janssens IA, Song X, Song C, Yu G et al (2017) Global pattern and controls of soil microbial metabolic quotient. Ecol Monogr 87(3):429–441.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin N. Sulman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jessica A. M. Moore
    • 3
    • 4
  • Rose Abramoff
    • 5
  • Colin Averill
    • 6
  • Stephanie Kivlin
    • 4
  • Katerina Georgiou
    • 7
    • 5
  • Bhavya Sridhar
    • 8
  • Melannie D. Hartman
    • 9
    • 10
  • Gangsheng Wang
    • 11
    • 12
  • William R. Wieder
    • 10
    • 13
  • Mark A. Bradford
    • 14
  • Yiqi Luo
    • 15
  • Melanie A. Mayes
    • 11
  • Eric Morrison
    • 3
  • William J. Riley
    • 5
  • Alejandro Salazar
    • 16
  • Joshua P. Schimel
    • 17
  • Jinyun Tang
    • 5
  • Aimée T. Classen
    • 18
    • 19
  1. 1.Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Sierra Nevada Research InstituteUniversity of CaliforniaMercedUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  5. 5.Climate and Ecosystem Sciences DivisionLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  6. 6.Department of Earth and EnvironmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Earth System ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  8. 8.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  9. 9.Natural Resources Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  10. 10.Climate and Global Dynamics LaboratoryNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA
  11. 11.Environmental Sciences Division & Climate Change Science InstituteOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA
  12. 12.Department of Microbiology and Plant Biology, Institute for Environmental GenomicsUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  13. 13.Institute of Arctic and Alpine ResearchUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  14. 14.School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  15. 15.Department of Biological Sciences, Center for Ecosystem Science and Society (ECOSS)Northern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  16. 16.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  17. 17.Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine BiologyUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  18. 18.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  19. 19.The Gund Institute for EnvironmentThe University of VermontBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations