4.8 Article

Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates

Journal

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 588-595

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2580

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Lawrence Scholar Fellowship awarded through Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
  2. Institute of Soil Landscape Research, Leibniz-Center for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Muncheberg,Germany [2014-1918]
  3. US Department of Energy by LLNL [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  4. LLNL LDRD 'Microbes and Minerals: Imaging C Stabilization'
  5. US DOE Genomics Science program award [SA-DOE-29318]
  6. LBNL from LLNL [IC006762]
  7. DOE-BER Sustainable Systems SFA
  8. Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the US DOE [DE-AC02-05CH11231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple lines of existing evidence suggest that climate change enhances root exudation of organic compounds into soils. Recent experimental studies show that increased exudate inputs may cause a net loss of soil carbon. This stimulation of microbial carbon mineralization ('priming') is commonly rationalized by the assumption that exudates provide a readily bioavailable supply of energy for the decomposition of native soil carbon (co-metabolism). Here we show that an alternate mechanism can cause carbon loss of equal or greater magnitude. We find that a common root exudate, oxalic acid, promotes carbon loss by liberating organic compounds from protective associations with minerals. By enhancing microbial access to previously mineral-protected compounds, this indirect mechanism accelerated carbon loss more than simply increasing the supply of energetically more favourable substrates. Our results provide insights into the coupled biotic-abiotic mechanisms underlying the 'priming' phenomenon and challenge the assumption that mineral-associated carbon is protected from microbial cycling over millennial timescales.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available