4.7 Article

Substrate quality and the temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition

Journal

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1567-1574

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.01.007

Keywords

soil organic matter; temperature; labile; recalcitrant; CO(2); respiration; climate change; feedback

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Determining the relative temperature sensitivities of the decomposition of the different soil organic matter (SOM) pools is critical for predicting the long-term impacts of climate change on soil carbon (C) storage. Although kinetic theory suggests that the temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition should increase with substrate recalcitrance, there remains little empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. In the study presented here, sub-samples from a single bulk soil sample were frozen and sequentially defrosted to produce samples of the same soil that had been incubated for different lengths of time, up to a maximum of 124 days. These samples were then placed into an incubation system which allowed CO(2) production to be monitored constantly and the response of soil respiration to short-term temperature manipulations to be investigated. The temperature sensitivity of soil CO(2) production increased significantly with incubation time suggesting that, as the most labile SOM pool was depleted the temperature sensitivity of SOM decomposition increased. This study is therefore one of the first to provide empirical support for kinetic theory. Further, using a modelling approach, we demonstrate that it is the temperature sensitivity of the decomposition of the more recalcitrant SOM pools that will determine long-term soil-C losses. Therefore, the magnitude of the positive feedback to global warming may have been underestimated in previous modelling studies. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available