4.8 Article

Global soil carbon projections are improved by modelling microbial processes

Journal

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 3, Issue 10, Pages 909-912

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1951

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [AGS-1020767]
  2. Office of Science (BER), US Department of Energy
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0928388] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [1021613, 1020767] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Emerging Frontiers [0928388] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Society relies on Earth system models (ESMs) to project future climate and carbon (C) cycle feedbacks. However, the soil C response to climate change is highly uncertain in these models(1,2) and they omit key biogeochemical mechanisms(3-5). Specifically, the traditional approach in ESMs lacks direct microbial control over soil C dynamics(6-8). Thus, we tested a new model that explicitly represents microbial mechanisms of soil C cycling on the global scale. Compared with traditional models, the microbial model simulates soil C pools that more closely match contemporary observations. It also projects a much wider range of soil C responses to climate change over the twenty-first century. Global soils accumulate C if microbial growth efficiency declines with warming in the microbial model. If growth efficiency adapts to warming, the microbial model projects large soil C losses. By comparison, traditional models project modest soil C losses with global warming. Microbes also change the soil response to increased C inputs, as might occur with CO2 or nutrient fertilization. In the microbial model, microbes consume these additional inputs; whereas in traditional models, additional inputs lead to C storage. Our results indicate that ESMs should simulate microbial physiology to more accurately project climate change feedbacks.

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