4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Does adding microbial mechanisms of decomposition improve soil organic matter models? A comparison of four models using data from a pulsed rewetting experiment

期刊

SOIL BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 1923-1934

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.06.016

关键词

Soil; Organic matter; Decomposition; Carbon; Soil respiration; Model; Drying-rewetting; Moisture; DOC; Enzymes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Contemporary soil organic matter (SOM) models have been successful at simulating decomposition across a range of spatial and temporal scales using first-order kinetics to represent the decomposition process: however, recent work suggests the simplicity of the first-order representation of decomposition is not adequate to capture the microbially-driven dynamics of SOM decomposition over short timescales. For example, the response of soils to drying-rewetting events may best be explained by microbial and/or exoenzyme controls on decomposition. To test if adding these microbial mechanisms improves the ability of SOM models to simulate the response of soils to short-term environmental changes, we developed four different SOM decomposition models with varying mechanistic complexity and compared their ability to simulate soil respiration from a pulsed drying-rewetting laboratory-based experiment. Specifically, we tested the ability of the models to capture the timing and magnitude of soil CO2 efflux in response to rewetting or constant moisture conditions. The results of the comparison suggest that the inclusion of exoenzyme and microbial controls on decomposition can improve the ability to simulate pulsed rewetting dynamics; however, less mechanistic first-order models prevail under steady-state moisture conditions. These modeling results may have implications for understanding the long-term response of soil carbon stocks in response to local and regional climate change. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据