4.8 Article

Microbial formation of stable soil carbon is more efficient from belowground than aboveground input

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 46-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0258-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Yale Institute for Biospheric Studies
  3. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relative contributions of aboveground versus belowground plant carbon inputs to the stable soil organic carbon pool are the subject of much debate-with direct implications for how the carbon cycle is modelled and managed. The belowground rhizosphere pathway (that is, carbon exiting the living root) is theorized to form stable soil carbon more efficiently than the aboveground pathway. However, while several mechanisms have been invoked to explain this efficiency, few have been empirically tested or quantified. Here, we use soil microcosms with standardized carbon inputs to investigate three posited mechanisms that differentiate aboveground from belowground input pathways of dissolved organic carbon-through the microbial biomass-to the mineral-stabilized soil organic carbon pool: (1) the physical distance travelled, (2) the microbial abundance in the region in which a carbon compound enters (that is, rhizosphere versus bulk soil) and (3) the frequency and volume of carbon delivery (that is, infrequent 'pulse' versus frequent 'drip'). We demonstrate that through the microbial formation pathway, belowground inputs form mineral-stabilized soil carbon more efficiently than aboveground inputs, partly due to the greater efficiency of formation by the rhizosphere microbial community relative to the bulk soil community. However, we show that because the bulk soil has greater capacity to form mineral-stabilized soil carbon due to its greater overall volume, the relative contributions of aboveground versus belowground carbon inputs depend strongly on the ratio of rhizosphere to bulk soil.

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

4.8
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