4.8 Article

Rising Temperature May Trigger Deep Soil Carbon Loss Across Forest Ecosystems

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 7, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202001242

关键词

carbon decomposition; deep soil; forest ecosystems; global warming; temperature sensitivity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [91951112, 31930070]
  2. Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China [2020M670975]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP170102766]
  4. National Institute of Forest Science (NIFOS), Republic of South Korea [SC0500-2020-01-2020] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Significantly more carbon (C) is stored in deep soil than in shallow horizons, yet how the decomposition of deep soil organic C (SOC) will respond to rising temperature remains unexplored on large scales, leading to considerable uncertainties to predictions of the magnitude and direction of C-cycle feedbacks to climate change. Herein, short-term temperature sensitivity of SOC decomposition (expressed asQ(10)) from six depths within the top 1 m soil from 90 upland forest sites (540 soil samples) across China is reported. Results show thatQ(10)significantly increases with soil depth, suggesting that deep SOC is more vulnerable to loss with rising temperature in comparison to shallow SOC. Climate is the primary regulator of shallow soilQ(10)but its relative influence declines with depth; in contrast, soil C quality has a minor influence onQ(10)in shallow soil but increases its influence with depth. When considering the depth-dependentQ(10)variations, results further show that using the thermal response of shallow soil layer for the whole soil profile, as is usually done in model predictions, would significantly underestimate soil C-climate feedbacks. The results highlight that Earth system models need to consider multilayer soil C dynamics and their controls to improve prediction accuracy.

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