4.6 Article

Decomposition of recalcitrant carbon under experimental warming in boreal forest

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179674

关键词

-

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia de Mexico (CONACyT), UC-MEXUS [216015]
  2. American Association of University Women (AAUW) (International Fellowship)
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB-1256896, DEB-1457160, EAR-1411942]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences [1411942] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences [1411942] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the long term, soil carbon (C) storage is partly determined by decomposition rate of carbon that is slow to decompose (i.e., recalcitrant C). According to thermodynamic theory, decomposition rates of recalcitrant C might differ from those of non-recalcitrant C in their sensitivities to global warming. We decomposed leaf litter in a warming experiment in Alaskan boreal forest, and measured mass loss of recalcitrant C (lignin) vs. non-recalcitrant C (cellulose, hemicellulose, and sugars) throughout 16 months. We found that these C fractions responded differently to warming. Specifically, after one year of decomposition, the ratio of recalcitrant C to non-recalcitrant C remaining in litter declined in the warmed plots compared to control. Consistent with this pattern, potential activities of enzymes targeting recalcitrant C increased with warming, relative to those targeting non-recalcitrant C. Even so, mass loss of individual C fractions showed that non-recalcitrant C is preferentially decomposed under control conditions whereas recalcitrant C losses remain unchanged between control and warmed plots. Moreover, overall mass loss was greater under control conditions. Our results imply that direct warming effects, as well as indirect warming effects (e.g. drying), may serve to maintain decomposition rates of recalcitrant C compared to non recalcitrant C despite negative effects on overall decomposition.

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

4.6
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