Advertisement

Biogeochemistry

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Improving understanding of soil organic matter dynamics by triangulating theories, measurements, and models

  • Joseph C. Blankinship
  • Asmeret Asefaw Berhe
  • Susan E. Crow
  • Jennifer L. Druhan
  • Katherine A. Heckman
  • Marco Keiluweit
  • Corey R. Lawrence
  • Erika Marín-Spiotta
  • Alain F. Plante
  • Craig Rasmussen
  • Christina Schädel
  • Joshua P. Schimel
  • Carlos A. Sierra
  • Aaron Thompson
  • Rota Wagai
  • William R. Wieder
Synthesis and Emerging Ideas

Abstract

Soil organic matter (SOM) turnover increasingly is conceptualized as a tension between accessibility to microorganisms and protection from decomposition via physical and chemical association with minerals in emerging soil biogeochemical theory. Yet, these components are missing from the original mathematical models of belowground carbon dynamics and remain underrepresented in more recent compartmental models that separate SOM into discrete pools with differing turnover times. Thus, a gap currently exists between the emergent understanding of SOM dynamics and our ability to improve terrestrial biogeochemical projections that rely on the existing models. In this opinion paper, we portray the SOM paradigm as a triangle composed of three nodes: conceptual theory, analytical measurement, and numerical models. In successful approaches, we contend that the nodes are connected—models capture the essential features of dominant theories while measurement tools generate data adequate to parameterize and evaluate the models—and balanced—models can inspire new theories via emergent behaviors, pushing empiricists to devise new measurements. Many exciting advances recently pushed the boundaries on one or more nodes. However, newly integrated triangles have yet to coalesce. We conclude that our ability to incorporate mechanisms of microbial decomposition and physicochemical protection into predictions of SOM change is limited by current disconnections and imbalances among theory, measurement, and modeling. Opportunities to reintegrate the three components of the SOM paradigm exist by carefully considering their linkages and feedbacks at specific scales of observation.

Keywords

Biogeochemical models Carbon stabilization Decomposition Global carbon cycle Soil organic matter 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Essential support for this project came from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis Working Group on Soil Carbon: “What lies below? Improving quantification and prediction of soil carbon storage, stability, and susceptibility to disturbance.” This work was also supported in part by the USDA NIFA HAW01130-H. We thank participants of the International Soil Carbon Network (ISCN) for their help in refining the vision for this manuscript. We are also grateful for feedback from presenters and attendees of our organized oral session at the American Geophysical Union’s 2016 Fall Meeting (“Diving into our conceptual and operational view of soil carbon pools”) and Stefano Manzoni and three anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Abramoff R, Xu X, Hartman M et al (2018) The Millennial model: in search of measurable pools and transformations for modeling soil carbon in the new century. Biogeochemistry 137:51–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0409-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrens B, Braakhekke MC, Guggenberger G et al (2015) Contribution of sorption, DOC transport and microbial interactions to the 14C age of a soil organic carbon profile: insights from a calibrated process model. Soil Biol Biochem 88:390–402.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allison SD (2012) A trait-based approach for modelling microbial litter decomposition. Ecol Lett 15:1058–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01807.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allison SD, Martiny JBH (2008) Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11512–11519.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801925105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allison SD, Wallenstein MD, Bradford MA (2010) Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology. Nat Geosci 3:336–340.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Averill C, Hawkes CV (2016) Ectomycorrhizal fungi slow carbon cycling. Ecol Lett 19:937–947.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Averill C, Turner BL, Finzi AC (2014) Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505:543–545.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barton AD, Pershing AJ, Litchman E et al (2013) The biogeography of marine plankton traits. Ecol Lett 16:522–534.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bier RL, Bernhardt ES, Boot CM et al (2015) Linking microbial community structure and microbial processes: an empirical and conceptual overview. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiv113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braakhekke MC, Wutzler T, Beer C et al (2013) Modeling the vertical soil organic matter profile using Bayesian parameter estimation. Biogeosciences 10:399–420.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-399-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braakhekke MC, Beer C, Schrumpf M et al (2014) The use of radiocarbon to constrain current and future soil organic matter turnover and transport in a temperate forest. J Geophys Res 119:372–391.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradford MA, Fierer N (2012) The biogeography of microbial communities and ecosystem processes: implications for soil and ecosystem models. In: Wall DH et al (eds) Soil ecology and ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradford MA, Wieder WR, Bonan GB et al (2016) Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change. Nat Clim Change 6:751–758.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buchkowski RW, Bradford MA, Grandy AS et al (2017) Applying population and community ecology theory to advance understanding of belowground biogeochemistry. Ecol Lett 20:231–245.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carini P, Marsden PJ, Leff JW et al (2016) Relic DNA is abundant in soil and obscures estimates of soil microbial diversity. Nat Microbiol 2:16242.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carvalhais N, Forkel M, Khomik M et al (2014) Global covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial ecosystems. Nature 514:213–217.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castellano MJ, Mueller KE, Olk DC et al (2015) Integrating plant litter quality, soil organic matter stabilization, and the carbon saturation concept. Global Change Biol 21:3200–3209.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12982 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cnudde V, Boone MN (2013) High-resolution X-ray computed tomography in geosciences: a review of the current technology and applications. Earth Sci Rev 123:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cotrufo MF, Wallenstein MD, Boot CM et al (2013) The Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Global Change Biol 19:988–995.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doetterl S, Stevens A, Six J et al (2015) Soil carbon storage controlled by interactions between geochemistry and climate. Nat Geosci 8:780–783.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Don A, Rödenbeck C, Gleixner G (2013) Unexpected control of soil carbon turnover by soil carbon concentration. Environ Chem Lett 11:407–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-013-0433-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dungait JAJ, Hopkins DW, Gregory AS et al (2012) Soil organic matter turnover is governed by accessibility not recalcitrance. Global Change Biol 18:1781–1796.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02665.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dutkiewicz S, Scott JR, Follows MJ (2013) Winners and losers: ecological and biogeochemical changes in a warming ocean. Global Biogeochem Cycle 27:463–477.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gbc.20042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ebrahimi A, Or D (2016) Microbial community dynamics in soil aggregates shape biogeochemical gas fluxes from soil profiles—upscaling an aggregate biophysical model. Global Change Biol 22:3141–3156.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13345 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellerbrock RH, Gerke HH (2013) Characterization of organic matter composition of soil and flow path surfaces based on physicochemical principles—a review. Adv Agron 121:117–177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-407685-3.00003-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elzein A, Balesdent J (1995) Mechanistic simulation of vertical distribution of carbon concentrations and residence times in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:1328–1335.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005900050019x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans SE, Wallenstein MD (2014) Climate change alters ecological strategies of soil bacteria. Ecol Lett 17:155–164.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillespie AW, Phillips CL, Dynes JJ et al (2015) Chapter one—advances in using soft X-ray spectroscopy for measurement of soil biogeochemical processes. Adv Agron 133:1–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2015.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grandy AS, Strickland MS, Lauber CL et al (2009) The influence of microbial communities, management, and soil texture on soil organic matter chemistry. Geoderma 150:278–286.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grant RF (2001) Modeling transformations of soil organic carbon and nitrogen at different scales of complexity. In: Shaffer MJ, Ma L, Hansen S (eds) Modeling carbon and nitrogen dynamics for soil management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 597–630Google Scholar
  31. Hararuk O, Xia J, Luo Y (2014) Evaluation and improvement of a global land model against soil carbon data using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. J Geophys Res 119:403–417.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jg002535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hararuk O, Smith MJ, Luo Y (2015) Microbial models with data-driven parameters predict stronger soil carbon responses to climate change. Global Change Biol 21:2439–2453.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harte J, Levy D (1975) On the vulnerability of ecosystems disturbed by man. In: van Dobben WH, Lowe-McConnell RH (eds) Unifying concepts in ecology. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, p 302Google Scholar
  34. Harter J, Krause H-M, Schuettler S et al (2014) Linking N2O emissions from biochar-amended soil to the structure and function of the N-cycling microbial community. ISME J 8:660–674.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hassink J (1996) Preservation of plant residues in soils differing in unsaturated protective capacity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:487–491.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000020021x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hawkes CV, Keitt TH (2015) Resilience vs. historical contingency in microbial responses to environmental change. Ecol Lett 18:612–625.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. He Y, Zhuang Q, Harden JW et al (2014) The implications of microbial and substrate limitation for the fates of carbon in different organic soil horizon types of boreal forest ecosystems: a mechanistically based model analysis. Biogeosciences 11:4477–4491.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4477-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jenkinson DS, Rayner JH (1977) The turnover of soil organic matter in some of the Rothamsted classical experiments. Soil Sci 123:298–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jenny H, Gessel SP, Bingham FT (1949) Comparative study of decomposition rates of organic matter in temperate and tropical regions. Soil Sci 68:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones C, McConnell C, Coleman K et al (2005) Global climate change and soil carbon stocks; predictions from two contrasting models for the turnover of organic carbon in soil. Global Change Biol 11:154–166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00885.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaiser K, Guggenberger G (2003) Mineral surfaces and soil organic matter. Eur J Soil Sci 54:219–236.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.00544.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaiser C, Franklin O, Dieckmann U et al (2014) Microbial community dynamics alleviate stoichiometric constraints during litter decay. Ecol Lett 17:680–690.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Grandy AS (2016) Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat Commun 7:13630.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13630 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Khomo L, Trumbore S, Bern CR et al (2017) Timescales of carbon turnover in soils with mixed crystalline mineralogies. Soil 3:17–30.  https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-3-17-2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kinyangi J, Solomon D, Liang B et al (2006) Nanoscale biogeocomplexity of the organomineral assemblage in soil: application of STXM microscopy and C 1s-NEXAFS spectroscopy. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1708–1718.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kleber M, Sollins P, Sutton R (2007) A conceptual model of organo–mineral interactions in soils: self-assembly of organic molecular fragments into zonal structures on mineral surfaces. Biogeochemistry 85:9–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9103-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koven CD, Lawrence DM, Riley WJ (2015) Permafrost carbon-climate feedback is sensitive to deep soil carbon decomposability but not deep soil nitrogen dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:3752–3757.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415123112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lawrence CR, Neff JC, Schimel JP (2009) Does adding microbial mechanisms of decomposition improve soil organic models? A comparison of four models using data from a pulsed rewetting experiment. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1923–1934.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lawrence C, Steefel C, Maher K (2014) Abiotic/biotic coupling in the rhizosphere: a reactive transport modeling analysis. Proc Earth Planet Sci 10:104–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2014.08.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lawrence CR, Harden JW, Xu X, Schulz MS, Trumbore SE (2015) Long-term controls on soil organic carbon with depth and time: a case study from the Cowlitz River Chronosequence, WA USA. Geoderma 247:73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leff JW, Jones SE, Prober SM et al (2015) Consistent responses of soil microbial communities to elevated nutrient inputs in grasslands across the globe. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:10967–10972.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508382112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lehmann J, Kleber M (2015) The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528:60–68.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Li L, Maher K, Navarre-Sitchler A et al (2017) Expanding the role of reactive transport models in critical zone processes. Earth Sci Rev 165:280–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Luo Y, Keenan TF, Smith M (2015) Predictability of the terrestrial carbon cycle. Global Change Biol 21:1737–1751.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Manzoni S, Porporato A (2009) Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization: theory and models across scales. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1355–1379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.02.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Manzoni S, Schaeffer SM, Katul G et al (2014) A theoretical analysis of microbial eco-physiological and diffusion limitations to carbon cycling in drying soils. Soil Biol Biochem 73:69–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Manzoni S, Moyano F, Kätterer et al (2016) Modeling coupled enzymatic and solute transport controls on decomposition in drying soils. Soil Biol Biochem 95:275–287.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.01.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marín-Spiotta E, Gruley KE, Crawford J et al (2014) Paradigm shifts in soil organic matter research affect interpretations of aquatic carbon cycling: transcending disciplinary and ecosystem boundaries. Biogeochemistry 117:279–297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-013-9949-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mayer LM (1994) Relationships between mineral surfaces and organic carbon concentrations in soils and sediments. Chem Geol 114:347–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-254(94)90063-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McGill WB, Hunt HW, Woodmansee RG et al (1981) Phoenix, a model of the dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in grassland soils. In: Clark FE, Rosswall T (eds) Terrestrial nitrogen cycles. Processes, ecosystem strategies and management impacts. Ecological Bulletins, Stockholm, pp 49–115Google Scholar
  61. Mitchell PJ, Simpson AJ, Soong R et al (2018) Nuclear magnetic resonance analysis of changes in dissolved organic matter composition with successive layering on clay mineral surfaces. Soil Syst 2:8.  https://doi.org/10.3390/soils2010008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Monga O, Garnier P, Pot V et al (2014) Simulating microbial degradation of organic matter in a simple porous system using the 3-D diffusion-based model MOSAIC. Biogeosciences 11:2201–2209.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-2201-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Annu Rev Microbiol 3:371–394.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.mi.03.100149.002103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Moorhead DL, Sinsabaugh RL (2006) A theoretical model of litter decay and microbial interaction. Ecol Monogr 76:151–174.  https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076%5B0151:ATMOLD%5D2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moyano FE, Manzoni S, Chenu C (2013) Responses of soil heterotrophic respiration to moisture availability: an exploration of processes and models. Soil Biol Biochem 59:72–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olson JS (1963) Energy storage and the balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology 44:322–331.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1932179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parnas H (1975) Model for decomposition of organic material by microorganisms. Soil Biol Biochem 7:161–169.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(75)90014-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Parton WJ, Schimel DS, Cole CV et al (1987) Analysis of factors controlling soil organic matter levels in Great Plains grasslands. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1173–1179.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100050015x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paul EA (1984) Dynamics of organic matter in soils. Plant Soil 76:275–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02205586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peth S, Chenu C, Leblond N et al (2014) Localization of soil organic matter in soil aggregates using synchrotron-based X-ray microtomography. Soil Bio Biochem 78:189–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.07.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Petridis L, Ambaye H, Jagadamma S et al (2013) Spatial arrangement of organic compounds on a model mineral surface: implications for soil organic matter stabilization. Environ Sci Technol 48:79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es403430k CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Prosser JI (2015) Dispersing misconceptions and identifying opportunities for the use of “omics” in soil microbial ecology. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:439–446.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rasmussen C, Heckman K, Wieder WR et al (2018) Beyond clay: towards an improved set of variables for predicting soil organic matter content. Biogeochemistry 137:297–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0424-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reich PB (2014) The world-wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. J Ecol 102:275–301.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Riley WJ, Maggi F, Kleber M et al (2014) Long residence times of rapidly decomposable soil organic matter: application of a multi-phase, multi-component, and vertically resolved model (BAMS1) to soil carbon dynamics. Geosci Model Dev 7:1335–1355.  https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1335-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rowley MC, Grand S, Verrecchia EP (2018) Calcium-mediated stabilization of soil organic carbon. Biogeochemistry 137:27–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-017-0410-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Saiz-Jimenez C (1994) Analytical pyrolysis of humic substances: pitfalls, limitations, and possible solutions. Environ Sci Technol 28:1773–1780.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es00060a005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Salter RM, Green TC (1933) Factors affecting the accumulation and loss of nitrogen and organic carbon in cropped soils. J Am Soc Agron 25:622–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schimel JP (2001) Biogeochemical models: implicit versus explicit microbiology. In: Schulze E-D, Heimann M, Harrison S, Holland E, Lloyd J, Prentice IC, Schimel D (eds) Global biogeochemical cycles in the climate system. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schimel J (2016) Linking omics to biogeochemistry. Nat Microbiol 1:15028.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2015.28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schimel JP, Schaeffer SM (2012) Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil. Front Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schimel JP, Weintraub MN (2003) The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model. Soil Biol Biochem 35:549–563.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00015-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schimel DS, Braswell BH, Holland EA et al (1994) Climatic, edaphic, and biotic controls over storage and turnover of carbon in soils. Global Biogeochem Cycle 8:279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1029/94gb00993 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S et al (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Segoli M, De Gryze S, Dou F et al (2013) AggModel: a soil organic matter model with measurable pools for use in incubation studies. Ecol Model 263:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sierra CA, Müller M (2015) A general mathematical framework for representing soil organic matter dynamics. Ecol Monogr 85:505–524.  https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0361.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sierra CA, Trumbore SE, Davidson EA et al (2015) Sensitivity of decomposition rates of soil organic matter with respect to simultaneous changes in temperature and moisture. J Adv Model Earth Systems 7:335–356.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014ms000358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Simpson MJ, Simpson AJ (2014) NMR spectroscopy: a versatile tool for environmental research. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  89. Sistla SA, Rastetter EB, Schimel JP (2014) Responses of a tundra system to warming using SCAMPS: a stoichiometrically coupled, acclimating microbe-plant-soil model. Ecol Monogr 84:151–170.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2119.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Six J, Conant RT, Paul EA et al (2002) Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241:155–176.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016125726789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sleighter RL, Hatcher PG (2007) The application of electrospray ionization coupled to ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry for the molecular characterization of natural organic matter. J Mass Spectrom 42:559–574.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jms.1221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Smith OL (1979) An analytical model of the decomposition of soil organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 11:585–606.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(79)90027-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Steefel CL, Maher K (2009) Fluid–rock interaction: a reactive transport approach. Rev Miner Geochem 70:485–532.  https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2009.70.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Stewart CE, Paustian K, Conant RT et al (2007) Soil carbon saturation: concept, evidence, and evaluation. Biogeochemistry 86:19–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-007-9140-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Stewart CE, Paustian K, Conant RT et al (2008) Soil carbon saturation: evaluation and corroboration by long-term incubations. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1741–1750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sulman BN, Phillips RP, Oishi AC et al (2014) Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nat Clim Change 4:1099–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tang J, Riley WJ (2015) Weaker soil carbon-climate feedbacks resulting from microbial and abiotic interactions. Nat Clim Change 5:56–60.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tenney FG, Waksman SA (1929) Composition of natural organic materials and their decomposition in the soil: IV. The nature and rapidity of decomposition of the various organic complexes in different plant materials, under aerobic conditions. Soil Sci 28:55–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tfaily MM, Chu RK, Toyoda J et al (2017) Sequential extraction protocol for organic matter from soils and sediments using high resolution mass spectrometry. Anal Chim Acta 972:54–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2017.03.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Todd-Brown KEO, Randerson JT, Post WM et al (2013) Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations. Biogeosciences 10:1717–1736.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Torsvik V, Øvreås L (2004) Microbial diversity and function in soil: from genes to ecosystems. Curr Opin Microbiol 5:240–245.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5274(02)00324-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. van Veen JA, Paul EA (1981) Organic carbon dynamics in grassland soils. I. Background information and computer simulation. Can J Soil Sci 61:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss81-024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vidal A, Hirte J, Bender SF et al (2018) Linking 3D soil structure and plant-microbe-soil carbon transfer in the rhizosphere. Front Environ Sci 6:9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Vogel LE, Makowski D, Garnier P et al (2015) Modeling the effect of soil meso- and macropores topology on the biodegradation of a soluble carbon substrate. Adv Water Resour 83:123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.05.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wagai R, Mayer LM, Kitayama K (2009) Extent and nature of organic coverage of soil mineral surfaces assessed by a gas sorption approach. Geoderma 149:152–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.11.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Waksman SA (1927) Principles of soil microbiology. The Williams and Wilkins Company, BaltimoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wang G, Post WM, Mayes MA (2013) Development of microbial-enzyme-mediated decomposition model parameters through steady-state and dynamic analyses. Ecol Appl 23:255–272.  https://doi.org/10.1890/12-0681.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wang G, Jagadamma S, Mayes MA et al (2015) Microbial dormancy improves development and experimental validation of ecosystem model. ISME J 9:226–237.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Waring BG, Averill C, Hawkes CV (2013) Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon and nitrogen cycling: insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol Lett 16:887–894.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Weishaar JL, Aiken GR, Bergamaschi BA et al (2003) Evaluation of specific ultraviolet absorbance as an indicator of the chemical composition and reactivity of dissolved organic carbon. Environ Sci Technol 37:4702–4708.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es030360x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. West TO, Six J (2007) Considering the influence of sequestration duration and carbon saturation on estimates of soil carbon capacity. Clim Change 80:25–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9173-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Wieder WR, Bonan GB, Allison SD (2013) Global soil carbon projections are improved by modelling microbial processes. Nat Clim Change 3:909–912.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wieder WR, Boehnert J, Bonan GB (2014) Evaluating soil biogeochemistry parameterizations in Earth system models with observations. Global Biogeochem Cycle 28:211–222.  https://doi.org/10.1002/013gb004665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wieder WR, Allison SD, Davidson EA et al (2015) Explicitly representing soil microbial processes in Earth system models. Global Biogeochem Cycle 29:1782–1800.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015gb005188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Wilson MA (1987) Techniques and application of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in geochemistry and soil science. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph C. Blankinship
    • 1
  • Asmeret Asefaw Berhe
    • 2
  • Susan E. Crow
    • 3
  • Jennifer L. Druhan
    • 4
  • Katherine A. Heckman
    • 5
  • Marco Keiluweit
    • 6
  • Corey R. Lawrence
    • 7
  • Erika Marín-Spiotta
    • 8
  • Alain F. Plante
    • 9
  • Craig Rasmussen
    • 1
  • Christina Schädel
    • 10
  • Joshua P. Schimel
    • 11
  • Carlos A. Sierra
    • 12
  • Aaron Thompson
    • 13
  • Rota Wagai
    • 14
  • William R. Wieder
    • 15
    • 16
  1. 1.Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Life and Environmental Sciences UnitUniversity of California MercedMercedUSA
  3. 3.Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ManagementUniversity of Hawaii ManoaHonoluluUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeologyUniversity of Illinois Urbana ChampaignChampaignUSA
  5. 5.USDA Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationHoughtonUSA
  6. 6.School of Earth and Sustainability, Stockbridge SchoolUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  7. 7.U.S. Geological SurveyDenverUSA
  8. 8.Department of GeographyUniversity of Wisconsin at MadisonMadisonUSA
  9. 9.Department of Earth and Environmental ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  10. 10.Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  11. 11.Earth Research Institute and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA
  12. 12.Max Planck Institute for BiogeochemistryJenaGermany
  13. 13.Department of Crop and Soil Science & Odum School of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  14. 14.National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Institute for Agro-Environmental SciencesTsukubaJapan
  15. 15.Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  16. 16.Climate and Global Dynamics LaboratoryNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations