Modeling temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition: Splitting the pools. (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Laub, Moritz; Ali, Rana Shahbaz; Demyan, Michael Scott; Nkwain, Yvonne Funkuin; Poll, Christian; Högy, Petra; Poyda, Arne; Ingwersen, Joachim; Blagodatsky, Sergey; Kandeler, Ellen; Cadisch, Georg
• Is Part Of: Soil biology and biochemistry. Volume 153(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: Soil respiration -- Q10 -- Bayesian calibration -- Daisy model -- Enzyme activity; Soil biochemistry -- Periodicals; Soil biology -- Periodicals; Sols -- Biochimie -- Périodiques; Sols -- Biologie -- Périodiques; Sols -- Microbiologie -- Périodiques; Bodembiologie; Biochemie; 631.46
• DOI: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108108
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0038-0717

Abstract

Abstract: The direction and magnitude of change of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks due to global warming depend strongly on the temperature sensitivity (e.g., Q10 ) of carbon mineralization. To date, most multi-pool SOC models assume a general Q10 of 2 despite experimental evidence suggesting different Q10 for different carbon fractions. The aim of this study was to test if the use of experimentally derived pool specific Q10 values improves the performance of SOC models. Five contrasting data sets from three field experiments and two laboratory incubations were used to study the link between carbon pool recalcitrance and Q10 using two different approaches: a) Bayesian calibration of the Daisy SOC model parameters to infer Q10 of SOC and crop-litter pools, and b) using measured Q10 values of carbon degrading enzymes as proxies for Q10 of different Daisy pools. Namely β-glucosidase (median Q10 of 1.82) was assigned to metabolic litter and phenol/peroxidase (1.35) to structural litter and both SOC pools. To partition litter-carbon and SOC into model pools, the lignin-to-nitrogen ratio and the ratio of aliphatic/aromatic-carboxylate carbon were used, respectively. Measurements included soil microbial biomass, soil carbon dioxide (CO2 ) evolution and remaining carbon in soils and crop-litter. In the Bayesian calibration, strong differences in inferred Q10 values of the same pools between experiments suggested that intrinsic substrate recalcitrance was not the main driver of temperature sensitivity. For field experiment simulations, both the Q10 values derived by Bayesian calibration and measured enzyme Q10 were centered around values below 2, contrasting with high Q10 values for mineralization under laboratory incubations (close to 3). Furthermore, assigning measured phenol/peroxidase Q10 values to the slow crop-litter as well as both SOC pools and β-glucosidase to the fast crop-litter pool (approach b), could significantly improve model performance compared to using the default Q10 value of 2 for all pools. Root-mean-squared-deviation reductions were between 3 and 10% for field experiments, with no change in the laboratory experiments. Thus, site specific Q10 values of soil enzymes show potential as proxies for pool specific Q10 . We present a new conceptual framework to explain the observed differences in temperature sensitivities between experiments as a result of two fundamental driving factors classified in a) state variables, that fluctuate in time, and b) soil properties, that are constant over decades. Measured enzyme Q10 values were interpreted as a proxy incorporating both factors. More than intrinsic substrate recalcitrance, the state variables such as physical protection, substrate abundance and unfavorable conditions for microorganisms control temperature sensitivity of mineralization. To reduce the uncertainty in global SOC simulations under a changing climate, their relative contributions should be disentangled and then implemented into SOC models. Highlights: We inferred mineralization Q10 for defined carbon pools using several experiments. Q10 values differed strongly between laboratory and field experiments. Field mineralization Q10 was clearly linked to measured enzyme Q10 . A conceptual model was proposed to explain the Q10 variability between experiments.