4.6 Article

Microscale Heterogeneity Explains Experimental Variability and Non-Linearity in Soil Organic Matter Mineralisation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123774

关键词

-

资金

  1. French ANR [ANR-09-SYSCOMM MEPSOM]
  2. Scottish Alliance for Geosciences, Environment and Society (SAGES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil respiration represents the second largest CO2 flux from terrestrial ecosystems to the atmosphere, and a small rise could significantly contribute to further increase in atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately, the extent of this effect cannot be quantified reliably, and the outcomes of experiments designed to study soil respiration remain notoriously unpredictable. In this context, the mathematical simulations described in this article suggest that assumptions of linearity and presumed irrelevance of micro-scale heterogeneity, commonly made in quantitative models of microbial growth in subsurface environments and used in carbon stock models, do not appear warranted. Results indicate that microbial growth is non-linear and, at given average nutrient concentrations, strongly dependent on the microscale distribution of both nutrients and microbes. These observations have far-reaching consequences, in terms of both experiments and theory. They indicate that traditional, macroscopic soil measurements are inadequate to predict microbial responses, in particular to rising temperature conditions, and that an explicit account is required of microscale heterogeneity. Furthermore, models should evolve beyond traditional, but overly simplistic, assumptions of linearity of microbial responses to bulk nutrient concentrations. The development of a new generation of models along these lines, and in particular incorporating upscaled information about microscale processes, will undoubtedly be challenging, but appears to be key to understanding the extent to which soil carbon mineralization could further accelerate climate change.

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