It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Soil microorganisms act as gatekeepers for soil–atmosphere carbon exchange by balancing the accumulation and release of soil organic matter. However, poor understanding of the mechanisms responsible hinders the development of effective land management strategies to enhance soil carbon storage. Here we empirically test the link between microbial ecophysiological traits and topsoil carbon content across geographically distributed soils and land use contrasts. We discovered distinct pH controls on microbial mechanisms of carbon accumulation. Land use intensification in low-pH soils that increased the pH above a threshold (~6.2) leads to carbon loss through increased decomposition, following alleviation of acid retardation of microbial growth. However, loss of carbon with intensification in near-neutral pH soils was linked to decreased microbial biomass and reduced growth efficiency that was, in turn, related to trade-offs with stress alleviation and resource acquisition. Thus, less-intensive management practices in near-neutral pH soils have more potential for carbon storage through increased microbial growth efficiency, whereas in acidic soils, microbial growth is a bigger constraint on decomposition rates.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details








1 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, USA
2 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
3 Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
4 Department of Molecular Systems Biology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany
5 Department of Biogeochemical Processes, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany
6 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK; School of Biological Sciences, University of Reading, Reading, UK
7 Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster, UK
8 Imperial College London, Ascot, UK
9 Department of Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, UK